Vehicle Control Services, No stopping in a queue...

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake said:

I actually live under the flight path of Brizzle airport and know it very well. Sadly I am unable to visit it at the moment otherwise I would offer to go (on foot) and take piccies, although I actually think you have enough evidence to win this anyway.

@ginger_bread_man
I agree with Fruitcake that you have enough evidence to win this. Nothing is guaranteed but you would have to be very unlucky in the DJ lottery as this is just a complete try on.

Umkomaas

I can't see this getting anywhere near a court. Abysmal evidence. They'll discontinue I'm sure. 

Have you complained to the guy who signed the contract with Excel (Gamble) to show him just what he has subjected his customers to. 

Castle

Umkomaas said:

I can't see this getting anywhere near a court. Abysmal evidence. They'll discontinue I'm sure. 

Have you complained to the guy who signed the contract with Excel (Gamble) to show him just what he has subjected his customers to. 

Me too, hence my earlier comment about them forgetting to organise the phone call or not being available even if they don't discontinue.
The contract is apparently with VCS, not Excel.

Snakes_Belly

Costs for unreasonable behaviour perhaps?

Castle

Snakes_Belly said:

Costs for unreasonable behaviour perhaps?

Or a separate claim for DPA/GDPR breach at a later date.

ginger_bread_man

Thanks for all the help everyone.  I think I am ready to send this off now.  Hopefully I have covered all the points.  Any feedback before I send would be fantastic.

In the County Court at XXXX

Claim No. XXXXXXX

Between

Vehicle Control Services LTD (Claimant)

and

 (Defendant)

Witness Statement

 

1. I am NAME of ADDRESS, the Defendant against whom this claim is made. I represent myself as a litigant-in-person, with no formal legal training. I have carried out a good deal of research in preparation for this case, however I trust the Court will excuse me if my presentation is less than professional. Everything in the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

2. In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence bundle supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate.

 

3.  I deny that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

 

4. Sequence of events

 

4.1. On the material date, 24th October 2019, I drove to Bristol Airport to pick up my partner from an inbound flight, and attach the ticket for the flight as EV/01.

 

4.2. Upon arrival at the combined short stay and pickup car park entrance, there was a queue of a few cars waiting on the car park slip road to enter.  As shown in the Claimant’s photos, attached here as EV/02, my vehicle was the last in this queue, but still fully centred on the slip road, not on, pulled over or blocking the main airport road.

 

4.3. On 27th December 2019, I received a “Demand For Payment” letter from the Claimant, dated 13th December 2019.  This arrived after some time as it was sent to an old address.  This was the first I heard of the matter. 

 

4.4. The Claimant’s photos showed my vehicle queueing to enter a barrier car park, observed for a period of just 18 seconds.  I did not believe this was an appropriate cause to incur a penalty, so decided to take that up with the Claimant.

 

4.5. I spent some time researching issues and complaints surrounding Private Parking Companies, as I did not believe I was in the wrong, and was aware of the bullyish tactics used by such companies.  On 30th December 2019, I contacted the Claimant by email to appeal the charge, inform them of my current correspondence address, and to perform a SAR.  Correspondence attached here as EV/03.

 

4.6. Other than correspondence to confirm my identity, I did not receive a reply to my email, until a letter arrived, dated 19th February 2020, also attached in EV/03. The letter was a template that stated that they would not accept any disputed at this stage, as it was more than 21 days since the original notice was sent.  I had never received the original notice, and had contacted the Claimant at the earliest opportunity, upon receipt of the “Demand for Payment”.

 

 

5. Later research

 

5.1. After the Claimant was not willing to let me appeal this unfair charge, I contacted the landowner.  Unfortunately, they stated “We are unable to intervene”.  They did also state that the reason for employing the Claimant to patrol their roadways was to prevent vehicles stopping and causing “delay and congestion”.  Email attached as EV/04

 

5.2. The contract with the landowner, found in the Claimant’s witness statement exhibits contain a map with a red highlighted area, covering the main roads through the airport.  This is titled “the company will provide services to the following locations shown on the plan below”.  I was pleased to see that the entrance slip road to the car parks were not highlighted on this map, as it would be grossly unfair to enforce a penalty on motorists stopping to enter a barrier car park. 

 

5.3. Upon a Subject Access Request to the claimant, I received an additional 4 CCTV images relating to this matter.  These extra photos show that my vehicle was in the queue to the carpark for the observed period of less than 20 seconds, and not blocking the main roadway, as traffic can be seen to be flowing.  I am unsure why the claimant would leave these out of their evidence bundle, as they show a much better perspective of the location.  These are attached in EV/05, along with a closeup map, and additional photo I took of the material location on a later visit, showing that it is not part of the highlighted main road patrol area.

 

5.4. While I fully appreciate the need for parking control on private land, I do not appreciate the apparent business tactics of The Claimant whereby they insist people going about their lawful daily business have entered into some kind of vague “contract” with them, based on the tiny words on small and obscured signs. Nor do I appreciate the many harassing and distressing letters, making veiled threats towards my credit rating and even my employability.

 

5.5. As previously mentioned, the sole reason for this visit to Bristol airport was to collect my partner from an incoming flight.  In point 32 of the Claimant’s witness statement they state “the Defendant’s vehicle had stopped on double red lines, whilst a passenger exited the vehicle”.  This is simply untrue. 

 

5.6. The statement of truth from the Claimant’s witness statement is the pre April 2020 version. Various inaccurate sentences like this led me to believe that this is a standard template, with little to no relevance to this matter.  No time, truth or consideration to this matter has been made.

 

5.7. Although acting on behalf of the claimant, it is unlikely that the paralegal that signed the witness statement witnessed the alleged contravention. Therefore, her comments of the events cannot be considered accurate as they are without her knowledge.

 

6. Additional Costs - Abuse of Process

 

6.1. The Claimant is put to strict proof that these additional charges are justified. I have

the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred £60 costs to pursue an alleged

£100 debt. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low-cost business

model and are already counted within the parking charge itself. The Protection of

Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4, Para 4(5) states that the maximum sum that may be

recovered from the keeper is the charge stated on the Notice to Keeper, in this case

£100.

 

6.2. According to Ladak v DRC Locums (case number UKEAT/0488/13/LA) a Claimant

can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent preparing the claim in a

legal capacity, not any administration costs allegedly incurred by already remunerated

administrative staff.

 

 

6.3. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm “costs” in County Courts up and

down the country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor

sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders

of DJ Grand, who (when sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court in 2018 and 2019)

has struck out several parking firm claims. These include a BPA member serial Claimant

(Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and an IPC member serial Claimant

(UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Orders have been identical in

striking out both claims without a hearing, with the Judge stating:

''It is ordered that The claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a

substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant

contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of

Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v

Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim

for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the

court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil

Procedure Rules 1998...''

 

6.4. That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding

sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Vehicle Control

Services Ltd v Davies (Case number FTQZ4W28) on 4th September 2019, District

Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant

period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that

their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing

more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis

which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would

be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law

and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a

penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and

declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.''

 

 

7. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs of attendance at the hearing, such as are allowable pursuant to CPR 27.14, please see EV/06.

 

 

 

Statement of Truth

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

Signed

 

Dated

KeithP

Add to the end of the last sentence in para 5.7 "and they should be discounted as hearsay".

Fruitcake

Para 5.5, you need to explain why someone is stood by the car with the rear door open. The judge might interpret the image as a passenger exiting the vehicle. 

beamerguy

VCS should be considered for entry into a mental home for the deranged if they continue with this, 
We know desperation has set in but this is plain stupidity. Put yourself in the Judge's seat ..... this will make his day

MothballsWallet

Snakes_Belly said:

https://www.indeed.co.uk/cmp/Excel-Parking-Services/reviews
I would be careful using some of these staff reviews. It might be useful to demonstrate that the employees are targeted. It looks as if they are given a hard time if they don't produce results.

This is what happened with PPI.  Staff were pushed into selling it to people who were not eligible.  

I'd also be looking for reviews on Glassdoor.co.uk - no bad will to indeed, but Glassdoor won't remove a review from a current/former employee unless it contains libel or breaks their Ts & Cs, I'm not sure about how indeed's system works.