Vehicle Control Services LJLA

DisruptiveLad

Some staff at VCS are CILEx Regulated. I have referred to that body. Others are about to be referred to the SRA.

Rileymark1

Router66 said:

I have a claim form where the claimant is VCS. The address for sending documents is given as Elms Legal Ltd.
The claim contains a statement (Particulars of Claim) and the Claimant believes that the facts in the statement are true. ES-L  states he is duly authorised by VCS to sign the statement. There is no mention of ES-L being a solicitor or a consultant.

This sounds like the exact same form i received last week. Everything Router66 has said is literally what is on the front page of my Claim form, says signed Ed S-L then (Claimant's Legal Representative) 

Snakes_Belly

DisruptiveLad said:

Some staff at VCS are CILEx Regulated. I have referred to that body. Others are about to be referred to the SRA.

We can take an educated guess who that might be.

Coupon-mad

Rileymark1 said:

Router66 said:

I have a claim form where the claimant is VCS. The address for sending documents is given as Elms Legal Ltd.
The claim contains a statement (Particulars of Claim) and the Claimant believes that the facts in the statement are true. ES-L  states he is duly authorised by VCS to sign the statement. There is no mention of ES-L being a solicitor or a consultant.

This sounds like the exact same form i received last week. Everything Router66 has said is literally what is on the front page of my Claim form, says signed Ed S-L then (Claimant's Legal Representative) 

It would be.  The POC is a template.

DisruptiveLad

If anyone gets an NTK with pictures without a location stamp; prohibitive signings or any prohibitive road markings, then write to the PPC and tell them until they provide verifiable proof your vehicle was where they say it was, they have no case. If they claim private land, tell them it's not. There are bylaws in place, otherwise airports couldn't operate. Finally, tell them their NTK is an attempt to obtain a financial advantage by false representation. This is Sec 2 Chpt 35 Fraud Act 2006. Tell them you are referring their letter immediately to www.actionfraud.police.uk for investigation. Then folks, please DO go online, set up an action fraud account and put your report in. This will soon bring the PPC to its knees.

Le_Kirk

Coupon-mad said:

It would be.  The POC is a template.

No surely not?  After various solicitors telling loads of our posters that their defence is a template, they do the same themselves!  Presses Sarcasm emoji!

Rileymark1

DisruptiveLad said:

If anyone gets an NTK with pictures without a location stamp; prohibitive signings or any prohibitive road markings, then write to the PPC and tell them until they provide verifiable proof your vehicle was where they say it was, they have no case. If they claim private land, tell them it's not. There are bylaws in place, otherwise airports couldn't operate. Finally, tell them their NTK is an attempt to obtain a financial advantage by false representation. This is Sec 2 Chpt 35 Fraud Act 2006. Tell them you are referring their letter immediately to www.actionfraud.police.uk for investigation. Then folks, please DO go online, set up an action fraud account and put your report in. This will soon bring the PPC to its knees.

Hi DisruptiveLad

I used the template from the forum during my appeal ( that got rejected ) and in it , it mentioned the bylaws. The response letter i received from VCS said;
 " We note your comment concerning the use of bylaws at the Airport; as already stated the signs at the entrance to the Airport clearly identify the roads as private property. Bylaws are not currently in use as the last set of bylaws published relate to the old Airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company "

Umkomaas

An airport can't operate without byelaws in place. 

DisruptiveLad

People are getting in touch with some incredibly unsafe demands for money. VCS are claiming LJLA say the 1982 bylaws are obsolete. What utter !!!!!! they're spouting. I can't believe VCS are blatantly breaking the law. LJLA have told me they have tried to repeal some bylaws, but had failed four times.

Redx

Rileymark1 said:

DisruptiveLad said:

If anyone gets an NTK with pictures without a location stamp; prohibitive signings or any prohibitive road markings, then write to the PPC and tell them until they provide verifiable proof your vehicle was where they say it was, they have no case. If they claim private land, tell them it's not. There are bylaws in place, otherwise airports couldn't operate. Finally, tell them their NTK is an attempt to obtain a financial advantage by false representation. This is Sec 2 Chpt 35 Fraud Act 2006. Tell them you are referring their letter immediately to www.actionfraud.police.uk for investigation. Then folks, please DO go online, set up an action fraud account and put your report in. This will soon bring the PPC to its knees.

Hi DisruptiveLad

I used the template from the forum during my appeal ( that got rejected ) and in it , it mentioned the bylaws. The response letter i received from VCS said;
 " We note your comment concerning the use of bylaws at the Airport; as already stated the signs at the entrance to the Airport clearly identify the roads as private property. Bylaws are not currently in use as the last set of bylaws published relate to the old Airport site and are now regarded as obsolete by the Airport Company "

They told Disruptive lad the same I believe , he begged to differ , VCS are wrong , as mentioned above , bylaws exist for airports , so not private land , just non relevant land under POFA

The government minister or department of transport or whoever deals with it has a say in the matter , especially varying bylaws. Either it's an airport with a government lease under bylaws , or private land ( hint , it's not private land )

Just because VCS make a statement , doesn't make it true !! VCS talk rubbish , like most selfish parking companies