Going to court on this one need advice

beamerguy

Christhetechnicalguy said:

There you go I found it at last. I did post the wrong stuff originally DOH! 

Keith will be back, he is good at this.

By the way, VCS belong to the scam IPC. I am not sure when the jumped ship from the BPA
Someone will say

You mention £185 so they have added interest and a fake £60 ... YES ?

The moment they added the fake £60 they tainted their claim making it unreliable because the judges tell VCS it's abuse of proces and there is a special spanking cane the judges use.

There is still time to write to VCS asking what is their legal authority to add £60. They have none so it does not matter if they reply or not, because you have a letter to show the judge and start the wheels of Abuse of process spinning

ABUSE OF PROCESS PART 2 See what the judge said to VCS... just scroll down ...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

1505grandad

Vehicle Control Services Ltd

Accreditation Start Date:

29/09/2014

www.vehiclecontrol.co.uk

Coupon-mad

Christhetechnicalguy said:
Defence relating to the claim below

Vehicle control services LTD
Your Ref G5QZ0571
Date of alleged contravention 02/07/2016
Alleged Location 156 Bradfield Road Hillsborough Sheffield

Date of first correspondence 13/01/2020
Firstly I will point out that I deny any claim in the particulars of claim that has been submitted to me on the above date.
I set out my defence thus:
The particulars of claim are set out for an alleged breach of contract that there is absolutely no supporting evidence. 
I was not issued with a notice to keeper within 56 days it was late and therefore there is no keeper liability.
I was not issued with a parking ticket. I was not contacted about the alleged contravention until the 13/01/2020.
The BPA code of practice states that the parking company has a period of time in which to contact me after an alleged contravention. 3.5 years have elapsed since this time. The standard time is 28 days.
I have a right to appeal, firstly to the parking company and secondly to POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals)
I was not given the opportunity to appeal.
The particulars of claim suggest that I entered into a contract with them as I was allegedly in the car park. The BPA code of practice states that there should be a grace period set out in order for a person to drive into the car park. Read and fully understand the terms and conditions and then either choose to pay or drive out without penalty. 
I require the claimant to produce evidence that my car was in that car park for that amount of time and what that amount of time is. If it is photographic evidence. The photographs will need to be time stamped and the claimant will need to prove that the photographs have not been modified or tampered with and the device calibrated and certified as checked. 
I will bring your attention to an ANPR camera system that was used in evidence in court and  was wholly responsible for the court loss by the Operator in Parkingeye vs Fox-Jones on 8 Nov 2013. That case was dismissed when the judge said the evidence from the Operator was 'fundamentally flawed' as the synchronisation of the camera pictures with the timer had been called into question and the operator could not rebut the point.
So, in addition to showing their maintenance records, I require Vehicle control services  in this case to show evidence to rebut this point: I suggest that in the case of my vehicle being in this car park, a camera took the image. There is no proof that the timestamp added is actually the exact time of the image or that my vehicle was on any private land. If the images were taken by a hand held device the images will need to be of such quality that there absolutely no doubt that my car was in that car park and that there will need to be at least 2 clear time stamped photos with a time difference of no less than the grace period. They will also need to prove that I didn't drive into and out of the car park twice and was photographed on the first time I entered and the second time I left. Hence without a synchronised time stamp there is no evidence that the image is ever time stamped with an accurate time. Therefore I contend that this "evidence" from this Operator in this car park is just as unreliable as the ParkingEye system in the Fox-Jones case and I put this Operator to strict proof to the contrary.
Furthermore The signage at the car park is not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.
As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.
I require the operator to submit evidence and prove that the signage was of the correct standard. 
As for breach of contract
I would like to point out that the signs at the car park in question are unsuitable to inform drivers of the full terms and conditions of what they are entering into by physically entering the car park. Vehicle control services clearly relies on contract law, but does not do enough to make clear what the terms and conditions of the contract are, making it far too easy for people to unwittingly fall outside the terms of the contract. It is not appropriate for a car park such as this to have such a limited amount of signs and rely on drivers to look carefully for where and how the terms are displayed.
It is surely the responsibility of Vehicle Control Services to make the terms of their contract far clearer so that drivers have no doubt whatsoever of any supposed contract they may be entering into. I require Vehicle control services to provide evidence as to how clear the terms and conditions are and consider if the methods used are clear enough for this type of car park. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are that inform drivers that cameras are in use on this site.
Furthermore a contract can only be considered to be entered into if enough evidence exists that it actually happened. For a contract to have been entered into the driver would have had to get out of the car, read the signs, fully interpret and understand them and agree to them. None of which ever actually happened.
Unfair terms of contract
Although there was no contract between vehicle control services and myself, if there were then I would ask a court to consider this charge to be unfair and non-binding based on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. There is a clear list of terms that apply. I have highlighted the following specifically as I believe they apply directly to this case:
2. (1) (e) Terms which have the object or effect of requiring any consumer who fails to fulfill his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.
5. (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
5. (2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 was brought in to protect consumers from unfair contracts such as the one Vehicle Control services are suggesting. A company such as Vehicle control services needs to actually prove that the driver saw, read and accepted the terms, which is impossible because this did not actually happen.
 Without a contract
Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award Vehicle Control services could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to car park there was no loss to them at all and therefore should be no charge.
The charge is punitive 
Not only is the £185 charge completely disproportionate meaning that it is punitive and is breaking the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1997, but there can be no loss shown at all as no pre-estimate charge has been put together making the charge unenforceable against me or the driver. 
So in summary, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that my car was in the car park you  have alleged it to be in, that you are demanding money for. As you can see I have a robust defence and the operator in question has not adhered to the BPA code of practice and is therefore operating unlawfully.

That's a really old defence - over 5 years out of date - and looks more like a bad POPLA appeal.  

These are the bad parts, to drop:

- VCS are not in the BPA AOS and haven't been for years.   They are not subject to that CoP. 

- They are not acting unlawfully.

- Parkingeye vs Fox-Jones is pointless and from 2013 and no-one ever saw a transcript. It's a nullity.

- The The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 were replaced by the CRA in 2015.

- you can't say 'there can be no loss shown at all as no pre-estimate charge has been put together' because that was killed off as an argument by the infinite wisdom(?) of the Supreme Court in the ParkingEye v Beavis case, in 2015.

The good points you have are:

- about the signs not being clear;

- the NTK being served too late (seems odd, are you sure?).  What happened that the NTK was delayed?

-  the unfairness (citing the CRA and not the UTCCRs), and

- the fact the sum claims is inflated (£160 instead of £100 as the 'debt').

What is your deadline for getting your WS in?  You need a SAR to see their photos and letters so you can check their evidence.  Do that by email now to the DPO of VCS.  The NEWBIES thread tells you how, and shows you exampe WS and evidence.

Christhetechnicalguy

Thanks coupon-mad 
I agree it’s not good. I thought it was a scam as I had no warning I had not seen a ticket and I had not seen an NTK until I requested the SAR when I received the papers in January. I had already submitted my defence before I received the SAR I can post their “evidence” which I summarised in my OP. 

Since that time I realise that VCS are not with BPA . 

I never received the original NTK I only received the info from the SAR 3 years later so I counted the days from the alleged contravention to the issue of NTK. 

My original defence was made up of several different POPLA appeals I have done covering many bases I was lucky with the NTK part. 

So ... witness statement? What do you think? 

Thanks fir your comments I appreciate them and I can see you’re very active on this forum. 

Chris 

Christhetechnicalguy

Deadline 25/6/2020 👍

Coupon-mad

OK so you need to read other examples from the NEWBIES thread and recent threads about VCS.

There are loads to read.

Christhetechnicalguy

Any links to get me started? I have been reading the NEWBIES thread, although helpful I need to get this right and there’s lots of information and various routes. The money is not the problem I dibtvwsnt VCS to get a penny I’d rather give it to a charity once I’d won. 

Le_Kirk

Christhetechnicalguy said:

Any links to get me started? I have been reading the NEWBIES thread, although helpful I need to get this right and there’s lots of information and various routes. The money is not the problem I dibtvwsnt VCS to get a penny I’d rather give it to a charity once I’d won. 

On the front page of the forum there is a thread called NEWBIES read this first.  In there you will find links to witness statements.  Also search for similar case by using the forum Advanced Search facility.

dibtvwsnt

What was that ^^^ supposed to be?

Christhetechnicalguy

dibtvwsnt Auto incorrect for don’t want I believe 🤣🤣

Coupon-mad

Christhetechnicalguy said:

Any links to get me started? 

Yes, in the NEWBIES thread.