Please help- Please help !! PCN from Vehicle control services ltd

Coupon-mad

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.

Add a URL to the byelaws, to save paper.

any other evidence I should be attaching for the below statement? 

Wait for the end of this month if you can, to take part in the Consultation.  Depends on your deadline but I am sure you:

(a). want the Government to hear about your experience in order to stop this rip-off culture, and

(b).  want your Judge to read any damning words and analysis about the rip-off added 'fees' that the DLUHC publish in July - due any week now.  Hopefully you have time to squeeze any useful new DLUHC Impact Assessment wording into your WS.

SoJacob

Thank you @Coupon-mad

Offcourse I want parking company scams to be stopped. It is frustrating and disheartening, but it's essential to take the appropriate steps to address the situation. 

My MP has acknowledged my email and that I had a chance to speak with her in person. She agreed look into this concern.

My understanding is 31/7/23 is the submission of WS and evidence. Please let me know if there is anything else I should be preparing during this time? 

Coupon-mad

Perfect.  Just don't send it early!

Stick around here and see because we should get the DLUHC's draft Impact Assessment (IA) imminently - before that date.

I'm hoping for some choice phrases and useful info about the evidence the DLUHC used to inform the IA. It should give us some powerful new phrases which every Defendant must incorporate into their submissions.

Basically, it will mean I will be replacing much of the second half of the template defence.  People at WS stage will be able to use the new wording to inform their Judge about the Government's final analysis of the disproportionate 'extortion' of the added fake £70 fee.

SoJacob

Dear all, 
I received the WS from the claimant via email. Please let me know if you can access this via below link :-
https://www.flipsnack.com/85DDFEAA9F7/witness-statement-pag-2.html

@Coupon-mad and others can someone please help me to finalise my WS? Is the DLUHC's draft out? 
Thank you. 

Le_Kirk

It requires you to click on something called flipsnack and most regulars will not click on anything!

SoJacob

Le_Kirk said:

It requires you to click on something called flipsnack and most regulars will not click on anything!

I have uploaded the WS pdf file into flipsnack. It is like dropbox. Please let me if there any other way I can share it with you? 

Coupon-mad

Nothing from the DLUHC just yet. Could still be this week...!

I like FlipSnack. I clicked on it. That worked well!

My comments are below that you should add to your WS (what's your actual deadline - Monday 31st - is that two weeks before a Monday hearing in August?):

Re the Claimant's Witness Statement:

• Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 are clearly template paragraphs copied & pasted from a car park case with a ticketer on foot, as these are not true for an Airport Road for the following reasons: 
• 
  
• They cannot have used the PoFA 2012.  That law is irrelevant to this case. VCS cannot hold a keeper liable because byelaws land is expressly excluded from Schedule 4.
• They did not use what this industry has made up as an acronym 'MNPR' = someone on foot with an iphone - (they call this 'Manual Number Plate Recognition') but it wasn't.  No 'photos' were taken.
• This was a lurking camera car using CCTV or ANPR (as the draft 'landowner contract' and the angle of the photos of my car identify) to take moving images.
• 
  
• That footage has not been supplied by the Claimant, so it is impossible to see how long the car was stopped for and what signs, if any, were in view.
• 
  
• The incoming 2022 DLUHC CoP - about to be reaffirmed by the Government before this hearing - bans predatory 'no-stopping' ticketing for stops that are only 'momentary'.

• The DLUHC CoP also bans the use of a camera car that has on the side 'Road Safety Unit' because that hides the true purpose of the data capture and breaches the Information Commissioner's Surveillance Camera Code of Practice as well as breaching the DPA 2018.  VCS' van has those exact misleading words on the side even though the GDPRs & DPA was updated five years ago.
• 
  
• The DLUHC CoP also says that whilst 'no stopping' can be enforced as if it is a parking event - as long as the stop is not just momentary - the definition of 'parking period' and 'parking events' excludes stopping to pick up or set down a passenger, which is not 'parking'. 

Para 21 is untrue because all the subsequent letters were never served and VCS knows this. 

They sent the series of aggressive demands to an old address so I had no chance to dispute it further and honestly thought my appeals had cancelled the PCNs and it was all in the past. I only learnt about all this from a much later bailiff letter

 Given they had had responses/appeals from me to the PCNs, they knew that I was a person who engages and reasonably replies, thus the silence and lack of replies from me to their later template threatograms was a clear indicator that their demands and LBC was not properly served.

 They say in their cut & paste WS that VCS 'comply with the IPC Code' but they did not.  The IPC Code says that addresses must be checked before litigation (the CPRs require nothing less than proper checks) and this (a bulk soft address trace by a Credit Ref Agency) would have cost VCS just 28 pence!  This is why I won my last hearing to set aside the wrongful CCJ and VCS had to refund all my money obtained and unreasonably by DCB Ltd.

Paras 23 (ii), (iii) and (iv) are plainly irrelevant, indeed untrue and this is just more disingenuous 'copy & paste' from a 'car park' case!   This is not a car park case. No attempt has been made to write a Witness Statement that will assist the Court and address the facts and the giveaways that expose this in the very long para 23 include:  

• they talk about 'terms of parking' and 'alternative parking' and 'Term 10' includes the laughable assertion that a driver on an Airport road could have abandoned their car and walked up to a sign before being bound by it ... where exactly, given VCS are saying they can issue immediate PCNs for stopping?
• They say I could have 'walked 10 meters to familiarise myself with the terms'  despite the fact there were no VCS signs in view and in one instance the area was a business car park entrance with signs from a different company entirely, Excel Parking Services Ltd, who are a different legal entity despite being owned by VCS' owner. 
• They say I could have done all that and read a VCS sign on foot if I had wanted to, 'before conclusion of the contract'.
• This rather disproves their whole argument - stated clearly at 23 (xx) that they think the byelaws let them issue PCNs immediately as soon as a vehicle stops (even for momentary stops and before a driver can possibly have seen a sign, let alone read a word).
• 'Term 18' referred to in their long paragraph 23 is also completely inapplicable to the case in hand and suggests that they were offering parking at a price - but that's impossible at this location.
• 
  
• Chaplair v Kumari in 23(xi) has no application in parking or stopping cases where a driver had no chance of reading any terms before being penalised. Kumari is about a lease where both parties had signed and agreed a contract and knew about the terms.  Completely different to predatory ticketing by a hidden 'Road Safety' van in an area lacking in signage.
• 
  
• 23(xix) is untrue. There are no disabled bays provided AT ALL by VCS (the Airport car parks are not run by them as seen in the draft landowner contract map - it only specifies an area of roadway). There are no accessible bays on the roadway or near the station, where some footage was taken.
• 
  
• 23(xxii) says 'in a no stopping area no parking session has taken place'.  Really?  With this admission, VCS throw out their whole contention earlier, that the driver had a chance to read and agree to parking terms.  
• 
  
• Which is it, a contract or trespass? If they are not claiming, after all, that a 'parking session' existed and this is purely immediate punishment for stopping, then there was no contract on offer. 
• 
  
• Thus, where are the elements of a contract?  Offer, consideration, prominent terms and a meeting of minds before a consumer is bound?
• 
  
• 23 (xxiv) cites an irrelevant case (OPS v Wilshaw) where the Circuit Judge clearly wanted to stamp on a robust first instance judgment against another parking firm and HHJ Simpkiss fell into significant error, not least because he ignored the Code of Practice (which was in evidence in full) whereby landowner authority is mandatory because it is a strict requirement - it MUST be held before the DVLA will release keeper data.  Wilshaw is distinguished anyway because it related to an unusual site where OPS had a lease and were held to be 'tenants-at-will'.  Surely VCS are not trying to tell the court that they hold legal title in Southend Airport?
• Landowner authority always affects a parking charge case because it is a prerequisite of the DVLA KADOE rules. The DLUHC Code (the new code) reiterates this requirement.
• 
  
• VCS cite the Airport byelaws which only prohibit a driver who 'waits, leaves or parks'.  Yet we already know from VCS at 23(xxii) that they say: 'in a no stopping area no parking session has taken place'!  I deny that I waited, left the car (even though VCS say I could have done) or parked so I am not liable for a 'parking charge'.
• At best, this should have been pursued by Southend Airport under the tort of trespass or alternatively, as an alleged breach of Airport byelaws (this is denied) but VCS has done neither.
• Their sparse signs offer nothing of value and merely attempt to 'prohibit' stopping with no grace period. It is impossible to conclude that on a Public highway such as an Airport Road, that l had a fair chance to agree to or even know about a purported 'contract' with an unknown third party.  And in the case of the car park entrance this wasn't part of the Airport road and the only signs were by Excel Parking Services Ltd, not this Claimant.  

Exhibit 2 (second photo) shows a different bus stop at a different, unidentified part of the site, because it shows a sign that is not present in the photo of my car in Exhibit 3 - no upright sign - which proves my point. This bus stop has no terms because there's no sign.  And the VCS CCTV van is clearly also stopped in it!  If there was a sign at this bus stop, then the CCTV operator would have zoomed in on it.

----------------------

I presume there are other photos in this bundle, of the other two alleged breaches?   The one in the car park entrance might even show an Excel sign!

SoJacob

@Coupon-mad, I wanted to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to look into the WS for me. Your support and willingness to assist have been immensely valuable, and I truly appreciate it.

The hearing is scheduled for 14th August 2023, two weeks before that date will be 31st August 2023, which falls on the coming Monday. I must admit, I am feeling a bit anxious as the hearing approaches, but I am doing my best to stay focused and prepared.

Since I am working today, I plan to read your reply thoroughly tonight and make sure I have everything in order. If there are any further details or guidance you think might be helpful for me in preparing for the hearing, I would be grateful to receive them.

Once again, thank you for your unwavering support throughout this process. Your assistance has been invaluable, and I am confident that with your guidance, I will be better equipped to handle the situation.

If there is anything else I need to consider or any updates, please let me know. I am committed to giving my best effort to ensure a positive outcome.

Thank you again 

Le_Kirk

Good luck at the hearing @SoJacob, this has been a long saga!

Coupon-mad

Someone has an evidence photo of VCS' camera car that has on the side 'Road Safety Unit' - is it @Fruitcake ?  That photo would be a useful addition plus a URL link to the DLUHC Code of Practice (the ban on those words - Road Safety Unit - is there somewhere!).