County Court Claim Form from Vehicle Control Services for Robin Hood Airport "breach of contract"

dangdoggy1

Just to provide an update;

• Defence was filed as above and has been acknowledged by the Court (a copy was send to the Claimant)
• Directions questionnaire has been filed with the Court (and sent to the Claimant)
• Claimant contacted asking them to withdraw from the action
• Same to Peel (owners of Doncaster Sheffield Airport)

The_Deep

Silly people! ow can you breach a contract if no contract exists?

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Nine times out of ten these tickets are scams, so consider complaining to your MP, it can cause the scammer extra costs and work, and has been known to get the charge cancelled.

Parliament is well aware of the MO of these private parking companies, many of whom are former clampers, and on 15th March 2019 a Bill was enacted to curb the excesses of these shysters. Codes of Practice are being drawn up, an independent appeals service will be set up, and access to the DVLA's date base more rigorously policed, persistent offenders denied access to the DVLA database and unable to operate.

Hopefully life will become impossible for the worst of these scammers, but until this is done you should still complain to your MP, citing the new legislation.

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/8/contents/enacted[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

Just as the clampers were finally closed down, so hopefully will many of these Private Parking Companies.[/FONT][/FONT]

dangdoggy3

I've forgotten my login so had to create a new account! Here's my update 8 months on;

Well it's been a long drawn out process! Court dates have been set, but delayed for various reasons, personal and C-19 related.

Last week I had a conference phone call with a District Judge and a legal representative for VCS.

I was expecting the call to be the full hearing but it was more procedural. The wording of the Court letter was;

At the hearing the Court will;

• Ensure that issues are clarified and that all necessary evidence has been filed;
• Use the hearing as a final hearing if appropriate;
• Alternatively (and if appropriate) give a neutral evaluation of the case to encourage the parties to reach an agreement. If no agreement can be reached, the Judge who deals with the hearing will have no further involvement in the case, except to make a consent order or give further directions order;

So the Judge said he'd read all the evidence/submissions and his neutral evaluation of the case was that there was little chance of me being able to defend the claim.

He suggested there would be issues due to PoFA and also thought I had mixed up relevant land/thought there may have been an error in the defence with regards relevant land/not relevant land.

I was given the option of either settling the matter by way of full payment of the £160 plus court fees (£25) or moving forward to a full hearing.

I was advised that as he (the Judge) was advising there was little chance of success and noting it down, that it's possible/more likely the Claimant could seek/be awarded costs against me at the full hearing.

The legal representative for VCS didn’t really have to say much. The call lasted about 12 minutes in total.

In the end I opted to go for the full hearing(!) so am waiting for a letter with more details. "You're entitled to your day in Court" as the Judge commented.

I have reread earlier advice in this thread (and others) and as I understand my argument would be is as follows;

• Doncaster Sheffield Airport and the surrounding area operates under bylaws (Statutory Instruments 2005 No. 354, hxxps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/354)
• This renders PoFA irrelevant; the land is not considered relevant land (as per PoFA Schedule 4 3(1)(c): "any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.".
• Keeper Liability therefore does not apply (POPLA Annual Report 2015: POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade)
• Driver has never been identified
• Registered Keeper does not have to identify the driver and has evidence showing they were elsewhere at the material time
• Case closed?

If it's that "easy" then why would the Judge think the chances of success are so low?

D_P_Dance

Perhaps the judge is unfamiliar with POFA.  It seems crystal clear to me, no RK liabiltiy, no case.

nosferatu1001

Thats rubbish
The judge is plain wriong
VCS dont use POFA
They CANT use POFA as it isnt relevant land. 
They should still not get costs; you have a reasonable defence, and it is not unreasonable to TEST this defence in court. 

Coupon-mad

dangdoggy3 said:

I've forgotten my login so had to create a new account! Here's my update 8 months on;

Well it's been a long drawn out process! Court dates have been set, but delayed for various reasons, personal and C-19 related.

Last week I had a conference phone call with a District Judge and a legal representative for VCS.

I was expecting the call to be the full hearing but it was more procedural. The wording of the Court letter was;

At the hearing the Court will;

• Ensure that issues are clarified and that all necessary evidence has been filed;
• Use the hearing as a final hearing if appropriate;
• Alternatively (and if appropriate) give a neutral evaluation of the case to encourage the parties to reach an agreement. If no agreement can be reached, the Judge who deals with the hearing will have no further involvement in the case, except to make a consent order or give further directions order;

So the Judge said he'd read all the evidence/submissions and his neutral evaluation of the case was that there was little chance of me being able to defend the claim.

He suggested there would be issues due to PoFA and also thought I had mixed up relevant land/thought there may have been an error in the defence with regards relevant land/not relevant land.

I was given the option of either settling the matter by way of full payment of the £160 plus court fees (£25) or moving forward to a full hearing.

I was advised that as he (the Judge) was advising there was little chance of success and noting it down, that it's possible/more likely the Claimant could seek/be awarded costs against me at the full hearing.

The legal representative for VCS didn’t really have to say much. The call lasted about 12 minutes in total.

In the end I opted to go for the full hearing(!) so am waiting for a letter with more details. "You're entitled to your day in Court" as the Judge commented.

I have reread earlier advice in this thread (and others) and as I understand my argument would be is as follows;

• Doncaster Sheffield Airport and the surrounding area operates under bylaws (Statutory Instruments 2005 No. 354, hxxps://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/354)
• This renders PoFA irrelevant; the land is not considered relevant land (as per PoFA Schedule 4 3(1)(c): "any land (not falling within paragraph (a) or (b)) on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control.".
• Keeper Liability therefore does not apply (POPLA Annual Report 2015: POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister, Henry Greenslade)
• Driver has never been identified
• Registered Keeper does not have to identify the driver and has evidence showing they were elsewhere at the material time
• Case closed?

If it's that "easy" then why would the Judge think the chances of success are so low?

OK, that Judge is wrong.

But have you put in your WS and evidence along with the transcripts of VCS v Quayle and Excel v Smith, and also the RANSOMES case? 

What's your deadline for WS and evidence? 

DO NOT AGREE TO A HEARIG ON THE PAPERS IF IT IS SUGGESTED BY THE COURT.


Even if it was relevant land (which it isn't) VCS don't use the POFA wording in their NTKs but Judges are not experts on this.  Sadly, you have to be, and educate your Judge on this niche area of law and why the NTK is non-POFA even if the Judge thinks Airport byelaws land is 'relevant land (LOL).  Those transcripts are hosted by the PARKING PRANKSTER in his CASE LAW pages, easy to Google and find.

AND - Please now make a real difference because not enough people have yet, and time is running out.

An urgent task – deadline approaching in about ten days:

The Government is consulting for just a few more days, about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register then log in, to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker.  Submit comments as soon as you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

HOW TO DO THE SUBMISSIONS:

1. Read the cover letter

2. Read the cover letter again and note the suggested extra questions...and if you agree that, say, the 'loading/unloading and dropping off, asking for directions, and disabled people parking on double yellows as they can on street' activities listed should be exempt (not parking events, what do you think?) then please go to the Annexes at the end of the PAS Code and find the one about Exempt Vehicles and state what other activity you think should be added to the exempt list.  

 

If you do nothing else, please comment on:

- the amount of the parking charge levels

- the annexes at the end of the PAS (reading through the whole thing takes hours so if you have nothing to say about the definitions, for example, then skip to more vital points and the annex tables at the end.

- the bit about debt collectors and whether you think PPCs should be allowed to add 'costs' a second time, for the letters that are already within the rationale of the 'parking charge' sum...hmmm...

Responses into the PAS 232 and MHCLG framework documents are not completely straightforward:

On the MHCLG response, you have to answer the questions on a 1-5 scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree, and then put some commentary. No way to upload documents or alternatives but this doesn't take long.

 

 On the PAS 232, you have to click on each clause and sub-clause to put your comments, and a suggested rewording of their draft.  You can see comments which other people have written!   But, when you click ‘submit’, a message pops up to say your comments have been received, but that only applies to the particular clause you have just addressed.  

You have to go back up and find the next section, then the next...

You have to click ‘submit’ separately for each individual clause response.  Some people will be caught out by this but can revisit it and add further responses up to 12 October.

 

Things to think about:

A Speeding fine is £100.  A Local Authority lower rate parking penalty is £50.  Which do you think a private PCN should be like or do you think it should be something different?  

Do you think if all payment methods are not functioning that PPC can 'fine' you?

 

Do you think the examples mentioned in the cover letter are right and need adding to the Annex?

 

etc. etc.

 

 

dangdoggy4

A final update from me. The court hearing went ahead in February remotely. It started with all kinds of shenanigans from the VCS rep. He didn't join the call and the clerk needed to call him, "I thought it was a phone call." He then joined the video call and was on mute for ages. A bumbling start from him! He then disconnected because he ran out of battery and needed to go get a charger etc. Even funnier.

In terms of the case the VCS rep. basically recited/regurgitated points from the VCS case and covered off my points of defence;

• Signs were OK
• ParkingEye vs Beavis
• CCTV no issue
• Vechile seen stopping
• Breach of contract
• No Stopping allowed
• Typical "internet" defence
• Lots of the defence isn't relevant
• Keeper didn't reply identifying anyone so legit to go after Keeper

The Judge then took an interest in the "overcharging" in the Claim angle £160 instead of £100/60

dangdoggy4

Once the VCS rep. had finished though I said that because it was an airport and under bylaws it wasn't private land/relevant land in terms of PoFA. I had to email over a copy of the bylaws (which I'd downloaded from here on MSE) and the clerk printed/judge reviewed. Another 10-15 minutes of reviewing discussing the bylaws and allowing the VCS rep. to come back, and the Judge decided in my favour. The case was dismissed/not upheld. The fact that the airport is under bylaws trumped everything else for the Judge. VSC rep. didn't have a suitable come back. Their case fell apart.

I asked for costs to cover my time in preparing the case etc. but these were denied. VSC rep. asked the Judge to be able to appeal which was denied but the rep. talked about going to arbitration (or something, I can't remember). The Judge explained that it was their right but now they couldn't appeal the judgement, just if there'd been a misinterpretation of the law (or something like that!).

In all this case (since the initial "incident") has dragged on for years (partly because of the virus) but justice prevailed in the end. In the case of Doncaster Sheffield Airport, and I guess most/all airports, the bylaws argument wins out. Don't give up! Thank you to the MSE contributors for all your helps and great resources.

D_P_Dance

They have wasted a considerable amount of your time.  It is a pity you did not counter claim for a breach of your privacy under the DPA, or perhaps harassment, but it may not be too late, read this,

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

and complain to your MP about your costs,

Coupon-mad

dangdoggy4 said:

Once the VCS rep. had finished though I said that because it was an airport and under bylaws it wasn't private land/relevant land in terms of PoFA. I had to email over a copy of the bylaws (which I'd downloaded from here on MSE) and the clerk printed/judge reviewed. Another 10-15 minutes of reviewing discussing the bylaws and allowing the VCS rep. to come back, and the Judge decided in my favour. The case was dismissed/not upheld. The fact that the airport is under bylaws trumped everything else for the Judge. VSC rep. didn't have a suitable come back. Their case fell apart.

I asked for costs to cover my time in preparing the case etc. but these were denied. VSC rep. asked the Judge to be able to appeal which was denied but the rep. talked about going to arbitration (or something, I can't remember). The Judge explained that it was their right but now they couldn't appeal the judgement, just if there'd been a misinterpretation of the law (or something like that!).

In all this case (since the initial "incident") has dragged on for years (partly because of the virus) but justice prevailed in the end. In the case of Doncaster Sheffield Airport, and I guess most/all airports, the bylaws argument wins out. Don't give up! Thank you to the MSE contributors for all your helps and great resources.

YAY!  WELL DONE!   Nicely done and thanks for the update.

ANOTHER VCS ONE BITES THE DUST!