VCS LJLA 'Stopping PCN' - got to small claims court before seeing this forum

mcan541908

Hello all,

 

Unfortunately, I only recently found this forum and so have already reached the small claims court for the second time, after a go at mediation.

 

This relates to a PCN-NTK for 'Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited' at Liverpool John Lennon Airport issued by VCS on 31/12/2018.

 

Also unfortunately, I have already admitted that I was the driver.

 

Fortunately, I have treated VCS and their accomplices as villains all the way through, so have not 'paid up', so far!

 

Sadly, having now read through the vast amount of valuable guidance and information here, I can confirm that I am clearly a complete amateur at this; and so would really appreciate any help that anyone here can give to me.

 

I appreciate that you are all very busy and that VCS may well have 'spies in the camp' so I am not sure what information to provide here or what (redacted) documents are worth you seeing - I can see that debt collector letters are not worth posting but what about the rest?

 

Probably best if I begin by listing out here the series of documents I have received / sent and setting out the questions that immediately come to mind, here goes . . :

 

1. I received a PCN / NTK from VCS dated 31/12/2018, Contravention date: 20/12/2018 at 06:56, Charge £100, Contravention 46) 'Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited' - this contained 3 photos showing my car stopped for 34 seconds on a two lane dual carriageway, brake lights on, no red lines visible, 2 passengers taking cases out of car boot.

 

2. The PCN arrived in the post on 5th January 2019, literally just as I was leaving the house to embark on a 7 months low budget backpacking trip. I stuck it in my backpack with the other mail and opened it a few days later in a budget hotel in Sri Lanka and could not easily respond or communicate with VCS. No contact details were provided by VCS so I contacted them, 'without prejudice',  through their online response system;  I informed them that I was not submitting an appeal and rejected their claim outright and that I did not intend to respond any further to their request for a payment of £60 or £100. I informed them that I would be happy to enter a full discussion with them on my return to the UK in August.  I invited them to email me at cantwellma54@outlook.com  if they wished to do this.

 

3. I received an email from Excel Parking Services Limited on 30/01/2019 to which was attached a letter from VCS.  This letter 'rejected my appeal' (even though I hadn't made an appeal) and said I could 'pay up' or appeal to IAS.  No surprise then.

 

4. After a bit of internet searching, I concluded that IAS was just a parking trade body and not likely to be worth the effort (thankfully, you've confirmed this on here), so I did no more.  VCS continuing their normal process and, when I arrived home on 05/08/2019 (despite having told them that I would not be at this address) I found in my stack of mail the following . . :

 

5. A VCS 'demand for payment' for £160.00 (including 'debt collection charges' of £60), dated 28/02/2019.  This was followed by: (jump to 15. to get past debt collector stuff) . . :

 

6. A DRP Ltd 'debt reminder letter' dated 23/04/2019,

 

7. A DRP Ltd 'notice of intended court action' letter, dated 08/05/2019,

 

8. A DRP Ltd 'final settlement offer (£144)', dated 23/05/2019,

 

9. A Zenith Collections 'notice of debt recovery assignment'  letter containing a 'discounted settlement offer (£136)', dated 10/06/2019,

 

10. A Zenith 'Notice of intention to commence legal proceedings' letter containing a 'discounted settlement offer (£160?)', dated 01/07/2019.  This was all much as I had expected (having had previous experience of a disputed rail ticket debt and a disputed mobile phone debt in the distant past ) - I ignored them and heard nothing more for a while, eventually thinking they had finally given up.  Unfortunately, not the case, some time later (probably prompted by covid loss of business) I received . . :

 

11. A dcbl 'notice of debt recovery (£160)' letter, dated 10/06/2021,

 

12. A dcbl 'final reminder (£160)' letter, dated 01/07/2021,

 

13. A dcbl 'final notice of debt recovery (£160)' letter, dated 30/07/2021,

 

14. A dcbl 'Notice of intended court action (£160)' letter, dated 31/08/2021.  VCS Legal Department then sprang into action issuing . . :

 

15. A Letter before claim (£160), dated 13/09/2021, indicating that court costs of £25 and interest would next be added and attaching an 'Information Sheet' and a 'Reply Form'.  This is where my 'amateur status came into play - I also ignored this!  This was followed by . . :

 

16. An Elms Legal 'notice of instruction / debt recovery letter (£160)', dated 18/10/2021.  Then came the serious stuff . . :

 

17. A claim form from Northampton CCBC, dated 24/11/2021, claiming £245 including court fee and legal rep costs, naming VCS, Elms legal and me, .  This, for the first time informed me that VCS thought they had a contract with me and were now claiming 'breach of contract' - I thought this was complete nonsense, as I knew absolutely nothing about any contract, until now!

 

18. I responded as required through moneyclaim.gov.uk with the AOS, then received . . :

 

19. A 'notice of proposed allocation to the small claims track from Northampton CCBC, dated 02/12/2021.

 

20. I responded as required through moneyclaim.gov.uk with a Defence.  Unfortunately, my defence was very much a 'laymans' approach, pretty much repeating what I had said to VCS in my original response to the PCN / NTK.  I thought the judge, being the expert, would automatically see through the 'fake contract' issue, I didn’t want to be seen as 'teachng grandmother to suck eggs', as it were, by lecturing the judge in his area of expertise.  So, not realising that I would have to point it out to the judge for him to be able to consider it, I didn’t address it.  I also ticked the box for mediation.  In the interim, this prompted . . :

 

21. A VCS 'notice of change of legal representative' (back to VCS Legal) and a ‘litigant resolution, reduced settlement charge (£185) offer' letter, dated 08/12/2021

 

22. I responded in a letter to VCS, dated 21/12/2021, rejecting their claim of having a contract with me (i.e. I was not aware of entering private land before actually entering it, I had  no intention of being legally bound to any agreement, no offer was received, I couldn't stop to read signs, hence not aware of any T&C, I had no intention to accept an offer and there was no acceptance of an offer, I was not aware of any consideration on either side and I made no promise to pay anything or to do anything or to not do anything).  I rejected their offer of £185 and made a litigant resolution counter offer saying I would reduce my claim for compensation for harassment from £245 to £185.  Next . . :

 

23.  I received the relevant emails from the mediation service and mediation took place by telephone on 20/01/2022.  No agreement could be reached.

 

24. I received a notice of transfer of proceedings, dated 28/02/2022 from CCBC, Liverpool.

 

25. I received a Notification of allocation to the small claims track (Hearing), dated 06/04/2022, to be held in the Liverpool CC on 01/07/2022.  The court fee of £27 is to be paid by 4.00 pm on 04/05/2022.  Documentary evidence, including witness statements, is to be submitted to court and all parties no later than 14 days before the hearing (so, by 17/05/2022).

 

And that is where I am now up to. . . . .

 

My key questions at this moment:

 

Q1. Can I submit an expanded defence reflecting all your guidance here to replace the one I originally submitted through moneyclaim.gov.uk at point 20. above?

 

Q2. The template defence and witness statement in ‘newbies’ seem to relate to car park / parking PCNs – to what extent does a stopping PCN require different or additional material (text and / or exhibits) to be included in the Defence and WS; and are there different templates available for stopping PCNs?

 

Q3. It looks like the generic ‘Abuse of process’ point is still the major defence point to make – is this correct?

 

Q4. I feel that the ‘ . . I can’t read the signs whilst driving . . /  . . . there is no contract . . ‘ points are at least major secondary points to make, is this correct, and if so, what material should be used?

 

Q5. Although the no stopping and the direction signage currently on Google Maps Street view looks a bit different from what I recall at the time, I feel that VCS poor signage is also a secondary major point to make – is there any material specific to LJLA signage that I should include?

 

Q6. As a layman, is it likely that I will be able to tackle this myself in court or do I need professional help?

 

Q7. Is it still worthwhile complaining directly to the Airport itself as, if they do cave, I’ve no chance of recovering any research and other wasted time costs / expenses through the court?

I’ll start by preparing draft Defence and Witness Statements now based on the ‘parking’ templates.  Would you let me know what further information / copy documents I can best post here for you to be able to help me, assuming that you can / will help? 

 

Thanks in advance.

mcan541908

Quick follow up -

Q8. Should I respond to any private messages I receive in response to this.  Aware that VCS may have 'spies in the camp' - might they try to mislead me through PMs - how do I know who I can trust?

Coupon-mad

You can't change your defence.

So draft a WS but base it on the recent first one by @ricky_balboa and you can then edit it (remove stuff not applicable to your case, such as if he denies driving in his WS) and instead include everything you've read about LJLA issues of lack of landowner authority and the fact their photos do not show any double red 'no stopping' lines, so it is believed this event was not within any VCS controlled zone.

To see what the whole bundle looks like, also read the WS thread by @jrhys from last year because he showed his exhibit list and cover sheet, costs, headings, the whole bundle.

The reason for using ricky's newer WS as your base snd not jrhys' is because the Government has banned fake debt recovery add-ons in February snd ricky's WS includes words about why that matters even to existing PCNs.

BTW the contract was formed by the signs - a driver is deemed bound by them and doesn't have to physically 'agree' - but it will be VCS' job to show they were clear and readable from a car (and that you were within a clearly marked no stopping area that they are authorised to infest).

fisherjim

Regulars will know who you can trust you don't, keep this to an open forum without giving away personal details

mcan541908

Thanks for advice so far.

I have completed a first draft redacted witness statement with the following content:

Content	Page number
Witness Statement	2 – 13
·         Sequence of events and signage, para. 3 ·         Current signage shown on Google ‘Streetview’, para. 12 ·         Events after leaving the airport, para. 23 ·         Summary of reasons why claim is denied, para. 31 ·         Key additional supporting points to be considered, para. 32 ·         ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished, para. 43 ·         Consumer Rights Act breaches, para. 44 ·         Abuse of process, para. 46 ·         Lack of landowner authority evidence and lack of ADR, para. ·         CPR 44.11 - further costs, para. 49 ·         My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14, para. 50	2 4 6 7 8 10 11 11 11 12 12
Exhibits
XX-01 First sign seen . . on approaching LJL Airport along Speke Hall Avenue  (photo)	14
XX-02 Overhead gantry and associated road markings . . on approach to the airport (photo)	15
XX-03 The road signs  . .  giving a plan view of the roundabout on Speke Hall Road (photo)	16
XX-04 The view  . .  from the roundabout showing 2nd and 3rd exits on the sign actually merged into a single exit on the ground (photo)	17
XX-05 The collection of destination signs . . at the 3rd exit (photo)	18
XX-06 Pictures . . of the exit which I used from the roundabout (photo)	19
XX-07  Pictures  . . of the

 view that I would have had from the position in which I stopped my car, looking through the windscreen, over the bonnet of my car. (photo)

 

20

XX-08  Extract from cases ‘Parking Control Management (UK) v Bull 2016’ and ‘Pace v Lengyel’

 

21

XX-09  The ‘Excel vs Wilkinson’ transcript

 

22- 31

XX-10  Extracts from ParkingEye Limited v Beavis – Paragraphs 98, 193, and 198

31-33

XX-11   Defendants schedule of costs                          

34

. . . and the following 'Summary of reasons why the claim is denied':

31.         As there are several reasons why I deny the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, it is worthwhile, for convenience, to summarise them here and then to provide more detail on each reason below.  There are six reasons:

 

a.       I deny that any contractual agreement arose as a result of me driving to the airport with the sole intention of using a free drop off zone at the airport (a free drop off zon which the Claimant’s client, LJLA, has promoted in local newspapers and on local radio).  It was not my intention to use a paid car park nor to stop in a ‘no stopping’ zone for a charge of £100 or indeed to stop anywhere except in the free drop off zone (or, of course, when essential for safety reasons e.g. at a junction, roundabout or a zebra crossing etc.).  Hence, I had no need of a contract for such activity and no intention to enter into such a contract.  I was not aware of any offer and I most certainly was not aware of the terms or conditions of any proposed agreement. I had no intention to, and did not, accept any offer and I definitely had no intention of being legally bound to any agreement of the type now suggested.  I am not aware of any consideration on either side. I did not promise to pay anything, to do anything or not to do anything. There is no mention of a contract, or a breach of contract, in the PCN NTK. 

 

b.      Further, the signs in place here (see Exhibit-xx-01) are similar in content to those referred to by District Judge Glen in ‘Parking Control Management (UK) v Bull 2016’ and District Judge Iyer in ‘Pace v Lengyel’ (see further details in Exhibit-xx-08), except that they refer to ‘no stopping’ rather than ‘no parking’.  I deny, on similar grounds to those stated in these two cases, that the signs in place here could form the basis of a contract.

 

c.       Additionally, I deny that there was any contractual agreement because, as a judge found in a County Court case as recently as 10/03/2022 (as reported here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333503/vcs-liverpool-airport-no-stopping/p2 ) VCS didn’t have the authority to impose fines on the land surrounding LJLA.  The same source also reports that ‘the land is not private, the red lines are illegal and that VCS breached the airport's own parking Ts and Cs’ at the time, as they were only authorised to operate within car parking areas.  I have not had time yet to obtain evidence from VCS contradicting any of these additional points, but I will seek it before the court date and would ask that VCS present any such evidence at court if it is available.

d.      Even if, somehow, there is as contract - which I deny, I further deny any responsibility for the claimed breach of the contract – I was attempting to follow the directional signage in place at the airport to reach the free drop off zone.  As demonstrated above, the signage lacks clarity, in parts is unreadable whilst driving, is ambiguous, contains conflicting information and is overall very confusing.  So much so that I ended up on the approach road to a paid car park rather than at a free drop off zone, unsure as to whether I was in a no stopping zone and had only one option which was to stop – all due to the poor signage, which is the complainant’s responsibility.

e.      Even if, somehow, it is determined there is as contract and a claimed breach of the contract - which I deny, I further deny that I am liable for the additional £60 added to the PCN by the claimant.  HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit xx-09) went into great detail about the situation concerning added sums in cases like this one and determined that they are unfair, unrecoverable or double recovery and not allowed; also that it is an abuse of the court’s process for the claimant to add them.

f.        HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit xx-09) went on to say in paragraphs 41 – 44 that abuses like these, by serial complainants like these, if they were to continue, needed to be responded to in the most serious manner by being struck out in their entirety and, on this basis, this entire claim should be struck out.  It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I submit that my costs in respect of wasted time/costs in dealing with this matter should be awarded by the court if the case continues to trial (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance), pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

I have uploaded a pdf of the full WS to Dropbox - but cannot post links here yet.

It seems rather long - is this normal?  I would welcome any comments on recommended changes to be made.

My key question: Is there any case law to support points a. or d.?

Kind regards

Coupon-mad

Numbering is s bit weird, seems to go from 22 to 31 (twice?)

Our WS are long, yes, but you haven't got anything there telling the Judge about the DLUHC banning debt recovery fake costs in February, or rebutting the case law VCS will spout, such as VCS v Percy, VCS v Ward and Vine v Waltham Forest.

Have a look at the first WS by @ricky_balboa which covers the things you are missing.  And search the forum for Vine v Waltham Forest ratio to see what @Johnersh said about the misleading quote VCS throw in from that old case, that the consumer won!

Don't include a link to a forum thread.  A Judge will not read it and it's not evidence, it's hearsay.

mcan541908

Thanks Coupon-mad for your response.

Strange, I checked this thread every day last week but Coupon-mad's response only just appeared last night?

I don't follow the comment about the numbering?  For the avoidance of doubt, I have inserted only two extracts from my WS in the post above - one is the contents page to provide an idea of what is in my WS and the second is a summary of the main points of denial of claim, to provide an overview.  In my full WS, I  have mostly followed the content of the  @ricky_balboa example WS, including mention of DLUHC at my paras. 33 - 38 and the Percy and Ward cases you mention (see my para 39).  I don't recall seeing the Vine case before, will look it up.

I will delete the link to the forum, as Coupon-mad suggested.  Does anyone know what case was being referred to in that thread (' a judge found in a County Court case as recently as 10/03/2022 that VCS didn’t have the authority to impose fines on the land surrounding LJLA' (as reported here: without the https)    /forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333503/vcs-liverpool-airport-no-stopping/p2

As I mentioned in my previous post, my full redacted WS is in Dropbox - but I cannot post a link to it in here yet - it is here (without the https:  /www.dropbox.com/s/81eovmdncy7exmu/My%20first%20draft%20witness%20statement%20redacted.pdf?dl=0 , if someone could you post the link, please?

Would you let me know what further information / copy documents I can best post here or in dropbox for you to be able to help me?

Are there any pros and cons in terms of timing of submission of the WS to the court and VCS and timing of letters to LJLA and to VCS (which I have drafted following 'Disruptive-Lads' guidance).  VCS are due to pay the court fee by 4th May.  Court date is 1st June.

mcan541908

I just noticed on another thread that the OP has simply inserted the full text of their draft WS in a post - I didn't think that would work but tried and was told it was too long - so will post it in several sections - hope it makes it easy for people to view, here goes (contents, cover page and exhibit graphics are not included, of course.  Any comments / suggestions for improvement are welcome):

WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT

FOR HEARING ON xx/xx/xxxx

 

1.         I am Mr xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.

 

2.         In my statement I shall refer to exhibits within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence, which was prepared months ago, and was written very much in naïve layman’s terms, is repeated here but, to assist the court, is added to with further relevant information that I have gleaned from researching the topic area and I will say as follows:

 

Sequence of events and signage

 

3.         My daughter asked me to drop off her and her boyfriend at Liverpool John Lennon Airport for an early morning flight to Dublin on 20th December 2018.  Before going to the airport, I looked up ‘drop off’ arrangements at Liverpool John Lennon Airport on the internet. I saw in a local newspaper article that the airport had developed a very bad reputation for mistreating the public and their customers with respect to parking prices and charging for dropping off passengers and, in response to this, had recently introduced a special ‘free drop off zone’ as a PR exercise – it was my intention to use the free drop off zone (and I was under the impression that I had used it, until the PCN arrived).

 

4.         I had visited several international airports around the world in the years prior to this incident and found from experience that drop off arrangements typically involve a stretch of road with multiple lanes, sometimes with a lay-by, in front of the departures terminal – this is what I was expecting to find at LJLA.  I had not tried to use a drop off / pick up facility at LJLA previously. It was early in the morning and still dark when I approached the airport.

 

5.         I approached the airport on Speke Hall Avenue, a two lane dual carriageway which is a public highway.  As I recalled when I was first obliged to make notes about this incident (some time later, in January 2019) , part way along a stretch of the dual carriageway, I suddenly came across signs in the grass verge at the roadside saying ‘No Stopping’, ‘£100 penalty if you stop’, plus other much smaller text (unreadable whilst driving past in a moving vehicle at speed).  The signs didn’t say where exactly stopping was prohibited – was it on the grass verge adjacent to the road, or in the grass central reservation, or on the paved footpath next to the grass verge, or on the road itself, or all of them – there was no way of knowing.

 

6.         I wasn’t overly concerned about these signs as I was heading for the free drop off zone and didn’t want to stop anywhere else.  Of course, I would have stopped at those places where it would be a necessity (e.g. for safety reasons or to comply with the Highway Code, i.e. at junctions, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings) but I’d say this was a background assumption, not a live thought, at the time. There was certainly no opportunity to turn around at this point on a dual carriageway, nor to stop and read the signs in detail.  Also, I can say with certainty, I most definitely did not have any thoughts at the time that I had entered into a contract with anyone.

 

7.         I recall seeing some directional signs for the free drop off zone on the approach to the airport which indicated that I should turn right up ahead, although I did not recall in detail any specific signs.  At the roundabout I took the exit at the 3-o-clock position, typically, a right turn at a roundabout.  Surprisingly, given my expectations for a ‘drop-off zone’, this was heading in a direction away from the airport terminal.  Taking the exit at the 3-o-clock position, I entered a short stretch of dual carriageway.  I don’t recall seeing any signs at the beginning of this short section of 2 lane dual carriageway to indicate ‘No stopping’ or ‘£100 charge for stopping’.

 

8.         Immediately on entering the short stretch of dual carriageway on a short, sharp bend off the roundabout, I could see that the road ahead was blocked by what appeared to be a car park access barrier – not what I was expecting!  Anxious as I was about LJLA’s reputation for abuse of people when parking / dropping off their customers, I did not want to enter a barrier controlled car park, which I associated with exorbitant charges - I did not want to go through the barrier.  I don’t recall there being any sign I could see from my position to indicate what was beyond the control barrier and certainly no sign to indicate that it gave access to the free drop off zone I was seeking.   I could not see any other signs to say where the free drop off zone was.  I could not see any road markings at all through the windscreen ahead of me, there were no red lines visible. The only exit from this position that I could see was a short break in the central reservation of the dual carriageway (with dropped kerbs, as e.g. with a driveway entrance) just to my right, which would facilitate a ‘U’ turn.  

 

9.         This is where I believed LJLA’s signage had directed me to for the free drop off zone, the only assumption I could make was that the short length of dual carriageway was the drop off zone – an odd arrangement I thought, very amateurish, very uncertain, not sign posted, but I didn’t have much time to think about it, so I stopped – I had no other reasonable choice!  I recall saying to my daughter, ‘this must be it, out you go’.  So, I dropped off my daughter and her boyfriend, taking less than a minute (as confirmed by the PCN photos) and drove away.

 

10.      Certainly, if I had intended to stop in a no stopping zone and risk paying a £100 charge, then I would have driven much closer to the airport terminal to do it.  That was definitely not my intention!

 

11.      The above is my recollection from mid-January 2019.  It is possible to view the current signage on the airport approach using the Google maps ‘streetview’ facility – I don’t know if the signage on there has been amended since the incident (perhaps VCS could tell us and provide evidence of what was there at the time?  I have asked them for this information).  I have set out below what you can currently see on ‘streetview’, although there is no admission on my part that this is what I saw at the time, I simply can’t remember and couldn’t remember back in January 2019:

 

Current signage shown on Google ‘Streetview’ (mostly has an upload date of 21/04/2021)

 

12.      Approximately 5 metres after passing the junction with Dunlop Road on Speke Hall Avenue, ‘streetview’ pictures show that the double yellow lines at the kerb change to double red lines.  However, there is no indication of what the double red lines are intended to indicate.  After about a further 10 metres a sign as shown in Exhibit-xx-01 appears on each side of the road.  They indicate ‘No stopping’,  ‘£100 Charge for stopping’ (my recollection was ‘penalty’ rather than ‘charge’ – but I could have been mistaken), ‘Traffic compliance cameras’, ‘Private Land’ and in much smaller text something about vehicle keeper details being requested and VCS’s role in managing the site.  I can’t see anything on there about a contract being formed or any mention of T&Cs, even if I could have read it all, whilst driving, in the dark, which is unlikely.  It definitely doesn’t say to me now (and it didn’t back in 2018) ‘you are entering into a contract’.  I will address the point of whether a contract is formed, or not, in more detail later (see paragraphs 31-38).

 

13.      The next sign of relevance currently on ‘Streetview’ is an overhead gantry indicating destinations for three lanes, together with 2 left-turn arrows and 1 right-turn arrow painted on the road surface just beyond, as shown in Exhibit-xx-02 – these give the impression that you are approaching a ‘T junction’.  The right hand lane is indicated as being required for ‘Drop off zone 2’, which is the free drop off zone, my intended destination.  The arrow painted on the road indicates a right hand turn, which aligns with my recollection of the information I followed.  In fact, you soon discover, it is not a ‘T junction’ you are approaching but a roundabout.

 

14.      You can also see in Exhibit-xx-02 that the double red lines continue right up to the roundabout; and so they cannot possibly mean ‘no stopping’, as you would surely have to stop and give way if there was traffic on the roundabout!  There is still no sign indicating what the red lines mean.

 

15.      The next signs of relevance currently on ‘Streetview’ are shown at Exhibit-xx-03.  They are located in the central reservation just after the gantry and quite near to the roundabout and each shows a plan view of a roundabout and its exits – both of these signs come up quickly after the overhead gantry and each is partially hidden by a tree at the important right-hand side as you approach it.  Also, you are fast approaching the roundabout as you come to the signs so it is not easy to ‘study’ them whilst concentrating on the road, on moving to the outside lane for a right turn and driving safely. 

 

16.      The roundabout plan view signs are confusing and misleading in that the first of them shows two major exits (a 90 degree left turn and 270 degree right turn, which matches the information on the gantry and in the arrows on the road) and three minor exits; it is not clear what these are intended to indicate (driveways, property entrances or roads?), one of them has a no entry symbol next to it.  It is not clear which of the destinations listed relate to which exits, especially at a quick glance if you have no time to study them.  One interpretation (if all 5 exits are in play for destinations) is that Drop off 2 requires the 4th exit; another interpretation (if only the two major exits are in play for destinations) is that Drop off 2 requires the 2nd major exit, a 270 degree right turn or the 5th exit overall.

 

17.      An added difficulty is that the signs do not accurately reflect the actual situation you encounter on the ground as you navigate the roundabout – as exits 2 and 3 on the diagrams on the signs are actually merged into a single physical exit from the roundabout (see Exhibit-xx-04).  Of course, it is not easy to discern this as you are driving around the roundabout.  What this means is that the 4th exit is also the 270 degree right turn – i.e. the exit that I used.

 

18.      Current ‘Streetview’ pictures show some further relevant signs actually on the roundabout, although again I do not recall specifically seeing any of them there at the time of the alleged incident. The first of these is a sign, located just after the 2nd (merged) exit, indicating ‘Drop off 2’ with an arrow directing you further around the roundabout to the right (as shown in Exhibit-xx-04).  The second sign is a collection of destination signs at the 3rd exit including one for ‘Drop off 2’ – however, this sign is high up at the top of the collection, is in a small font on a dark background.  You will see it is unreadable even in daylight (and probably worse at night) compared to the ‘Zebra Crossing’ sign near to it – I do not recall seeing this sign at the time and challenge VCS to prove in court it was there and readable from a moving car at night.

 

19.      Pictures currently on ‘Streetview’ of the exit which I took from the roundabout show that there  are no signs as in Exhibit-xx-01 displaying ‘No Stopping’, ‘£100 Charge if you stop’ etc. as you exit from the roundabout at this location, see Exhibit-xx-06.  There are red lines there but again no sign indicating what the red lines mean.  You will see in the second picture at Exhibit-xx-06 that the red lines actually extend over a, rather faded, zebra crossing – so surely they cannot mean ‘no stopping’ as you would have to stop if someone was on, or about to step onto, the zebra crossing!

 

20.      The view that I would have had, looking through the windscreen, over the bonnet of my car, from the position in which I stopped my car, is shown at Exhibit-xx-07 using a current ‘Streetview’ image (although it was dark at the time).  The car park control barriers are visible, as are ‘P’ symbols on the signs next to them (but only just, in daylight), but the text would be unreadable at this distance.  No red lines would be visible from this position – the only, rather faint, road markings visible are ‘straight ahead’ arrows painted on the road.

 

21.      In summary, as I approached the airport, I gleaned from the signage that I needed to take a 270 degree right-hand turn at the roundabout to get to the free drop of zone I was seeking. If the current directional signage was in place at the time that would not have been, I argue, an unreasonable conclusion to reach, given that the signage is ambiguous, conflicting, inaccurate and not easily read when driving a moving vehicle at night. I followed those directions up to the point where I could reasonably go no further and had no alternative but to stop where I did.  It is not even clear that the location is within a no stopping, £100 charge zone.

 

mcan541908

Part 2 . . . of full WS

Events after leaving the airport.

 

22.      I’d retired in 2018 and on 5th January 2019 I was due to depart via Manchester Airport for a 7 month, round-the-world, budget back-packing trip with my wife.  Literally, as we were leaving the house and getting into the car, the postman arrived with some post for me, which I put into a pocket in my back-back.  I opened the post a few days later in Sri Lanka and, to my great shock, one of the items was a Parking Charge Notice, Notice to Keeper from Vehicle Control Services (see Exhibit-xx-11) for allegedly ‘Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited’ at Liverpool John Lennon Airport, L24 1YD on 20/12/2018 at 06:56.  There is no mention of a contract, or a breach of contract, on the PCN NTK.

 

23.      The PCN contained three digital images of the car showing brake lights on and pictures of my daughter and her boyfriend with their suitcases.  There is no indication of location, although it looks like the one described in paragraph 21 above.  There are no photos of signs indicating ‘no stopping’, ‘£100 charge’ etc., no photos of signs mentioning a contract, T&Cs of a contract, what offer is made, how an offer is to be accepted or rejected or of extra charges for breaches of contract – no photos of signs at all.  The pictures simply show my car and two passengers being dropped off at a free drop off zone, all as intended. 

 

24.      I sent VCS a note via their online system challenging and rejecting the PCN, explaining why I rejected it and explaining that I would be out of the country for seven months and that I would be happy to enter into a full discussion with them on my return.  I gave them an email address and asked them to email me if they wished to do this.  I never received such an email.  I did receive an email from Excel Parking Services Limited on 30/01/2019 to which was attached a letter from VCS.  This letter 'rejected my appeal' (even though I hadn't made an appeal) and said I could 'pay up' or appeal to IAS.

 

25.      After some internet research, I concluded that IAS was just a parking trade body, not impartial and not likely to be worth the effort (I’ve seen it confirmed in several places since that it is a ‘kangaroo court’, almost always rejecting appeals), so I did no more.

 

26.      Despite me telling them that I would not be at the address they had used for 7 months, VCS continued mail there and, when I arrived home on 5th August 2019  I found in my stack of mail a further demand for payment from VCS for £160 (the original £100 charge plus ‘Debt collection costs’ of £60.  There were also 6 ‘debt collector’ letters.

 

27.      I thought this was all a ‘scam’ intended to frighten people into paying up unjustified charges and that the only place to settle this would be in court; so, I did nothing and waited for court papers.  My view has been reinforced recently by reference to several online discussion forums which refer to court cases where VCS claims were struck down by the Judge, (including:

·          https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5344788/liverpool-airport-stopping-fine,

·         http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t139952.html,

·         http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/01/vcs-spanked-in-court-as-motorist-and.html)

 

28.      I heard nothing more for almost two years and assumed VCS had ‘given up’.  However, the ‘debt collector’ letters recommenced in June 2021, there were 4 of them each demanding £160, followed by a ‘letter before claim’ from VCS (again demanding payment of £160) and then a ‘notice of instruction’  from ELMS Legal (again demanding payment of the £160) .

 

29.      A County Court Claim Form was issued on 24th November 2021 with a claim for recovery of ‘the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest, totalling £160’ – NOTE: this is different from the earlier VCS ‘Demand for Payment’ (and subsequent demands) which was issued for the ‘PCN of £100 plus Debt Collection costs’ of £60, totalling £160.  The claim also stated, for the first time that I had seen, that VCS are of the opinion that they have a contract with me and that I am in breach of it. I deny both of these points (see below).

Summary of reasons why claim is denied

 

30.      As there are several reasons why I deny the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, it is worthwhile, for convenience, to summarise them here and then to provide more detail on the reasons below.  There are SIX reasons:

 

31.      (ONE) I deny that any contractual agreement arose as a result of me driving to the airport with the sole intention of using a free drop off zone at the airport (a free drop off zone which the Claimant’s client, LJLA, had promoted in local newspapers and on local radio).  It was not my intention to use a paid car park nor to stop in a ‘no stopping’ zone for a charge of £100, or indeed to stop anywhere except in the free drop off zone (or, of course, when necessary, e.g. for safety reasons at a junction, roundabout or a zebra crossing etc.).  Hence, I had no need of a contract for such activity and no intention to enter into such a contract.  Also:

 

·         I was not aware of any offer,

·         I most certainly was not aware of the terms or conditions of any proposed agreement,

·         I had no intention to, and did not, accept any offer,

·         I definitely had no intention of being legally bound to any agreement of the type now suggested.

·         I am not aware of any consideration on either side. I did not promise to pay anything or to do anything.

·         There is no mention in the signage or in the PCN NTK of a contract, T&Cs, a breach of contract or its consequences, or any extra charges.

 

32.      So, it is denied that the Defendant entered into any contractual agreement with the Claimant, whether express, implied, or by conduct.  The Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise.

 

33.      (TWO)  There is the question of whether the signs in place at the time could be read effectively by someone who is not expecting them and is driving past at speed, at night.

In this respect, a useful publication from the Department of Transport, 'Determination of x-height' and an analysis of this topic applied to the signs at LJLA, is provided here: https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2015/04/vehicle-control-systems-signage-at.html, with the conclusion that the signs cannot be effectively read by someone driving by.

 

The Claimant is put to strict proof of (a) what signs were in place at the time and (b) an analysis to demonstrate if and how they comply with the Department of Transport publication and could be effectively read by the driver of a moving vehicle and at night.

 

34.      Binding Court of Appeal authorities which are on all fours with a case involving unclear terms and a lack of ‘adequate notice’ of an onerous parking charge, would include:

                                 i.            Spurling v Bradshaw [1956] 1 WLR 461 (the ‘red hand rule’ case) and

                               ii.            Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd  [1970] EWCA Civ 2,     

 

both leading authorities confirming that an unseen/hidden clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded; and

                              iii.            Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest: CA 5 Apr 2000,

 

where the Court of Appeal held that it was unsurprising that the appellant did not see the sign  ''in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space''.  The Claimant is renowned for bringing other false, vexatious cases, such as this one and is known in such cases to utilize Vine v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2000] EWCA to support their claim and to attempt to mislead courts by quoting out of context from Roch LJ, whose words related to the Respondent’s losing case, and not from the ratio.  To pre-empt that, in fact Miss Vine won because it was held as a fact that she was not afforded a fair opportunity to learn of the terms by which she would be bound. Miss Vine prevailed due to unclear signs and the fact that she did not see them. Paragraph 19 of that judgment is quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant is likely to invite the Court to make. It is for the Claimant to show that their signage is capable of forming a contract and that the content, positions and lighting of signs are clear to all motorists sufficiently in advance.

 

35.      Further, the signs in place here (see Exhibit-xx-01) are similar in content to those referred to by District Judge Glen in ‘Parking Control Management (UK) v Bull 2016’ and District Judge Iyer in ‘Pace v Lengyel’ (see further details in Exhibit-xx-08), except that they refer to ‘no stopping’ rather than ‘no parking’.  I deny, on similar grounds to those stated in these two cases (‘ notice is an absolute prohibition ’, ‘ no mention of contract  or agreement ‘), that the signs in place here could form the basis of a contract.  The Claimant is put to strict proof otherwise.

 

 

36.      (THREE)  Additionally, DVLA registered keeper data is supplied to pursue parking charges issued on private land, where there is an independently signed landowner agreement (this is part of the KADOE rules for AOS BPA or IPC members).  The claimant has not provided any evidence within their claim that the freeholder of the land has authorised them to issue parking charges or what the land enforcement boundary and start / expiry dates in a contract are, nor whether this Claimant has standing to enforce such charges by means of civil litigation in their own name rather than a bare licence to act as an agent 'on behalf of' the landowner.

 

37.       I deny that there was any contractual agreement because, as a judge found in a County Court case as recently as 10th March 2022 (as reported here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6333503/vcs-liverpool-airport-no-stopping/p2 ) VCS didn’t have the authority to impose fines on the land surrounding LJLA.   The same source also reports that ‘the land is not private, the red lines are illegal and that VCS breached the airport's own parking Ts and Cs’ at the time, as they were only authorised to operate within car park areas’.  I have sought but have not yet been able to obtain evidence from VCS contradicting any of these points.  It is not accepted that the Claimant has adhered to the landholder's definitions, exemptions, grace period, etc. and there has been no evidence that the freeholder authorises this Claimant to issue PCNs at the place where the vehicle was and/or for the reasons given.  Nor is it known what the land enforcement boundary and start/expiry dates are or were.

 

38.      The Claimant is put to strict proof that:

·         they have standing to enforce charges by means of civil litigation in their own name,

·         they have the authority to impose fines on the land surrounding LJLA,

·         the land is private,

·         the red lines are legal,

·         they have not breached the airport's own parking Ts and Cs’ at the time, in that they were authorised to operate in the location of the alleged incident and not only in car parks.

 

39.      (FOUR)  Alternatively, even if, somehow, there is a contract - which I deny, I further deny any responsibility for the claimed breach of the contract – I was attempting to follow the directional signage in place at the airport to reach the free drop off zone.  As demonstrated above (paras. 12 – 21), the signage currently in place lacks clarity, in parts is unreadable whilst driving around a roundabout at night, is ambiguous, contains conflicting information and is, overall, very confusing.  So much so that, if the signage in place now is the signage that was in place at the time, it is not unreasonable that I ended up on the approach road to a paid car park rather than at a free drop off zone, and not knowing that I was in a no stopping zone – and I had only one option, which was to stop – all due to the poor signage, which is the complainant’s responsibility, not mine, hence there can be no breach of contract on my part.

 

40.      (FIVE)  Alternatively, if somehow it is determined there is a contract and a claimed breach of the contract - which I deny, I further deny that I am liable for the additional £60 added to the PCN by the claimant.  Costs such as these are now banned costs (see below) which the Claimant has neither paid nor incurred, and were not quantified in prominent lettering on signage. Introducing the purported 'costs' add-on in later debt demands is a moneymaking exercise to extract a high fixed sum from weaker motorists, and came far too late. I did not agree to it.

 

41.      HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit xx-09) went into great detail about the situation concerning added sums in cases like this one and determined that they are unfair, unrecoverable or double recovery and not allowed; also that it is an abuse of the court’s process for the claimant to add them and to continue to add them in further similar claims.

 

42.      (SIX)  The Claimant's legal team has routinely continued to pursue a sum on top of each PCN, despite indisputably knowing that these are banned costs.  The claim is exaggerated by inclusion of a false, wholly disproportionate and unincurred 'damages' enhancement of £60.  Clearly double recovery and an abuse of the court process.

 

43.      HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit xx-09) went on to say in paragraphs 41 – 44 that abuses like these, by serial, fake complainants like these, if they were to continue, needed to be responded to in the most serious manner by being struck out in their entirety and, on this basis, the entire claim here should be struck out. 

 

44.      It is submitted that the conduct of the Claimant in pursuing this claim is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. As such, I submit that my costs in respect of wasted time / costs in dealing with this matter should be awarded by the court if the case continues to court (or in the event of the Claimant filing a Notice of Discontinuance), pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g).

mcan541908

Part 3 of full WS .  .

The following key supporting arguments should also be considered:

 

45.      The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities ('DLUHC') has published, as of 7 February 2022, a statutory Code of Practice which all private parking Operators are required to comply with, it can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice.  This states, at Section 9, that "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued".  In this case, the Claimant has added a sum of £60, described originally as being in respect of ‘Debt Collection Costs’ but in the Claim as being in respect of ‘contractual costs and interest’, which is clearly contrary to the intention of the Code. Whilst it is accepted that the new statutory Code does not take full effect immediately, or retrospectively, it clearly sets out the Government's intentions regarding private parking and the Court is invited to strike out this element of the claim, irrespective of the determination of any other element.

 

46.      The DLUHC considered evidence and took over two years to consult a wide mix of stakeholders before deciding this contentious issue.  According to the DLUHC, almost a fifth of all respondents in 2021 'called for the proposal to be scrapped and debt collection to be banned altogether'.  This despite the parking industry flooding both public consultations, some even masquerading as consumers. The DLUHC saw through this and exposed as fact, in its published Response to the Technical Consultation (also on 7/2/22) that some respondents were 'parking firms posing as motorists'.  Genuine consumer replies pointed out that successful debt recovery does not trigger court proceedings and the debt recovery/robo-claim law firms operate on a 'no win, no fee' basis and are effectively Trade Body Board member colleagues passing motorists' data around electronically and inflating parking charges.  This Claimant has not incurred any additional costs (not even for reminder letters) because the full parking charge itself more than covers what the Supreme Court in Beavis called a 'letter chain' business model that generates a healthy profit.

 

47.      The Ministerial Foreword to the new Code is unequivocal about abusive existing cases such as the present claim: "Private firms issue roughly 22,000 parking tickets every day, often adopting a labyrinthine system of misleading and confusing signage, opaque appeals services, aggressive debt collection and unreasonable fees designed to extort money from motorists." 

 

48.      Whilst the new Code is not retrospective, it was brought in due to the failure of the previous two competing (self-serving) BPA & IPC codes of practice and the Ministerial Foreword is indisputably talking about existing cases when declaring the add-on to be 'designed to extort money'. A clear steer for the Courts from now on.

 

49.      The new Code overrides the mistakes and presumptions in the appeal cases that the parking industry had been relying upon (Britannia v Semark-Jullien, One Parking Solution v Wilshaw, Vehicle Control Services v Ward and Vehicle Control Services v Percy).  Far from being persuasive or assisting with clarifying the law, regrettably these one-sided appeals were findings by Circuit Judges who appeared to be inexperienced in niche private parking law and where the litigant-in-person consumers had no financial wherewithal to appeal further.

 

50.       It is pertinent to note that the Britannia v Semark-Jullien appeal judgment by HHJ Parkes criticised the District Judges at Southampton, for apparently not having enough evidence to conclude that Britannia 'knew' that their added costs were abusive (unincurred, unpaid and unjustified). Unbeknown to HHJ Parkes, of course all District Judges deal with template, generic evidence and arguments from parking operators every week, and BPA member firms including VCS, certainly had been told this by Judges up and down the Country for many years.  And the decision and words used by the DLUHC show that DJ Grand and DJ Taylor were right all along.  As was HHJ Jackson in Excel v Wilkinson (not appealed - see Exhibit-xx-09) where she went into great detail about this abuse.

 

51.      The Semark-Jullien case is now unreliable going forward, and is fully distinguished now that the Government has at last stepped in and exposed and published the truth.  This Claimant indisputably has knowledge (and always had knowledge) that they have not paid a penny in debt recovery costs, nor incurred any additional costs that the £100 parking charge is not designed to more than cover.  The abuse is now clearly established and a new judgment (re-stating this position, in the light of the damning words in the Foreword and the Explanatory Document published alongside the Code of Practice and stating, for the avoidance of doubt, the knowledge that District Judges have from years of experience of seeing these template enhanced claims and telling this Claimant to stop bringing exaggerated parking claims to court) would be welcomed to bring much-needed clarity for consumers and Judges across England and Wales.

 

52.      In case this Claimant tries to rely upon those old cases, significant errors were made.  Evidence - including unclear signage and Codes of Practice -was either ignored, even when in evidence at both hearings (Wilshaw, where the Judge was also oblivious to regulatory DVLA KADOE rules requiring landowner authority) or the judgment referred to the wrong rules, with one Judge seeking out the inapplicable BPA Code after the hearing and using it erroneously (Percy).  In Ward, a few seconds' emergency stop out of the control of the driver, was inexplicably aligned with Beavis. The learned Judges were led in one direction by Counsel for parking firms, and were not in possession of the same level of facts and evidence as the DLUHC.

 

ParkingEye v Beavis is distinguished

 

53.      Unlike in this case, ParkingEye demonstrated a commercial justification for their £85 PCN and overcame the possibility of it being dismissed as punitive.  However, their Lordships were clear that ‘the penalty rule is plainly engaged’ in these cases.  Their decision mentioned a 'unique' set of facts including the legitimate interest, site location and prominent, clear signs with the parking charge in the largest/boldest text.  The unintended consequence is that, rather than persuading Judges that these charges are automatically justified, the Beavis case facts set a high bar that this Claimant has failed to reach.  Without the Beavis case to support the claim, this claim must fail.  Paraphrasing from the Supreme Court, deterrence is likely to be penal if there is a lack of an overriding legitimate interest in performance extending beyond the prospect of compensation flowing directly from the alleged breach.   The Supreme Court held that the intention cannot be to punish a motorist - nor to present them with concealed pitfalls, traps, hidden terms or unfair/unexpected obligations - and nor can a firm claim an unconscionable sum. In the present case, the Claimant has fallen foul of those tests.  (see Exhibit-xx-10 for paragraphs 98, 193, and 198 of ParkingEye v Beavis).

 

 

Consumer Rights Act breaches

 

54.      Claiming unexpected ‘costs/damages’ on an indemnity basis is stated to be unfair in the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37, para 5.14.3), the official Government guidance on the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ('CRA').  The CRA goes further than the UTCCRs, introducing a requirement for 'prominence' of both contract terms and 'consumer notices' (i.e. signage and any other notices/communications).

 

55.      Section 71 provides for the duty of court to consider the test of fairness. This includes whether all terms and notices were unambiguously and conspicuously brought to the attention of the consumer.  In the case of signage, this must be prominent, plentiful, well placed and lit, and the terms clear and unambiguous.  I aver that the CRA has been breached due to unfair/unclear terms and notices, pursuant to s62 and having regard to the requirements for transparency and good faith and as guidance, examples 6, 10, 14 & 18 of Schedule 2. 

 

Double Recovery / Abuse of process

 

56.      It is denied that the sum sought is recoverable and if not all of it, at least a significant chunk of this claim represents a penalty, per the authority from two well-known ParkingEye cases.  Attention is drawn to paras 98, 100, 193, 198 of ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67.  Also ParkingEye Ltd v Somerfield Stores Ltd ChD [2011] EWHC 4023(QB) where the same modern penalty law rationale was applied, yet here, the learned Judge also considered added 'costs'.  The parking charge was set at £75 (discounted to £37.50 for prompt payment) then 'admin costs' inflated it to £135.  At paras 419-428, HHJ Hegarty sitting at the High Court (decision ratified by the CoA) found that adding £60 to enhance the sum sought to £135 'would appear to be penal', i.e. unrecoverable.

 

Lack of ADR

 

57.      I further aver that the Claimant failed to offer a genuinely independent Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).  Both the rival parking Trade Bodies provided 'appeals services' which reportedly fail to consider facts and rules of law properly, and find in favour of parking firms most of the time: e.g. despite purporting to be decided by legally qualified Adjudicators, the IPC's version upheld appeals in just 4% of decided cases, as reported in their 2020 Annual Report.  Both POPLA and the IAS will be replaced by the DLUHC's new Appeals Service as soon as possible and looking at the Appeals Annex in the new Code, disputed cases such as this would very likely have been cancelled without the need for court, had a proper ADR existed.  The fact is, there was no fair ADR on offer and - whether or not a defendant engaged with it - the Claimant's reliance upon it is not something that should sway the court into a belief that a fair process was followed before litigation.

 

CPR 44.11 - further costs

 

58.      I am appending with this bundle, a fully detailed costs assessment which covers my proportionate but unavoidable further costs and I invite the court to consider making an award to include these, pursuant to the court's powers in relation to misconduct (CPR 44.11).  In support of that argument, I remind the court that I rejected the PCN and explained the circumstances and engaged with the Claimant in mitigation, all to no effect.  Not only could this claim have been avoided and the Claimant has no cause of action but it is also vexatious to pursue an inflated sum that includes double recovery.

 

My fixed witness costs - ref PD 27, 7.3(1) and CPR 27.14

 

59.      As a litigant-in-person I have had to learn relevant law from the ground up and spent a considerable time researching the law online, processing and preparing my defence plus this witness statement.  I ask for my fixed witness costs.  I am advised that costs on the Small Claims track are governed by rule 27.14 of the CPR and (unless a finding of 'wholly unreasonable conduct' is made against the Claimant) the Court may not order a party to pay another party’s costs, except fixed costs such as witness expenses which a party has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from the hearing (including fares and/or parking fees).

 

 

Statement of truth:

 

60.      I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement 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.

 

 

SIGNATURE

 

……………………..

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

DATE    xx/xx/xxxx

Coupon-mad

The only 2 things I spotted was, change 'I sent VCS a note' (24) to 'I sent VCS an appeal'.

Also remove this whole bit as it adds nothing and suggests you made an assumption, which isn't how you want to come across:

Of course, I would have stopped at those places where it would be a necessity (e.g. for safety reasons or to comply with the Highway Code, i.e. at junctions, roundabouts and pedestrian crossings) but I’d say this was a background assumption, not a live thought, at the time.