Claim Form received - VCS - WON - For the second time!

nosferatu1001

VCS are strangers to the claim, as that sign is claiming EXCEL Is the contracting party; only the contracting party can access teh DVLA and issue parking charges
AT BEST it is ambiguous, and if it is ambiguous it must be intrepreted in your favour (CRA2015). 

D_P_Dance

 if it is ambiguous it must be intrepreted in your favour

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem

lyndonp59

KeithP said:

Here's some words you might use...

The Claim is made in the name of Vehicle Control Services Ltd. (Company No. 04298820), whereas the signage displayed at the location in question was, and is, in the name of Excel Parking Services Ltd. (Company No. 02878122), a separate legal entity. Any contract, in a private car park, can only be formed by signage, and it is therefore submitted that if there was any contract, it would have been between Excel and the driver. VCS were not a party to such a contract, and therefore cannot sue on it.

That and similar can be found using Berkeley & stranger in the forum's search facility.

Yes, you must include the ampersand '&' in the search argument otherwise all post that have either Berkeley or stranger in them are returned.

This claim is from 2015 before the change to the 2 hours free and signage. The actual signage at the bottom in 2015 does state VCS - it is getting the registered keepers details from the DVLA which states Excel as well as Excel customer services using ANPR for montioring purposes so I am not sure that I can use that exact wording?

(The search just brings up the recent cases after signage change so is slightly differen and not relevant unfortunately to my case.)

lyndonp59

nosferatu1001 said:

VCS are strangers to the claim, as that sign is claiming EXCEL Is the contracting party; only the contracting party can access teh DVLA and issue parking charges
AT BEST it is ambiguous, and if it is ambiguous it must be intrepreted in your favour (CRA2015). 

I think it is the other way round, VCS are at the bottom of the sign, VCS issue the claim but Excel are stated as accessing the DVLA but I get your point thanks. It is certainly contradictory.

Le_Kirk

lyndonp59 said:

This claim is from 2015 before the change to the 2 hours free and signage. The actual signage at the bottom in 2015 does state VCS - it is getting the registered keepers details from the DVLA which states Excel as well as Excel customer services using ANPR for monitoring purposes so I am not sure that I can use that exact wording?

(The search just brings up the recent cases after signage change so is slightly different and not relevant unfortunately to my case.)

If the terms of the parking changed, was it advised on signs BEFORE the changes?  Were the planning conditions of the car park altered to allow changes to the free parking period?

Umkomaas

Find out from the DVLA which companies accessed your data for the parking event. 

You should email them and ask which organisations (when and for what reason) accessed the registered keeper's data between a range of dates which includes the date(s) of the parking incident(s). You need to provide the registered keeper's full name and address, the address on the V5C logbook and the Vehicle Registration Mark of the vehicle involved in the parking incident. 

SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gov.uk

This service is free of charge. 

Even though you email your request, the DVLA will respond via Royal Mail.

lyndonp59

Fruitcake said:

VCS and Excel are separate companies according to Companies House, and have different company numbers.
You must definitely bring this up. Excel are strangers to this claim. You should also be complaining to the ICO that one company (VCS) has given your personal data to another company (Excel).

Have you received the scammers WS and exhibits yet? If/when you have, please show it here and redact only your personal data.

We have just received the court letter about a paper hearing which we are rejecting using the N159 Response form and it states documents to be sent by 4pm 2nd November and then the response to their statement in by 9th November so I am wondering whether VCS will not send me them in time to review with my WS and I will just have a week to do the response?

Coupon-mad

No idea, we can't guess what they will do.  See what you get from VCS and make sure you stick to your deadlines and get that objection to the hearing 'on the papers' emailed to the court asap (the wording to adapt is on page 10 of the TELEPHONE HEARINGS thread or thereabouts...).

AND - CALLING ALL NEWBIES!

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.

 

 

lyndonp59

I have now drafted the witness statement which is a mix of Chefdave and Gumgirl (as the car park and signage is relevant and also the year 2015) plus some stuff of my own from digging around and based upon the specific issues of this claim.

Would somebody be able to review the whole of it it please?

Is the cost schedule in the correct place? Does that need a separate signature?

I have questions at points 31 and 53 if anybody can provide info for those too please.

Point 28 is there to remind me if I get VCS WS before this has to be submitted otherwise I will take it out.

Coupon-mad

That WS is too long and needs you to cut back on the repetition.  Go through it and cull it.

Remove this phrase as it's not correct to use the term 'struck off' and adds nothing because your case is not going to be struck out:

 And is an abuse of process for which the Claimant has been warned by judges and cases struck off.

You mean 'unsure' here (also why the heck did you pay for some random 'appeals' company to do this instead of coming here, free? And where are they now, given you threw wasted money at them?

9. As I was sure how to go about this process when I was knowingly innocent I used an internet based company to correspond

Your WS mentions (quite rightly) Excel v Smith and Excel v Lamoureux and VCS v Quayle but doesn't append the transcripts as exhibits, even though they are freely available in the Parking Prankster's case law pages.  You need to append them.

The answer here is the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

31. The Claimant’s claim states they are also claiming for contractual costs, however, in order for this to be valid it must be clearly stated on the Terms and Conditions signage along with the said value of the contractual costs. Therefore, being as neither any mention of recovering contractual costs is stated, and more importantly, the value of such a contractual cost, the claim for contractual cost is invalid and cannot be claimed. What is the law/act to confirm, this??????????????????? 

Remove #48 right through to #53  (inclusive, yes all of it).  That stuff is old and is worded better in the example WS in the NEWBIES thread - there is only one.