Almost Imminent Court Case pending with VCS

Loum5

Fruitcake wrote: »

I have only skim read, but have you challenged the alleged contract between the scammers and landowners?

You put them to strict proof they had a contract flowing from the landowner that allows them to issue charges and take motorists to court. The contract must be contemporaneous and meet the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 (needs two signatures from each party or one director's signature and a witness, with each signatories position in the company shown.)

Thank you for this, I added this part into my WS but may not have understood it properly - can I clarify my understanding of the above please?
If VCS have/had a contract with the landowners, to be valid it must have 2 signatures from the landowners and 2 signatures from VCS? Or a director signature and witness - so there should be 4 signatures in total?
When I spoke to the landowners, they were very helpful but could not email me specific dates or correspondence from that time as the person that dealt with this has since left the company. They did email me something, but I have been hesitant to discuss - but it could possibly be helpful from your comments!

I've pulled up the Companies Act 2006 and wouldn't know where to start reading!!

Fruitcake

First of all there must be: -

Either,

A contract between the landowner and the scammers with a start date before that of the alleged event and still in place at that time. Often these run for 1 year, so in that instance there must also be an agreement in place to show a renewal/auto renewal/rolling contract, AND proof that the contract had not ended before the alleged event.

Or

A contract between the landowner and their agent allowing them (the agent) to make contracts with third parties such as parking scammers, repair and maintenance companies, insurance companies etcetera. The sort of thing a landowner would allow or need an agent to do in order to run a property on their behalf.
In this instance there must also be a contract with the landowner's agent similar to the type I mention above.

So, either the scammers have a contract to scam, or a contract to scam flowing from the landowner via an agent.

As for the Companies Act, you should refer to section 44.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44

This particular section is quite short and is relatively self explanatory. It gives either/or requirements. Any contract is only valid if it meets those strict requirements.
You may not have seen the contract yet, but the scammers must show it at the evidence stage. That is when you compare it with the requirements of the act.

Have a quick look at post 3660 of the PoPLA results thread where an appeal against CEL was allowed because of issues with the contract signatures. VCS are BPA members so the same "rules" should apply.


You can send me "evidence" via pm for me to look at if you wish. I'm sure the regulars will vouch for me being a "good egg."

Coupon-mad

Fruitcake is trustworthy to help you look at your documents by pm.

And your first 13 paras are good, very informative for the Judge, which helps.

Loum5

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And your first 13 paras are good, very informative for the Judge, which helps.

Thank you

Thank you all - and I've been having a very helpful pm with Fruitcake this afternoon - to sum up I had a contract from the landowners......but since arriving home I now have the WS from VCS and have questions....

1) Is there any reason VCS would have attached a copy of income and expenditure for a person that is reasonably local to me 'Creditor's reply to Debtor's Application to Vary Order' and 'Application for suspension of a warrant and/or variation of an order' - I just can't see the relevance and wonder if this could be a DPA breach?!

2) In my POC they say "....in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely returning to a car park within the no return period/time''. But on their WS they say something really weird.....and this is word for word....

"Whilst the vehicle was within the development the said vehicle was recorded not returning to the vehicle in the car park within the no return/time thus resulting in a PCN being issued"

3) Another paragraph is a complete lie....as UKCPS now operate and there is no trace of VCS...

"The Claimant submits that they have the authority to implement a parking scheme since 11 April 2011. There has been no notice of termination and the Claimant remains contracted to enforce parking to date........."

Any thoughts on the above please? I have not scrutinised the whole thing but these stood out to me most initially!

Umkomaas

1) Is there any reason VCS would have attached a copy of income and expenditure for a person that is reasonably local to me 'Creditor's reply to Debtor's Application to Vary Order' and 'Application for suspension of a warrant and/or variation of an order' - I just can't see the relevance and wonder if this could be a DPA breach?!

Does the document show the name and address of the person concerned? If so I'd be contacting them to tell them that VCS have released their personal information, including details of their income and expenditure, and they should be immediately contacting the ICO as this (potentially) is a serious breach of the DPA/GDPR.

You should also contact the ICO and report exactly what has been released by VCS. They have been seriously fast and loose of late in sending other people's data to people who have no connection with it.

Loum5

Umkomaas wrote: »

Does the document show the name and address of the person concerned? If so I'd be contacting them to tell them that VCS have released their personal information, including details of their income and expenditure, and they should be immediately contacting the ICO as this (potentially) is a serious breach of the DPA/GDPR.

It's a letter that relates to Excel Parking Services Ltd at the same address as VCS and the attached form contains the persons Name, Address, Age, Marital Status, Signature and Income and Expenditure - I thought the second I saw this it was bizarre - a major concern if they'll be sending my personal details out should I lose my case!

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake helped me a lot in my case against Excel. My incident was in a very ambiguous car park and Fruitcake helped me to apply the legal aspects to the issues in the car park. Has a lot of attention to the details.

beamerguy

Loum5 wrote: »

It's a letter that relates to Excel Parking Services Ltd at the same address as VCS and the attached form contains the persons Name, Address, Age, Marital Status, Signature and Income and Expenditure - I thought the second I saw this it was bizarre - a major concern if they'll be sending my personal details out should I lose my case!

Both are the same scammers, joined at the hip

This is serious and yes an urgent complaint to the ICO as this could be happening to a lot of people

nosferatu1001

2) that's a garbled way of saying no return, but they've added extra words. Whoever they paid to do this clearly messed up. Raise it as an example of how little care the person signing took and you did t they ever read it

3) point out that this is a definite lie, intentionally misleading the court and defendnet. Here's the proof - and adduce the proof. If you've not yet shown another company is operating, send in a supplementary WS NOW showing this, and explaining why - that you're correcting the claimants lie. Point out on the day that their reliability and credibility as a "witness" has to be in diubt.

Loum5

beamerguy wrote: »

Both are the same scammers, joined at the hip

This is serious and yes an urgent complaint to the ICO as this could be happening to a lot of people

Thank you - I've possibly found the person on social media and sent a message, so will see what happens there - I am equally happy to make a complaint about this too.