VCS Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LJLA) No Stopping Court Date

JustLooking90

Hi everyone,

I've been watching this forum over the past few months and it's been invaluable in challenging a PCN issued by VCS in 2018. Details of my journey so far are below:

- PCN sent to my address in Ireland in February 2018 for "46) Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited". CCTV images included of the driver dropping someone off. Car was stopped for 32 seconds. Double lines are visible, but the colour of lines and where they end aren't clear. Site location was listed as Liverpool John Lennon Airport. On the final reminder notice, the location is listed as PRIVATE LAND, then LJLA details. 

-The PCN and the final reminder were never received as I was not living at this address at the time. I have a tenancy agreement to prove this. The details on the DVLA were not updated at this point. 

-No letters until an LBC at my new address in Wirral in September 2021. For me, this was the first I knew about the PCN as I hadn't received the letters. This is when I started my research on this forum. At this point the fee was Debt of £160 (original PCN was £60), as well as £25 court fee. This was from Jake Burgess at VCS. 

- ELMS legal then began their interaction with me through Letters and emails from Phoebe Robbins. I requested a SAR which was provided. I offered them a payment of the original £60 AS A GESTURE OF GOODWILL, not as an acceptance of guilt. This was rejected. I then informed them I would be defending this claim. 

-Claim form was received on 29th December 2021 signed off by Edmund Shoreman-Lawson for a total of £245. 

- I submitted my defence on Money Claim Online in time, and rejected any offer of mediation. 

- Early this year, Jake Burgess sent a letter saying ELMS would no longer be acting on their behalf. 

- 6th March I received the letter informing me of court date in St Helens County Court, informing both parties to submit written evidence they wish to rely on by 23rd March at 4pm,

- Received email from Mohammed Wali from VCS Litigation department with the bundle for court, including his witness statement. He started working at the company in 2020. 

- I then received a separate letter from Ambreen Arshad from VCS, offering me a reduced settlement charge of £192.50. If I don't accept that, they warn me that they will be seeking an additional £220 in costs on the day of court, due to having to instruct a local solicitor to attend the hearing. If they receive this they will issue a discontinuance. 


SO, I'm trying to work out the key information I'll need to submit. In the witness statement I received, Mohammed Wali called it a "Red Herring" when I made a comment about the planning permission. He said it's "irrelevant as this does not affect any contract we have with the motorist."

Any advice would be appreciated. The court date is July 6th, and my bundle needs to be submitted by Wednesday 4pm this week. 

Thanks

Coupon-mad

Welcome!

Read other LJLA defence threads and particularly look at their WS and evidence.

Planning permission is not something to focus on.

Read the (non-Airport) WS by @jrhys (shows what a complete bundle and headings/exhibits looks like) and @ricky_balboa (a very recent one that includes the fact the Government banned pseudo debt recovery false exaggerated 'fees' in February).

Show us your defence, verbatim please.  We need to know what you can build on in your WS.

JustLooking90

@Coupon-mad Thank you for this! I'll have a look. Defence is below. I know it's very all over the place! 

Defence

1. I dispute your 'parking charge', as the keeper of the vehicle.
I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making
a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

2. The original notice from the company was never received as the
registered keeper no longer lived at the address in which that
notice was sent to (Refer to SAR). The registered keeper has proof
of living in a different address on the dates in question
(available on request).

3. The vehicle owner never knowingly entered into a legally
binding contract. No terms and conditions were made clear to the
vehicle owner, and so the vehicle owner could not have accepted.

4. The company and its legal team have also failed to provide any
sort of proof of planning permission granted for signage etc.
under the Town and County Planning Act 2007. The company and its
legal team have also failed to provide clear evidence of “terms
and conditions” being “clearly displayed” on the date in question.
Without this evidence it would be unfair to assume this signage
was there at the time.

5. The claimant’s legal team has rejected the offer of a peaceful
resolution (email evidence available on request).


6. The lack of clear signage at the time of the incident led to
the driver missing a turn off for the car park. This car park was
a rate of £3 for 10 minutes, which works out at 0.005 pence per
second. The length of time the driver stopped for, based on the
SAR evidence was 32 seconds. This would equate to 16 pence of lost
earnings by the claimant. The charge of £60 far outweighs the lost
earnings by this claimant. I would reference the Office of Fair
Trading who stated:

6.1 It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach
of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a
breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the
supplier is one kind of excessive penalty. Such a requirement
will, in any case, normally be void to the extent that it amounts
to a penalty under English common law. Other types of
disproportionate sanction are considered below – Part III, Group
18(c).

7. The Claimant has added a sum disingenuously described as
'damages/admin' or 'debt collection costs'. The added £100
constitutes more than double recovery and the court is invited to
review the quantum claimed is false and an abuse of process (see
transcript of the Approved judgment in Britannia Parking v Crosby
(Southampton Court 11.11.19)). That case was not appealed and the
decision stands.

8. Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the
same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien
case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the
other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The
Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient
information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case
(the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence
was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it
for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been
summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.

9. The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that
costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had
already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre
Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case
ParkingEye v Somerfield (ref para 419):
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html ''It seems
to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for
ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for
payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point
that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75
constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show
that the additional administrative costs involved were
substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able
to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of
it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of
this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from
breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75
within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye
for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the
Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be
penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those
circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party
would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of
the primary obligation.''

10. This stopped ParkingEye from using that business model
again, particularly because HHJ Hegarty had found them to have
committed the 'tort of deceit' by their debt demands. So, the
Beavis case only considered an £85 parking charge but was clear at
paras 98, 193 and 198 that the rationale of that inflated sum
(well over any possible loss/damages) was precisely because it
included (the Judges held, three times) 'all the costs of the
operation'. It is an abuse of process to add sums that were not
incurred. Costs must already be included in the parking charge
rationale if a parking operator wishes to base their model on the
ParkingEye v Beavis case and not a damages/loss model. This
Claimant can't have both.

11. This Claimant knew or should have known, that by adding
£100 in costs over and above the purpose of the 'parking charge'
to the global sum claimed is unrecoverable, due to the POFA at
4(5), the Beavis case paras 98, 193 and 198 (exhibit - xx-10), the
earlier ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield High Court case and the
Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA') Sch 2, paras 6, 10 and 14. All of
those seem to be breached in my case and the claim is pleaded on
an incorrect premise with a complete lack of any legitimate
interest.

12. The precedent has been set, therefore, that because the
£100 of charges/fees appears unlawful, that this voids the entire
claim, and so the original £60 fine should also become void.

Statement of Truth
I believe that the facts stated in this defence are true. I
understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought
against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement
in a document verified by a statement of truth without an
honest belief in its truth.

 

Signed

I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true

XXXXXX

13/01/2022

I have received the Witness statement from VCS who responds to some of these points directly, but 'Notes' others. 

Cheers

Coupon-mad

OK, not bad and certainly covers unclear signage.

If the car stopped for 30 seconds, was this on a red line?

Does the evidence show passengers getting in or out?

Fruitcake

Coupon-mad said:

OK, not bad and certainly covers unclear signage.

If the car stopped for 30 seconds, was this on a red line?

Does the evidence show passengers getting in or out?

From the OP's first post,

"CCTV images included of the driver dropping someone off. Car was stopped for 32 seconds. Double lines are visible, but the colour of lines and where they end aren't clear"

Is there any mileage in the fact that the OPs address for service was in Ireland when the alleged event occurred?

Coupon-mad

Is there any mileage in the fact that the OPs address for service was in Ireland when the alleged event occurred?

Not if they've now been served at an English address where they are living.

JustLooking90

Coupon-mad said:

OK, not bad and certainly covers unclear signage.

If the car stopped for 30 seconds, was this on a red line?

Does the evidence show passengers getting in or out?

Unfortunately it shows the driver and passenger getting out, the driver retrieving a suitcase from the boot and getting back in and driving off. There are two lines, hard to tell whether they're red or yellow, or where the lines actually end. Car could be stopped just after the lines if that makes sense. VCS have sent the usual aerial views of their lines etc but they haven't pin pointed where the offence took place. Is it worth posting an image on here but cover the car, driver etc? 

DisruptiveLad

VCS have NO authority outside of car parks at LJLA. Established by myself in January and in court on March 10 by another forumite.

D_P_Dance

If I don't accept that, they warn me that they will be seeking an additional £220 in costs on the day of court, due to having to instruct a local solicitor to attend the hearing. If they receive this they will issue a discontinuance. 

Nonsense.  Even if you lost, which is unlikely, the maximum you would have to pay is unlikely to exceed £200. They are tryingto scare you. 

JustLooking90

D_P_Dance said:

If I don't accept that, they warn me that they will be seeking an additional £220 in costs on the day of court, due to having to instruct a local solicitor to attend the hearing. If they receive this they will issue a discontinuance. 

Nonsense.  Even if you lost, which is unlikely, the maximum you would have to pay is unlikely to exceed £200. They are tryingto scare you. 

Yes I’m not bothered by their threats at all. I think the best points for my witness statement are:
-legality of Vcs issuing pcn outside of a car park
-inconclusive images - unclear whether red lines are there, and there is no location stamp so they could have been taken anywhere. 

-Images do not show the signage they claim is clear to all drivers

would you all agree?

DisruptiveLad

VCS have NO authority to issue these demands OUTSIDE of a car park at LJLA.