We won today

BelladonnaTook

Thank you so much Fruitcake, I do appreciate your response, it has made me feel so much better.

You are right of course about the location tracking - it was too late by the time the PCN/NTK was received.

Putting the same destination into Apple Maps now produces the same directions that were followed over a year ago- would the court be interested in that? 

Also,is it okay to work out the costs assessment and just take it to the hearing or should it be sent with the SWS?

Thanks again for your time

NB
I recall a few months ago there seemed to be lots of posts about the gym at the same location; the VCS landowner authority 'contract' in the VCS WS might be quite useful for those cases perhaps?

Le_Kirk

All I can see is in paragraph 12 where you have a double "that" even though it does not detract from the WS.  Providing what you state in the WS ties up with the facts in your defence, it looks OK.

Fruitcake

You need to send the SWS asap. If you have date and time stamped location data, to prove you were outside the "controlled area", include it. The worst that can happen is the judge/court won't allow the SWS.
Whilst you can't introduce new evidence at the hearing, you can challenge anything produced by the claimant, so you will get your chance to bring it up then.
The judge will invite the claimant to go first, then it will be your turn. Start with the fact that the vehicle was outside the "controlled area" as shown by the claimant's own evidence in the form of a landholder contract, that ANPR data only proves the vehicle passed and repassed cameras, and the claimant has provided no proof your vehicle was parked within their contracted "controlled area".
Your statement carries weight because you are a witness, indeed, the only witness to the events on that day.

You can bring up certain points in relation to fairness as allowed by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, even if they were not previously mentioned.

VCS have form for issuing parking charges outside the area they are contracted to operate, but I don't know of any court case number that can be quoted to prove this. Without the case number it is sadly hearsay.

Normally a summary costs assessment is submitted a few days before the hearing, I think, but it won't hurt to send it early as long as the hearing date isn't months away.
Since your vehicle was outside their stated "controlled area", you could add that the claimant had no reasonable justification to obtain and process your personal data, and no reason to issue the charge or court claim, therefore you could include costs for a data breach and for unreasonable behaviour in line with the CPR (you will need to quote the relevant part).

Coupon-mad

Keep proof of sending of every submission.

VCS reps start by pretending that the consumer's WS and evidence were never received, putting the D on the spot.

Fruitcake

The other thing the claimant might try is to say the contract has been extended to cover the other car parks, or somehow it is implied that all six car parks are covered. The counter to that is that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would expect a copy of the contract covering the other car parks to be produced, and if it isn't produced it is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities, no such contract exists.

Do you have photos of the signs in the Range car park? As far as I can tell from the claimant's WS, they have showed signs up to the entrance of the Range car park entrance, but not beyond.

BelladonnaTook

Le_Kirk , Fruitcake, Coupon-mad -

Thank you for your observations and comments - It means a great deal to know there are decent people in this world who are kind enough to give so much of their own precious time to help others like this - it restores my faith in (wo)mankind.

I'm not the Defendant; my son is but he is very young, naive and grew up in a small, crime-free rural village - so not street-wise at all. Flew the nest, moved to a big city and immediately comes up against lowlife scammers.
He probably would have just paid up to avoid the hassle if I hadn't offered to help. I loathe bullies and that is all these dreadful PPC people are.

Despite my CPTSD which I'm trying to conquer, I'm going with him to the CH as his Lay Rep - but he needs to approve the final draft of the SWS and sign it before I can send it in - and he only flew back from holiday today.

We did let CCBC know (in March) via the N180 DQ that he would be on holiday until today -  VCS' WS was emailed to him AFTER he went away - so he was on holiday abroad with no WiFi or laptop or printer and had to forward it to me (when I was ill too, though he doesn't know that).
He still needs to sign it though.

As we let CCBC know his 'unavailable' dates back in March - will the county court accept that as the reason the SWS  is submitted so close to the CH date?

Thank you again; I'm poor as a church mouse but I can draw fab pet portraits,so if any of you would like one as a Thank You, feel free to message me about it.   

BelladonnaTook

Fruitcake said:

The other thing the claimant might try is to say the contract has been extended to cover the other car parks, or somehow it is implied that all six car parks are covered. The counter to that is that the man on the Clapham Omnibus would expect a copy of the contract covering the other car parks to be produced, and if it isn't produced it is reasonable to believe on the balance of probabilities, no such contract exists.

Do you have photos of the signs in the Range car park? As far as I can tell from the claimant's WS, they have showed signs up to the entrance of the Range car park entrance, but not beyond.

Thanks Fruitcake - I didn't see this until after I posted a few minutes ago... 

Apart from a 'permit-only' stock image in their WS which isn't the same as the one 'permit-only' sign at the entrance to the site (the entrance to the whole site not the entrance to one of the multiple car parks within the Biz site (which all have differing T & C as they are not all 'permit-only)), they threw in a pile of very blurred photos which:

a] they are trying to claim were taken more than three years ago - but don't match photos with verified dates on them taken since then
b] all the photos seem to be 'free parking up to 3 hours' signs from the retail area,which
1] their contract doesn't cover and
2] is fine anyway because he wasn't there for more than three hours. Their ANPR (entry and exit to the whole BIZ site not a car park) admits he was there less than half that time

We have loads of photos showing there was very little signage even after they went and put more in since the contravention date (we took pics of the fresh tarmac that the poles went into too!).

 Whilst there a taxi-driver came over and asked why we were talking pics and when I told him, he was thrilled that someone was standing up to them.
I can't repeat what he said, I'd have to wash my mouth out with carbolic - but he told me that he went there as often as he could just to warn people about the deceptive parking situation because he knew dozens and dozens of people who had been ""trapped" and fleeced" by the place. Its such a shame its just hearsay and not admissible. He said he was sick of old ladies etc being frightened into paying £60 for a ticket when they went there probably to buy a £10 teddy for their great grandchild or something similar. 

BelladonnaTook

In trying to find the right info without hassling busy people on here, I'm more confused than ever.
CH yesterday (adjourned), only just sat down when judge said he only had 40 minutes until next case and ours would need at least 3 hours (?).

Anyway, there were no introductions so we had no idea who the judge was or who the legal rep was and by the time I realised I we could have asked the usher on our way out, it was too late, I was miles away
.
As the rep had approached us in the waiting area and was very chatty, I did ask him who he was but he evaded the question and just admitted that he wasn't the person who wrote the claimant's WS. I asked him if he was a solicitor and he put his head down, staring at the black screen of his phone and muttered "I'm counsel".

Counsel? Surely ViCiouS wouldn't send a barrister or an 'expert' solicitor for a small claim (unless it was an appeal)?  Flummoxed.
So if not a barrister or sol. must be a paralegal? Been trying to find a definite answer yet keep reading contradictory info on Rights of Audience. The 'official' info conflicts with other legal sites and its hard to tell how up to date even gov info is .

Then I read that it depends if its a public court or in 'chambers'.. and that if public, the rep has to be 'legally qualified' if the claimant not attending. Paralegals are qualified aren't they? Do they count? So much conflicting info out there and are legal execs the same a paralegals and do either have RoA?

Well it must have been a public court be the judge was behind his desk on a platform and there was room for for about fifty people in there.

And to really twist my already frazzled head, the judge seemed to know the rep Something puzzled me about what was said between them but that's another issue), so just before we got chucked out of the room, I thought, "well he must have RoA otherwise that exchange wouldn't have taken place...."

And after a bad night's sleep, I remembered the judge calling him, "Mr Secretary". hmm. Does that mean "Mr Legal Secretary perhaps?" And does a legal secretary have RoA? I looked that up to but keep coming up against Legalese all the time which doesn't help.

And whilst searching for answers, I came across this which is just a few days ago - https://www.legalcheek.com/2022/06/unqualified-advocates-are-allowed-to-appear-in-court-judge-rules/

Wow! CILEX judges!

Still none the wiser tho'   And when I read that some judges don't seem bothered about RoA rules anyway, I wonder what the rules are for then.

Not_A_Hope

I I wouldn't worry about the person representing the PPC. Whoever they were they were probably appointed by the PPC at the last minute and would know less than you do about the case. They will charge the PPC for their time so even though the case hasn't been heard yet it will have already hurt the scammers pocket.

A fair judge is the only person you need to be able to convince that the PCN was unfair.

Coupon-mad

Don't worry about rights of audience, nor that the rep has been there before and the Judge knew him.  You can't find out his name, and it might be a different rent-a-rep next time.

None of what happened at this hearing matters.  Sounds like this Judge just didn't fancy the case!