Almost Imminent Court Case pending with VCS

nosferatu1001

Para 11 has an addiitonal "all" in, but not a panic.

Fruitcake

4
(a) In August 2015, there were no ‘clearly displayed signs’ at the entrance to the Carpark as stated in the Particulars of Claim,

Perhaps you could replace that with, "contrary to" and end with "and statement of truth".

Fruitcake

If the alleged infringement was leaving and returning within the 2 hour no-return period then there would be four photos or four entries in the attendant's log/tablet.
If there are only two images or comments then I would elaborate on that a little.

One other thing I had not previously realised is that VCS and Excel are not sister companies. VCS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Excel.
It might be better to use the same comment you used before that, "These are separate companies according to Companies House."

Loum5

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

Para 11 has an addiitonal "all" in, but not a panic.

Thank you - have corrected this, and also noticed I had 2 para 11's!! Also corrected!!

Loum5

Fruitcake wrote: »

If the alleged infringement was leaving and returning within the 2 hour no-return period then there would be four photos or four entries in the attendant's log/tablet.
If there are only two images or comments then I would elaborate on that a little.

One other thing I had not previously realised is that VCS and Excel are not sister companies. VCS is a wholly owned subsidiary of Excel.
It might be better to use the same comment you used before that, "These are separate companies according to Companies House."

I'm not sure how I would elaborate on this - only because I have been sent a whole hash of bizarre photos of my car, parked in the same position from lots of angles - mainly out of focus views into the car through the various windows, with close ups of the reg plate, tax disk and my residential permit - the PCN looks like it was screwed up before it was 'affixed' to the drivers side window (I'd forgotten about this, but it rang a bell when I saw it!!) - according to their PoC there should be 4 moving pics - I've been sent 9 stationary ones??

The other points I have updated on my WS - thank you

The_Deep

I am pretty sure that this no return nonsense is not an unfair term in a consumer contract under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

In any case it is not a breach of contract for two drivers to use the facilities one after the other. I think that they might struggle in court.

Fruitcake

Loum5 wrote: »

I'm not sure how I would elaborate on this - only because I have been sent a whole hash of bizarre photos of my car, parked in the same position from lots of angles - mainly out of focus views into the car through the various windows, with close ups of the reg plate, tax disk and my residential permit - the PCN looks like it was screwed up before it was 'affixed' to the drivers side window (I'd forgotten about this, but it rang a bell when I saw it!!) - according to their PoC there should be 4 moving pics - I've been sent 9 stationary ones??

The other points I have updated on my WS - thank you

Their photos must be time stamped. If the car left and returned as they originally stated then there should be four groups of photos, each group having a roughly similar time stamp.
If there are only two groups, there is no proof that the vehicle left and returned.

By "moving pics" do you mean pics of the vehicle moving, not video clips? If so, and the images you have show the vehicle stationary then state they haven't provided all the images they stated in the PoC and the statement of truth.

In addition, complain to the ICO that the scammers said they have images but did not supply them in response to your SAR.

In other words, keep poking them with as many sharp merd covered sticks as possible.

Loum5

Fruitcake wrote: »

Their photos must be time stamped. If the car left and returned as they originally stated then there should be four groups of photos, each group having a roughly similar time stamp.
If there are only two groups, there is no proof that the vehicle left and returned.

By "moving pics" do you mean pics of the vehicle moving, not video clips? If so, and the images you have show the vehicle stationary then state they haven't provided all the images they stated in the PoC and the statement of truth.

In addition, complain to the ICO that the scammers said they have images but did not supply them in response to your SAR.

In other words, keep poking them with as many sharp merd covered sticks as possible.

By 'moving pics' I meant pictures of me in the car whilst it was driving in and out, then in and out again - the 4 you refer to!!! There is none of that, nor any time stamps on the photos of my car - there are time stamps on their photos of the site of Feb 2015 - they are also of random areas of the carpark and none of the entrance BTW!! That para-legal should be 'merd'ing her pants - a shoddy shoddy job has been done from start to now!!

I can however add in "they haven't provided all the images they stated in the PoC and the statement of truth." or words to that effect - thank you.

Fruitcake

If you have electronic versions of the images, have a look at the metadata. This should contain time and date, and in certain circumstances a GPS location.
The metadata will be contain somewhere under "properties" if I remember correctly.

Anyway, they aver initially at least that the car left and returned, but have failed to provide any evidence to back it up.

Use the statement of truth in your ICO complaint to show they say this happened, therefore there must be four sets of images with different timestamps, but have refused to supply them.

It is possible the scammers will pull out at the last minute. If you think you are up for it you could put in a counterclaim to prevent them from doing so.
In the alternative you have the option to make a claim against them in the next six years.

Loum5

Basically they screwed up! Whoever they employed to issue the PCNs did not give 2 'merds' about their job. It seems they put the wrong contravention on the PCN, VCS did the PoC with what was on the PCN and realised when they were doing the WS the photos of the signs don't tie in with the PCN, so have done a hash job at trying to correct the mess!! I have amended para 13 in my WS to the following:

13. 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 they haven't provided all the images they stated in the Particulars of Claim and the statement of truth. 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 xxxxxx, 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''.

Please let me know if this reads okay as I want to get this printed today and posting on Monday in time for the next Friday deadline!!

I've done the cost's schedule for over £300 - hope that's not too cheeky! I put 10 hours of my time - in reality it's been at least 5 x that - £1.5k might be a bit excessive!!

I hope they don't pull out - I'm ready for them - I want my day after all this!!