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

mcan541908

Dear Sirs

 

Re: VCS Parking Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

Thank you for taking the time, so promptly, to reply to my complaint letter to your customer services department, copied to you.

 

Thank you for the background information on your ‘red route roads, which I believe I’ve seen quoted somewhere before.  You have not quite been clear as to the status of the roads in question and the location of the alleged incident; for the avoidance of doubt, are you saying that the roads and the location:

·         Are public roads subject to the various Road Traffic / Traffic Management etc. acts, DoT Traffic Signs Manual etc.; that the signs and road marking are all officially authorised by the appropriate bodies and that the alleged incident is a traffic offence, or

·         Are LJLA private roads simply made to look like public roads; and the signs and road marking are not officially authorised in the appropriate manner (in which case I’ve seen no explanation of what the red lines are supposed to mean or imply, please provide a copy of the relevant signs or documents), or

·         Are roads governed by airport byelaws, that the signs and road marking are all authorised by the byelaws, the signs and road marking are all officially authorised by the appropriate bodies and that the alleged incident is a byelaw offence (in which case please provide a copy of the byelaws applicable at the time highlighting in the byelaws where the red lines zone and its meaning is identified)

 

– can you clarify which of these it is, please?  Also, as VCS are taking this to court, they will need to provide to the court and to me a copy of the relevant documentation to support whichever of the alternatives is correct (or another alternative, if there is one); would you ensure that they have it, please?  Also, VCS will need to identify, for the relevant alternative, how and where VCS were given authority at the time of the alleged incident to support all of their actions / conduct towards me in dealing with this alleged incident and provide to the court and to me a copy of all the relevant documentation.

 

Thank you also for the photos you provided, unfortunately they are not the ones shown in the formal Notice which VCS sent to me.  There are rather more of them than in the notice, they are much larger and more ‘zoomed in’ on areas not clear in the photos in the notice sent to me and, hence, are irrelevant to VCS’s claim.  It is interesting to note that you needed to have them enlarged.

 

Thank you for pointing out though that ‘ . . a vehicle can be clearly seen parking on the road . .  ‘ and that this location is clearly not in a car park.  You are aware, no doubt, that the LJLA Parking T&Cs in place at the time stated that VCS were only authorised to operate in Car Parks.

 

I cannot agree that the photos clearly show a red route road; they vaguely show some red colouring at the side of the road behind the car but it is not clear whether this is a blurred red line or simply my brake lights which are clearly ‘on’, reflecting off a white or yellow line or just off the road surface.  This is not visible at all in the three VCS Notice photos.  There are no signs visible in the photos in the Notice showing that the location is a no stopping area or explaining what the supposed red lines mean. 

 

I see that you referred to the parking facilities at the airport – I know about them, I have used them on several occasions in the past as your customer and with no problems – though, if this continues, never again!  I am pleased that you mentioned the free Drop off zone as on this occasion that is exactly what I intended to use to drop off YOUR CUSTOMERS for their flight from YOUR AIRPORT.  Unfortunately YOUR ambiguous, unclear, partly obscured, conflicting DIRECTIONAL SIGNS misled me to being at the location of the alleged incident and subsequently subjected to VCS,s heinous behaviour.

 

I appreciate that you may not have seen or had time to read all of the previous communications related to this alleged incident and I appreciate that you may not have much time now.  But before deciding to continue to support VCS here you should be sure that you are at least minimally informed as to the facts.  So, it is pertinent to summarise the key points set out in my Witness Statement for the court hearing, as follows:

·         I was intending to use the free Drop Off 2,

·         I was misdirected by LJLA / VCS’s ambiguous, conflicting, unclear and confusing directional signage,

·         I ended up where I was, due to following LJLA / VCS signage,

·         There were no signs visible as to where Drop off 2 was,

·         There were no signs visible at the entry to that location as to no stopping,

·         looking forward, I could not see any red lines ahead of me,

·         I had no option but to stop where I did on the basis that there was a barrier ahead of me and the only way out (via dropped kerbs) across the central reservation was at that location,

·         With no time to think, I stopped, convinced I had followed LJLA / VCS directions; I was confused, thought this must be it (the drop off zone), dropped off my passengers, YOUR CUSTOMERS, as intended and left.

·         I’ve since looked at the signs on google maps streetview (I can’t be sure they were the ones there at time of incident . . .  I have asked VCS to clarify, but nothing received) and have presented what is a highly plausible argument that the signs are misleading and could easily result in me or anyone ending up where I did, thinking I was at the drop off zone and not knowing it was a no stopping zone.

·         The witness statement presents additional arguments and supporting case law regarding:

1.      inadequate / inappropriate / prohibitive unclear signage, therefore there is no contract with me and no breach of contract by me,

2.      the land was governed by byelaws at the time,

3.      there is no VCS authority as no valid VCS contract at the time,

4.      there is no VCS authority to operate outside of car parks due to LJLA Parking T&Cs at the time,

5.      some of the claim if not all is invalid due to add-on sums amounting to double recovery and abuse of court process by VCS,

6.      the claim wouldn’t stand up under the new statutory DLUHC Parking CoP

7.      the claim should be struck out for ‘no contract’, ‘no breach of contract’, double recovery and abuse of court process.

 

There is more, and more detail, obviously, but hopefully you have a fuller picture of the situation and will not continue to support this abuse of one of your customers.

 

As noted in my first complaint letter, I have requested various documents from VCS to try to ascertain if they can challenge any of the above, as follows:

1.      It is my understanding that no fully compliant Companies Act 2006 contract between VCS and the airport existed and was current at the time of the alleged incident.

2.      It is my understanding that in LJLA’s own Parking Terms and Conditions valid at the time of the alleged incident it is stated that VCS’s authority only extends to cover inside car parks, it does not extend to roads.

3.      The no stopping and directional signs in place, and visible at night, at the time of the incident:

○        (a) on the approach to the airport and the free drop off zone (Drop off 2?),

○        (b) on or adjacent to the roundabout itself which is near the location of the incident,

○        (c) at the exit from the roundabout to the location of the alleged incident and

○        (d) at or near to, and clearly visible from, the location of the incident.

were:

                                i.            (a) not sufficient to form the basis of the contract VCS claim to have with me and

                              ii.            (b) not sufficient to provide clear direction to my intended destination, i.e. the free drop off zone (Drop off 2) (I am tempted to believe, given VCS’s reputation, that the signage is deliberately conflicting within itself, ambiguous and misleading but accept that it just might be due to their incompetence or negligence).

4.      The pictures VCS have provided on the PCN are inconclusive.  Until VCS provide verifiable proof that my vehicle was where they say it was, and verifiable proof that it was clear that the conditions that VCS claim applied to the location were actually in place at that location, then VCS have no case.

5.      It is my understanding that Airport Byelaws were in place at the time of the incident; they must have been in place for the airport to hold a licence to operate; and they have been confirmed by a government minister to be still live and not rescinded shortly before the time of the alleged incident.  Additionally, I understand that in your application for amended byelaws dated September 2021 you requested that the 1982 byelaws be rescinded – that seems to confirm they were still in place at the time of this incident.   Also, I understand that the judge in a recent case, on March 10th, dismissed the case based on VCS's inability to prove the land was private.

6.      It is my understanding that the red lines on the site, and specifically in the location of the alleged incident, may not all be legal and comply with statutory regulations.

7.      It is my understanding that VCS obtained my vehicle keeper details from DVLC without a sound reason, in breach of DVLA’s and their own trade association’s requirements.  As indicated in 1 to 6 above VCS knew or should have known that they had no valid case - yet still applied for details.

8.      VCS have added an extra sum to the PCN charge in various documents including the court claim, knowing full well that adding such sums is double recovery and an abuse of the court process; and that typically such claims will be struck out.

 

-          but so far nothing received.  Are you able to provide documentation to challenge any of these points?  It would seem a terrible waste if we all end up in court having to give evidence, or demonstrating lack of evidence, about these things – the judge will not be impressed. 

 

I do hope you will reconsider, and that I hear from you soon confirming that you will stop supporting VCS in their heinous activities and that you will instruct VCS immediately to withdraw their claim against me.

 

Yours faithfully  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX  ...."

Any factual or other errors on my part; any comments or observations, please?

Umkomaas

I'd seriously reduce that otherwise you risk getting no reply at all (in my opinion) - they're under no obligation to give this any more of their time.  Too long, sorry. 

Pick your best points, not labour ones that you probably know won't paint them into a corner. 

Fruitcake

I agree. It is too long, and several of your points are repeated.

Where you mention the fake add on charges you should point out that the government has stated that they are "an attempt at extortion".

Router66

I have already been down this road and received the same template response. The commercial director picks the points she wants to answer and it ends with her refusing to respond further. (and she doesn't)
However, I hope your outcome fares better.  

mcan541908

Thanks for all comments.  duplications removed and letter shortened.

Coupon-mad

The more complaints the better.

VCS deserve all the complaints, due to what they do to people at Airports with a clever combo of unclear signs, a van that says 'road safety unit' (now specifically banned in the new code - no prizes for guessing who told the Govt about that!), issuing PCNs to people stopped at barriers or outside of the enforced area, and conflating the byelaws with contract law (again, banned by the DLUHC). 

mcan541908

An update from me.

I received no further response from LJLA to my follow-up complaint letter, as predicted.

I have now received a copy of VCS's Witness Statement. - is it permissable to post a copy of it on here and, if so, what is the best way to do that?  Also, is it appropriate to discuss any deficiencies in the WS on the forum given that there are believed to be VCS 'spies in the camp'?

VCS have included:

- a copy of the court claim document,

- a 9 page witness statement from Ambreen Arshad,

- a confusion of Exhibits (i.e. not properly ordered or labelled) including:

- - a copy of the 2013 VCS / LJLA contract with scheules 1 - 5

- - a couple of pictures of signs, one of which I've not seen before,

- - a confusing collection of photos of 18 site locations (i.e. none in the location of the alleged incident, not taken in early morning darkness, none showing my car),

- - a copy of the PCN,

- - a copy of some enlargements of the three photos shown in the PCN,

- - a copy of the VCS 'Demand for Payment' of £160 letter,

- - a copy of a VCS 'Final Demand for Payment' of £160 letter, which I have never seen before,

- - a copy of their 'Letter before Claim',

- - a copy of my appeal,

- - a copy of their response to my appeal

- - a copy of my response to one of their mitigation letters, counter-offering to reduce my intended claim for compensation for harassment.

They are basically saying that :

- their 2013, 2 year contract has not been terminated, hence continues, even though it was clearly a 2 year fixed term contract,

- their signs form a contract, although there is no mention of a contract or T&Cs in the signs,

- 'no stopping' was a term of the contract,

- there is a contractual clause which specifies the amount of the charge,

There is no response at all to my detailed claim of inadequate directional signage resulting in the alleged incident.

The WS refers to VCSL v Nick Idle and VCSL v Damen Ward as authorities on 'stopping'.

The WS refers to VCSL v Alfred Charles Crutchley as authority on the distinction between parking and stopping not being material due to a legitimate interest in preventing obstruction, but is about a private business park with narrow access roads - not the case here.

The WS refers to the IPC code of practice as justification for the debt recovery charge.

The WS refers to a £35.00 issue fee plus a £27 court fee, whereas previously just a £35 court fee was claimed- is this new?The WS says the witness may not be able to attend thehearing but will send an advocate and gives notice pursuant to CPR 27.9(1)

I wonder if challenges to any of this, and various other deficiencies in the WS should be set out in a Supplementary WS - any views?

All help much appreciated - hearing is on 1st June 2022.

Jenni_D

Ref. court fees - they're allowed to claim for both the filing and hearing fees (should they win). Plus up to £50 (I think) in solicitors charges - although I don't think that should apply if they are representing themselves.

By all means host their data on Dropbox or similar (redact your personal details first - if anything else was redacted by them then please say so) and post a link here.

Router66

My Notice of Allocation has just arrived for an identical case at LJLA.
A look at the VCS Witness Statement would therefore be very helpful.
Best of luck for a clued-up judge.

Coupon-mad

Look at things like whether the enforcement map includes the area where your car was?  Look at dates on the photos of signs, etc.

What's your deadline, or have you already got your WS and evidence in?