Help, got until 24th November to submit Defence for VCS

DoaM

Nice bit of GDPR breach there? ... I'm sure that the 1st Defendant will be delighted to know that the world now knows that they lost a court case against VCS. 🙄

beamerguy

What Jake fails to explain is that any case in a county court does not set a precedence and the case he refers to is irrelevant to your own case.   A decision is made on day with the judge sitting who will probably see a different point of view.  Jake knows this and a discounted offer suggests he is unsure they will win.   Couple this with the added fake £60 which could mean another spanking for his company, you must make certain the judge knows of the unlawful amount to which they have no legal to add.
No harm in pointing the judge to one of their spankings ......  If Jake can refer to a past case, so can you.

VCS CASE STRUCK OUT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

Scroll down to see VCS CASE STRUCK OUT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS

See the courts comments:
"It is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme court" 

Leviathan747

Have uploaded the 5 lost 'Orders on the Papers' under DJ Bellamy & Josling in April/May2020 here: https://!!!!!!/2YaY64M 

Well done Coupon-mad, Nosferatu & everyone else for getting me to avoid an OOTP!! 

nosferatu1001

A court claim is public, so no breach. 
£60 is getting desperate, bearing in mind thy claim they have spent £50 filing the claim and £25 on court fees...

KeithP

Leviathan747 said:

Have uploaded the 5 lost 'Orders on the Papers' under DJ Bellamy & Josling in April/May2020 here: https://!!!!!!/2YaY64M 

Did you notice how many of those had the £60 discounted as disproportionate?

You might want to take those as extra evidence that the Claimant continues to act unreasonably despite this having been pointed out to him by the courts several times.

Fruitcake

There is no proof that the stock photo is of the sign at the car park or anywhere near it.
There is no proof that it is an Excel sign at all, let alone the one at the car park entrance. Having looked at the GSV images from 2018 and 2019, I can say with certainty that it is not the same sign. The scammers would be very unwise to put that in front of a judge.
The writing is so small that it is on all fours with the Beavis case.

Whilst the offer to pay £60 might be without prejudice, I do not believe the images and court orders within the letter are covered by the WP statement, so I see no reason why you can't show it to the judge. pointing out that it is not the sign that was present in the car park at the time of the alleged event, and is therefore a false instrument.
Let the judge decide on the day.

Coupon-mad

Leviathan747 said:

Update, email from Jake Burgess (CCd to landowner & local MP)....just now, hot of the press!!:

"Dear XX

Thank you for your email dated the 12 June and we hereby write in response.

Having considered the contents of your email we can endorse the statement of Mr Barraclough's email dated the 11 June in so far as there is a contract in place with Excel Parking Services ("EPS") to manage the private land known as the Berkeley Centre in Sheffield. As such, EPS have contracted its sister company, Vehicle Control Services ("VCS"), to enforce parking restrictions displayed. You will note in our bundle of evidence sent to the Court that the chain of authority is demonstrated and therefore there is nothing illegitimate regarding this.

To support our position, we enclose several recent orders made by District Judge Bellamy & Josling, of whom, have allowed our claim to succeed, in particular, making the following statement "I am satisfied that the Claimant has established the contractual right/authority to bring this claim and to enforce parking restrictions". You will also note that the Claimant is VCS in those proceedings. We further attach a copy of the signage at the development which clearly states 'By entering this private car park you are entering into a contract with Vehicle Control Services Ltd'. Therefore, we can see no reason as to why a defence as described by you would succeed.

However, having identified that the claim is still awaiting a trial date and upon being mindful of our obligations to settle disputes under the Civil Procedure Rules we wish to put forward a 'without prejudice' settlement in satisfaction of our claim of £60.00 payable within 21 days. Should you wish to accept our offer then please communicate your acceptance by the above deadline. In the absence of such, we will have no alternative but to continue with our Claim.

We trust the above satisfies your concerns surrounding our parking enforcement and if we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jake"

1. Tarrif Board: https://ibb.co/h93y9kR
2. Order on Papers April 28, Bellamy, W0P: https://ibb.co/KWKKNDc
3. OOP April 28, Bellamy, 5FA: https://ibb.co/vjPqMMy + https://ibb.co/rwP2p4w 

4. OOP April 28, Bellamy, 9NE:  https://ibb.co/vxy2KSX + https://ibb.co/2hff6q2 

5. OOP May 15, Josling, Y4R: https://ibb.co/6ZrtZdh
6. OOP May 22, Josling, R1Q: https://ibb.co/RPmHJCz

Nice work Jake...Jeez...!   
How do people work for PPCs?    How do they do this to people?

VCS are winning cases on the papers (easy money) because Defendants are scared to attend court.  Yet still they never get the added £60 and yet they continue.  They've been warned by some courts about this (Caernarfon for one).

Leviathan747

Thanks CM!  Our draft reply to VCS litigation (CCd to MP & landowner), version 1:

"Dear XX

Thank you for your email of 17 June 2020.

We note that all 5 Orders provided, have dismissed the ‘double recovery’ effort of an additional £60 as ‘disproportionate’.  This is arguably an abuse of process and claiming reimbursement for a cost which has never, in fact, been incurred.

Given that many good Sheffielders would have been too scared to challenge VCS in court and would likely just have paid this ‘double recovery’ charge, instead of letting a Judge decide abuse of process, we feel it is our moral duty to make these facts plain to the Judge. 

Excel should not be doing this, as we surmise they well know, but have been able to exploit the system as it currently stands.

So we thank you for your kind offer of now offering the parking charge amount that you are only legitimately able to charge, but it feels important that a Judge is made fully aware of how Excel is operating.

Pay and Display signs and tickets are in the name of Excel.  The Judge can decide the legitimacy of any alleged contract between VCS and the driver.

Yours sincerely

XX"

Leviathan747

Hi guys.  Hope you're all doing OK!!  Sent the email above on the same day.  Not heard anything from courts yet.  Finally got round to that supplementary witness statement.  Here's V1:

"In the County Court at SHEFFIELD, The law Courts, 50 West Bar, Sheffield, S3 8PH

Claim No. XX

Between VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES LTD (Claimant)

and

XX (Defendant)

SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT

1. I am the registered keeper of the vehicle.

2. I make this supplemental witness statement in response to the supplemental witness statement of the Claimant dated 1st June 2020.  This supplemental witness statement should be read in conjunction with the original witness statement presented in the online bundle dated April 29th 2020.

3. Either the landowner has a contract with Excel, in which case the notice to keeper is not valid as it arrives from a company who does not have the right to manage the car park. Or the landowner has a contract with VCS, in which case, VCS does not have a contract with the motorist because their name is not on the signage.  

4. If the driver entered into any alleged contract, it was with Excel, the name on the signs. Signs cannot give ambiguity on contracting parties. The signs and tickets say Excel, so any supposed contract is with Excel. Exhibit O

5. Excel have not shown the court any lease clause allowing them to assign rights to the Claimant, VCS. If the Claimant was truly authorised in 2018, they would be able to produce the actual document.  That they have not done so, strongly suggests that it does not exist and that a hearsay document not signed as a true witness statement, has been supplied in its place. I ask that the court gives this document no evidential weight at all.

6. VCS are put to strict proof, by way of the actual signed novation from 01.10.2018, that this agreement is in place. 

Statement of Truth

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Signature of Defendant:

Name:

Date:

Exhibit O: https://ibb.co/gRH3nnr + https://ibb.co/sVwpBCz

VCS SWS that this is in response to: https://!!!!!!/2O7PaY7 

Leviathan747

Just wondering whether I should attach the 5 orders on the paper here too that were lost, but only after disallowing the double recovery £60 as 'disproportionate'?   Supplied by VCS here; https://!!!!!!/2YaY64M