Delayed issue of PCN

Fruitcake

That's roughly what I have done. I would have started in the reverse order though so that your first image matches as close as possible the first of the claimant's images, then showed the rest of the images as you zoom out, plus one showing that the location is opposite the fuel station entrance.. This will leave the judge in no doubt where the car was stopped.

You could mention that in their image you can clearly see the end of the speed bump just in front of your car, the dip and the gap in the hedge, the lamp post to the right of the gap, the gantry and area D signs within the car park, plus the billboard and railings in the background.

Then mark the spot where the car was stopped on the claimants site plan to show it is outside the area they are contracted to manage, and therefore had no cause to obtain the keeper's personal data.

As an aside, you should use the above arguments in a complaint to the claimant, their ATA, the DVLA, the DVLA KADOE team, Harvest Energy, the ICO, and your MP.

This is what I came up with, but I have to say yours are most excellent. I do think you need to show an image of the location relative to the filling station entrance though.

Their image.



GSV images










Position where the car was stopped, marked in red on the claimant's own site plan, showing that by their own evidence it was outside the area the claimant avers they are authorised to operate.

johnedit

Fruitcake, you go beyond the level of help and assistance that I expected - Many thanks.

Is this the type of wordage that I should send Harvest Energy - and a variation as aporpriate to the other poeple you suggest I inform?

Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to you with regard to a Small Claim Number XXX issued by Vehicle Control Services Limited who your Company has granted a Contract to ‘police’ for vehicular violations on the land you occupy at the East Midlands Airport.

I have contested the Small Claim on the basis that my vehicle never entered or stopped within the Fuel Station Area and  VCS have only submitted images from CCTV that show my vehicle stopped on the Terminal Approach Road where they have no authority whatsoever.

A Court Hearing Date of XX July has been set and as Harvest Energy Limited are the principal and responsible for the actions of their Agent would you please advise me as to the person from your Legal Department will be available for the Court Hearing to answer questions about the Contract and your Agent.

Coupon-mad

Personally I WOULD NOT tip off Harvest energy, nor VCS, that their WS misses vital evidence!

Stop, stop, stop.  It's not as if you will really be bringing someone from Harvest to attend the trial because that would require a Summons application (at cost) and the Judge wouldn't see any good compelling reason to bring them to court, given they are not a party to the contract and, especially since you were not parked there!

Have you submitted your WS yet?  I'd be careful not to tip VCS off about their missing evidence.  They could easily address it with a supplementary WS and map and other evidence, showing their authority from the Airport to issue PCNs on the roadways.

Fruitcake

The claim is for an alleged event "in the filling station". At what point would you produce proof that the car was stopped outside the fuel station site boundary, if not at the WS exhibits stage?

Coupon-mad

I am saying the OP must include their evidence - your photos are great - but not specifically pointing out that the C's evidence is wanting and what they should have submitted.

They could put in the WS that the photos exhibits at XX6 (or whatever exhibit number) show where the car was parked and this was on a roadway, with the position of the car being shown in red in the aerial map.  

Then they can develop that argument at the hearing.  I guess it is about careful wording...

Fruitcake

Right, got it.

johnedit

Thanks, Coupon-mad and Fruitcake for your input.

I have about 2 weeks to submit my WS and I will keep a low profile until that point as recommended by Coupon-mad.

As it has become evident that the PCC did not have the necessary authority to administer or enforce a Contract, do you think it a waste of Court Time in my WS challenging the PCC's WS where he responds to points about previous Court Cases - mainly wordage suggested by Coupon-mad for inclusion in my (and anyone's) Defence Document.

I apprecaite that most of these Cases dealt with the legality of the PCC issuing PCN's. At that time,  this was sound advice seeing as I had  assumed  that the PCC had the authority to 'police' the roadway. By the same token I guess there would be no need to address their  counter-points regarding the additional  Legal Representative's Costs they lumped on to their Claim?

 

Coupon-mad

There is a need to address any holes in their evidence and to supply your own correct factual evidence and photos, and to append the usual evidence as seen in the recent WS by @jrhys, which is the most recent good example - plus the extra transcript mentioned here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279348/witness-statements-2-transcript-exhibits-re-parking-firms-falsely-added-contractual-costs/p1

They have only appeared to 'address the case law in the template defence' because their WS is a template that they've developed to 'answer back' to the template defence!  It doesn't make the template defence wrong and the argument about false added costs is NOT ABOUT 'legal representative's costs' and never was about those costs.  

You need to understand what costs it is that you can object to.  The defence spelt it out and so does the example WS by @jrhys, and neither of them talk about legal reps costs.

Redx

VCS have lost at Bristol airport and at Brighton airport ( or was it Southend ?? ) on similar issues , so EMA is no surprise either !!

Coupon-mad

Southend, there is no Brighton Airport. 

Isn't EMA the one that has the wrong company number on the so called landowner agreement with the Airport?