Going to County Court Business Centre over VCS Parking Charge/ Notice.

Johnersh

@BenjiH23 but that's my point. The signage is seemingly contradictory.  It refers to permits, payment and ANPR and its not clear any of those were in operation. 

The sign could say
* parking for tesco customers only
* parking within store hours only, unless displaying a permit
* parking after 11pm by permit only
* breach of the above terms = PCN 
That would be a license only within specific hours which you could comply with.

Or it could say what the signs on Google maps (2018) say, which are insofar as the zoom allows me to read it, clearly permit controlled.

The change of signage happened for a reason. 

BenjiH23

@Johnersh You’re exactly right mate. My main argument is that the sign isn’t clear on the terms and conditions on when the stores are closed. Had the terms and conditions been clear, I would have left immediately, as opposed to checking the conditions of the car park across the road. They’ve charged me for parking in a Restricted/ Prohibited area, yet the sign doesn’t really communicate that.

From a logical point of view, no store can lose any money by parking there at night. But I suspect VCS prey on people who use logic or are simply confused. If it was a legit concern and they wanted to be honest, a simple “No Parking After 10pm” would solve any parking issues. It’s infuriating to say the least.

Also, so they’re legally having to change their signs? Can you give me more info on this please? I’ve googled it but I can’t find anything.

Fruitcake

BenjiH23 said:

Fruitcake said:

If you have the scammer's WS, please post it here for us to look over. Only redact YOUR personal data. If the scammers have redacted anything, please tell us.
If their WS is excessively long then post the first page that names the (para)legal and the last page with the statement of truth and signature of the legal, plus the all important contract.

To my knowledge, the only info they’ve redacted is how much Tesco pay them for their ‘services.’ And the surname of the Parking Attendant. Just to confirm, am I OK to post a witness statement for a trial that hasn’t gone to court yet?

We don't ask you to do things just for the fun of it. It will be too late for us to see it if the case has already gone to court.

If you have a copy of the contract, please post it as already requested, as well as any other parts of their WS that will help us, as long as it isn't too long. Sometimes these things can be fifty pages long which is ridiculous, which is why I asked for the first and last page plus the contract.

Please confirm whether or not you have submitted your WS yet. If not, then hang-fire until we have commented on the alleged contract, assuming you have it but haven't shown it to us yet.

Fruitcake

BenjiH23 said:

@Fruitcake , here is the last page of the statement.

Okay, so it's Ambreen again, and she/he has used the correct statement of truth, so no mileage there.

Johnersh

The statement misquotes vine as usual. For context the preceding sentence starts "alternatively, and this is the ground principally urged upon us by [barrister] Mr Mott"
That's important since the court accepted that the signs were there and a finding of fact had already been made that the driver didn't see them. Indeed, it was the very basis that she was not liable to be clamped.

It is frankly outrageous that a template witness statement continues to be deployed dressing up an argument presented to the court as part of the court of appeal judgment.

The second of the quoted paras from the case is fine, but I am beholden to point out that Waller LJ (para 36) stated
Furthermore the onus on the person seeking to clamp in reliance on a notice must be very high...

It's a feature of the Beavis case that ParkingEye's signs are actually pretty clear.  Less so here, perhaps.

Given the distinction between the parking event and the paralegals more recent employment, just how much of his statement is actually within his knowledge?

He does not say where he garnered his information from. It is unattributed hearsay. We have no indication as to whether the graphical locations of signs are correct do we? It's doubtful he ever visited.

It seems that the statement is heavy on legal argument but light on fact - which is not the approach to adopt. See for instance jd wetherspoon v Harris.

Since the court rules contain this oft overlooked addition, the court should be asked whether this is a standard template that has been amended and if so who prepared the outline etc:

The body of the statement must now set out “the process by which it has been prepared, for example, face-to-face, over the telephone, and/or through an interpreter.” (Practice Direction 32, para 18.1(5)).

Fruitcake

BenjiH23 said:

@Johnersh You’re exactly right mate. My main argument is that the sign isn’t clear on the terms and conditions on when the stores are closed. Had the terms and conditions been clear, I would have left immediately, as opposed to checking the conditions of the car park across the road. They’ve charged me for parking in a Restricted/ Prohibited area, yet the sign doesn’t really communicate that.

From a logical point of view, no store can lose any money by parking there at night. But I suspect VCS prey on people who use logic or are simply confused. If it was a legit concern and they wanted to be honest, a simple “No Parking After 10pm” would solve any parking issues. It’s infuriating to say the least.

Also, so they’re legally having to change their signs? Can you give me more info on this please? I’ve googled it but I can’t find anything.

You have mentioned No Loss before, but that went out the window with the Beavis case in 2015. Logic does not come into it, only the law.

BenjiH23

Fruitcake said:

BenjiH23 said:

@Johnersh You’re exactly right mate. My main argument is that the sign isn’t clear on the terms and conditions on when the stores are closed. Had the terms and conditions been clear, I would have left immediately, as opposed to checking the conditions of the car park across the road. They’ve charged me for parking in a Restricted/ Prohibited area, yet the sign doesn’t really communicate that.

From a logical point of view, no store can lose any money by parking there at night. But I suspect VCS prey on people who use logic or are simply confused. If it was a legit concern and they wanted to be honest, a simple “No Parking After 10pm” would solve any parking issues. It’s infuriating to say the least.

Also, so they’re legally having to change their signs? Can you give me more info on this please? I’ve googled it but I can’t find anything.

You have mentioned No Loss before, but that went out the window with the Beavis case in 2015. Logic does not come into it, only the law.

Yes you’re right. That was more of my personal feeling towards it. However, does the Beavis case apply to when the shops are closed? I don’t find VCS’s terms and conditions difficult to understand normally. But I do feel they lack clarity when circumstances change. Especially when the shops are closed so it is impossible to be a customer.

Fruitcake

The Beavis case always applies. No Loss is generally a duff point.

I'll have a look at the contract in a mo, but in the meantime I note that para 27 of the scammer's WS refers to signage upon entry. They have quoted in para 29 a judge's comments about entrance signs.
The map however mentions something about a post "to be installed" with the legend "2 hours parking". Do any of the images show the post and sign actually in place, date stamped to show it was there before the alleged event?

In other words, have the scammers proved that the entrance post and sign had actually been installed by May 2017, because the Map shows that it was on the to-do list. Is there a date on the map, or is it part of a dated document?
I would be requiring the scammers to prove it was so, and also ask how this could possibly be within the knowledge of the paralegal.

Fruitcake

You've cropped the bottom of the alleged contract which means we can't see the important names and positions of the signatories. We need this to check them against Companies House records.

Don't worry. You'll get the hang of this soon.

Umkomaas

The actually incident occurred in May 2017.

If that's the case, how come Ambreem Arshard, who was only employed from January 2019, is signing anything under a Statement of Truth, some 4 years on from the alleged incident. Raise that in your WS.