Almost Imminent Court Case pending with VCS

Fruitcake

Write down the name, date, and time of any contact from the DVLA.
If you get a call, ask for their direct email address at the DVLA. Back up any 'phone call with an email starting with, further to our recent telephone conversation, then state what was said as confirmation. Take screengrabs/keep safe everything you receive.

Have you asked/suggested the other victim comes here for help?

Loum5

Fruitcake wrote: »

Write down the name, date, and time of any contact from the DVLA.
If you get a call, ask for their direct email address at the DVLA. Back up any 'phone call with an email starting with, further to our recent telephone conversation, then state what was said as confirmation. Take screengrabs/keep safe everything you receive.

Have you asked/suggested the other victim comes here for help?

Duly noted and I will absolutely do all of the above, thank you

I mentioned all of this to the victim and have said they can call me if they need any further guidance or explanations - they were going to visit someone they know that is a little more clued up to assist them with their complaint, so not heard anything yet, but will encourage them to do the same - I have no doubt they are going to follow through on this!!

Fruitcake

When the DVLA contact you, I suggest you mention section 5 as well as per my earlier post just to highlight the fact that this is a mandatory requirement.
Look up the DVLA complaints procedure as well just in case they try an under the carpet brushing job.

This is something to bring up with your MP after the 12th, and any prospective candidate before that as well as the whole scam.

The scammers shouldn't be allowed to anywhere near personal data and what on earth were the government thinking when they allowed it?
Oh wait, £££££££££££££££.

Loum5

Haha...£££ indeed!! Well like a straight up ***khead I spilt a drink over my laptop tonight...blaming it on the stress...Hopefully recoverable!! Though it has given me the opportunity to switch off and read over things I've printed off and make amendments rather than staring at a screen! Will definitely look up the dvla procedures tomorrow as wasn't overly convinced by the phone advice I got, but at least I've got the ball rolling as a starting point!!

Loum5

Point 5, Doh.....it was a genuine mistake that I missed that in my email to DVLA. It will promptly corrected at the first opportunity!

Loum5

Good Evening

So, laptop is fully functioning today...though slightly sticky...phew!! I had a response from the DVLA asking for my car registration?! I replied and threw in the Point 5 of the KADOE agreement as pointed out above so again awaiting their response - I will look into this more closely and take a different route if needed.

I would now really appreciate any opinions, critique, thoughts etc etc of my WS as it is now please....If I've been a bit cheeky then please let me know - Am so ready to get this done with now!! And it's slightly less redacted as it'll be in the post to the scammers as swiftly as I get the thumbs up (obvs no personal details in here!!)......

1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I am unrepresented and have no experience with Court proceedings. I trust the court will excuse my inexperience if I have not set out the documents in the way that the Claimant has.

2. I make this witness statement in anticipation for the court hearing scheduled for 20th December in my defence of the Claimants’ claim.

3. I intend to put forward my case with the following witness statement and the attached paginated bundle of documents marked CM1-CM** to which I will refer to later in this document.

4. Prior to explaining my actions on the day I parked in the Staples and Soundcontrol carpark (“the Carpark”), I confirm that the summary of my defence to this claim is that:
(a) In August 2015, there were no ‘clearly displayed signs’ at the entrance to the Carpark as stated in the Particulars of Claim, and I do not recall seeing signs in ‘prominent locations’, therefore I cannot have understood to have entered into a contract with the Claimant.
(b) I did not leave and then return to the Carpark within the no return/time period as stated by the Claimant in the Particulars of Claim.
(c) I do not believe the Claimant has or ever had a valid contract with the landowners to issue Parking Charge Notices (“PCN”) on the Citygate site.
(d) The claim includes an additional £60, for which no calculation or explanation is given, and which appears to be an attempt at double recovery, and is considered an ‘abuse of process’.

5. On the morning of 14/08/2015 I set off to work as normal where I usually parked my car on surrounding streets in the Burley Road area near to my office, but due to high traffic congestion on Kirkstall Road and Burley Road I took an alternate route and turned onto Viaduct Road heading towards the Armley Gyratory. To avoid re-joining the congestion, I turned onto Wellington Bridge Street where the Carpark is situated. I drove into the Carpark and turned right and parked in a space situated close to a walkway onto Kirkstall Road. I left my vehicle and exited the Carpark using the walkway and walked approximately ten minutes to my office.

6. On arrival back at the car park on the same day, I discovered the PCN. I am unsure of the exact timings of my stay due to the fact it has been over four years since the alleged contravention took place, but would estimate I initially parked in the region of 9am and left sometime after 4pm.

7. I went to work the following day and explained what had happened to my colleagues. I was at this time pointed in the direction of a former colleague who had also previously received a PCN in the same Carpark. They explained to me they had contacted the landowners (xxx Property Group) and were advised the Claimant did not have their permission to issue PCNs on this land and therefore to not acknowledge or enter into any contact with the Claimant. Whilst I am unable to provide documentation to back this up, I also contacted the landowners after receiving the Court Claim. I was advised at that time a former employee of xxx Property Group had terminated any such contract with the Claimant due to their conduct and complaints received against them.

I will now describe the actions in points 5, 6 and 7 in further detail:

8. CM1 shows Google Street View photography (“GSV”) to the left and right of the entrance to the Carpark from April 2015. CM2 shows the same GSV from May 2016. The alleged contravention took place in between these dates in August 2015. It can be seen from all these images that there are NO clearly displayed signs located in the Carpark entrance that would have allowed me to read the Terms and Conditions to make an informed decision to enter into a contract with the Claimant before using the Carpark.

9. The lack of signs in the entrance is further clarified in the Claimant’s own Witness Statement within exhibit JCB1 (overhead of the Car Park). This details where the signs were located marked with an ‘X’, and there are clearly NO markings in the entrance, nor any in the section I parked my car on 14/08/2015.

10. CM3 shows a Google Maps overhead view of the Carpark, and I have highlighted the way I drove in, the parking space I used, and the walkway I used to exit the Carpark on foot. I have also highlighted this on a copy from JCB1 (overhead of the Car Park) to reiterate there were no signs where I parked.

11. CM4 shows GSV of views from outside the Carpark from April 2015 of the row of spaces in which I parked. Both images clearly show there are no signs in this area. Whilst I can see there are signs inside the Carpark, they are all situated to the drivers left side, and I did not see them at the time of the alleged contravention. I am unable to get close to the signs using GSV to enable me to read any Terms and Conditions, and as the Claimant no longer operates in the Carpark there are no signs present today for me to view personally.

11. I have also observed that in all the all photographs that have been presented as evidence from both myself and the Claimant, it is notable that the colours of the Claimants signage (red, white and black) are the same colour as the retailer ‘Staples’ brand logo and advertising. Whilst the Claimant states the signs to be clear and prominent, they could also be considered confusing and misconstrued as signs from the retailer itself without looking at them closely.

12. It is a fact that I did NOT leave the car park then return within the no return period/time. Thus, the Claimant's Claim is doomed to fail because the alleged conduct did not happen and their own ANPR evidence photos are at odds with their claim particulars, because there can only be two camera images. The claim is fundamentally flawed because it is pleaded on the following premise:


''The claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendant's vehicle XXX XXX, was identified in the Staples & Soundcontrol car park on the 14/08/2015 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely returning to a car park within the no return period/time''.

13. No such breach occurred and there is no cause of action. Given that this is a serial litigant which files thousands of parking charge cases, they should not be allowed any relief from sanctions and would be required to apply to the court for permission to amend their particulars at the usual court fee cost, if their claim is to continue.

14. In point 16 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement they have poorly attempted to correct their error by juggling words around to the following effect: “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". It is not clear to me what this statement means, but again, no such breach occurred and there is no cause of action.

15. It is also clear from the copy of the PCN shown in exhibit JCB2 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement there is an option for ‘Parked for longer than the maximum time permitted’. The Claimant is now attempting to backtrack on this based on the Terms and Conditions detailed on the photograph of the sign within exhibit JCB1. This demonstrates how little care has been taken throughout this whole process, and had it been dealt with carefully from the start, the claim itself might have more validity.

16. Within point 17 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, it is stated ‘…..The Claimant would ensure compliance of the Terms and conditions and when noting that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions, the Claimant affixed a card to the Defendant’s windscreen informing they may have breached the Terms and Conditions of parking’.

17. Point 18 states ‘The card provided the Defendant with a unique code that allowed the Defendant the opportunity to access an online portal, https://www.myparkingcharge.co.uk, in order to view the alleged breach, the photographic evidence and either appeal or pay the charge.’

18. No ‘card’ was affixed to my windscreen, and there is no evidence to support this from the photographs supplied by the Claimant in exhibit JCB2 of their Witness Statement. I can only guess these points relate to the photograph in JCB2 of the permit affixed to the inside of my windscreen from UKPC. This permit was for residential parking at my home address. This appears to be another attempt at falsifying the facts of this case to justify the incompetent actions of the Claimant on the day of the alleged breach.

19. CM5 shows GSV from May 2018 showing the same view of the entrance to the Carpark as it is today and now operated by UKCPS as described in point 8. These views show there is now a small sign in the entrance to the left side as described in my original Defence.

20. In point 9 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, they state: “The Claimant submits that they have authority to implement a parking scheme since 11th April 2011. There has been no notice of termination and the Claimant remains contracted to enforce parking to date. The Claimant is contracted to undertake parking management activities and issue Parking Charge Notices [“PCN”] where vehicles are identified on the development in breach of the advertised Terms and Conditions. A copy of a statement by/the contract with our Client can be identified in exhibit JCB1.”

21. The above statement is untrue and misleading to the Court and the Defendant. CM6 shows GSV from May 2018 of the current signs in the Carpark now operated by UKCPS (please note Staples has since been rebranded to Office Outlet). CM7 shows a close up photograph of the content of the signs I personally took in June 2019 clearly showing the site name ‘Citygate Retail Park’. CM8 is a screenshot of the portfolio page from the landowners ‘xxx Property Group’ website that details the Citygate site and includes ‘Staples’ within the description.

22. The Companies Act 2006, Section 44 states:

44 Execution of documents

(1) Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—
(a) by the affixing of its common seal, or
(b) by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—
(a) by two authorised signatories, or
(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) every director of the company, and
(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

23. The alleged contract shown in the Claimant’s Witness Statement within exhibit JCB1 has not been validly executed in accordance with the Act because it does not comply with the requirements of paragraphs 1 (a) nor 1 (b).

24. It also fails the requirements of the Act because it has not been signed by two people from each company in accordance with paragraph 2 (a) nor by a director and witness of each company in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 2 (b).

25. Furthermore, it fails to meet the requirements required by the Act because it has not been signed by any authorised signatories. Neither signatory is a director as defined by paragraph 3 (a) nor a company secretory or joint secretary as defined by paragraph 3 (b).

26. The signatures have been transposed on the contract such that the Claimant has signed on behalf of the landowner's agent, and the landowner's agent has signed on behalf of the Claimant.
There is no signature or initials to indicate the arrow was added at the time the contract was signed.
I put the claimant to strict proof that the signatories are both authorised as per the Companies Act, and that the contract was not altered after the fact when it was subsequently discovered the signatures were in the wrong place.

27. In the event that it is proved the signatures do indeed relate to the correct company, the claimant's signature is illegible. The Claimant is put to strict proof that the signature belongs to the named person below it and is an employee authorised to sign this contract.

28. The landowner is xxx Property Group yet the contract has been signed on behalf of Citygate Developments No 1 Ltd. These are separate companies according to Companies House.
I put the Claimant to strict proof that they have a contract with the landowner, or a contract flowing from the landowner via their agent to manage parking, issue parking charges, and instigate court.

29. I believe the contract is not valid in accordance with the above Act of Parliament, and thus the PCN is also invalid.

30. In addition to the 'parking charge', the Claimant has artificially inflated the value of the Claim by adding costs of £60 which has not actually been incurred by the Claimant, and which are artificially invented figures in an attempt to circumvent the Small Claims costs rules using double recovery. Please refer to the Supplementary Witness Statement within my bundle for further information on this point.

31. My final point bears no relevance to this case, but I feel it is crucial to highlight the fact that within the Claimant’s Witness Statement I received via post on 19th November 2019, there are copies of sensitive information relating to another individual's case (on pages 6, 7 and 8, so is also likely the Court has received copies). This information is from Excel Parking Services Limited (who are based at the same address and are the sister company of the Claimant). I have received details of this person’s name, address, age, signature and income and expenditure. This is a serious breach of the Data Protection Act/General Data Protection Regulations (DPA/GDPR) and also the KADOE agreement between the Claimant and the DVLA, and demonstrates how little care and diligence is being taken by the Claimant with these cases when handling sensitive information.

I am concerned that since I have received someone else's personal data, they or another person may have received mine.

Contact has been made with the individual following advice from the Information Commission Office (ICO), and I will be following the correct procedures as detailed by them to complain about this serious data breach.


Statement of Truth:


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

Coupon-mad

I'd remove:

from UKPC

as it is confusing and not needed.

And replace this in #31 with the word 'Finally' instead of this:

My final point bears no relevance to this case, but

And in your supplementary WS, copied from post #14 of the Abuse of Process thread, make sure you append all the case law referred to and the judgments from DJ Grand Taylor and Jones-Evans, and that you put right the 'this this' typo as discussed here (my bad, now put right!):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76544740#Comment_76544740

And don't forget to file your costs schedule in the pack, and number every page, and add a index or contents page listing everything by page number, and use 1.5 line spacing for the Judge's/court copy!

Loum5

Wow, thank you - if those two points are the only critiques, I'm happy....and have amended accordingly!!

Found the typo and corrected it - will get it ready to print tonight, and printed off tomorrow ready to go.

Big thank you to Fruitcake too re the contract content.

Coupon-mad

Those were the only points I spotted. It's really good!

Loum5

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Those were the only points I spotted. It's really good!

Thank you - that comment alone has been the highlight of what can only be described as a hellish week for me!! You guys on this forum really are amazing....and exactly why I'm going all the way with this and not bowing out for the pezzie £125 offer to drop it all!!!! Bring it on!!! :rotfl: