VCS Fluttering Ticket / Valid Permit - We won...

Umkomaas

The VCS contract with the landowner grants VCS the right to operate the car park from 10 April 2013 for a fixed period of 12 months. Unless I've missed it in the small print, there is no extension to that period. You can try to exploit that in your WS, but be ready at a hearing for a judge to say that as they continue to operate some 9 years (at the time of your charge) after the contract start date, then surely they still have ongoing landowner approval. 

Fruitcake

Two photos don't have time, date or location stamps. There is no proof they were from the material time or material location. If yours was the white car, there appears to be a permit stuck inside the rear windscreen.
Both photos have page numbers that do not match the WS page numbers. Both appear to be from completely different documents.
The shot of the front windscreen is so obscured that it is impossible to tell whether there was or was not a permit on display. There also appears to be a random QR code superimposed onto the image.
The sign on the other photo is unreadable.

Two other photos are dated the 16th of April but no year, and are so pixelated that it is impossible to see what they are supposed to represent nor when they were taken. The sign in one of the photos is unreadable and incapable of forming a contract. There is no proof they were of the material location or that the sign is actually a VCS parking sign.

According to the site map there are two sections to the car park. There is no proof that the vehicle in question was inside the "protected area" nor that the boundary of the protected area was clearly defined by surface markings. The claimant is put to strict proof that the car was not outside the protected area at the material time.
The site map also shows that there is/was no entrance sign.

The image of the sign does not define the site boundary such that a motorist would know if they were parked within or outside the protected area. The signage is therefore confusing and the contract terms pertaining only to the protected area have not been brought sufficiently to the attention of the motorist.

The motorist has no way of knowing if they are inside or outside the area where the claimant is contracted to operate. Failing to define the boundary where the claimant does and does not operate is an unfair contract term as defined by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and is therefore not binding on the consumer (the defendant). Part 2 of the CRA, section 61 onward applies.

Fruitcake

Para 2 of the contract states that it will be for a fixed period of 12 months from the 10th of April 2013 ("the Term").

Para 6.5 states that the contract shall be extended by a fixed term equal to "the Term". In other words it would have been extended by a further 12 months. There is no provision within the contract to extend it again, meaning that it expired on the 9th of April 2015. The claimant has failed to provide any proof that the contract was extended, nor that the landowner is the same, nor in the alternative that different contract terms now prevail.

It is reasonable to assume that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" would believe on the balance of probabilities that no such contract existed with the landowner at the material time. Had such a contract existed, it is reasonable to assume on the balance of probabilities that the such a contract would have been provided to the court by the claimant.

The site map has not been signed nor dated by the landowner.

Lagroid

This is all amazing. Never thought of half of this stuff. I will update my WS with the latest 2023 template and add all of this in. 

Might be a daft question but is it typically okay to mention many things to the judge in your WS? As in 5 or 6 different “hook line and sinker” points such as this. Or should I go deep on a particular few points? 

Cheers all

Umkomaas

Just put in the WS as much as you see relevant. There's a 'thousand judges' across the land, they're at liberty to accept or reject whatever they see fit in their own court. One judge won't necessarily act the same as the next one.

Lagroid

Hey,

Updated my Witness Statement with the recommended format for 2023. Also added in the stuff discussed throughout since the first draft. A redacted copy can be found here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u85yoe8qlzhucby/Witness Statement and Exhibits - redacted 29:05.pdf?dl=0 

I'd be interested to get any more feedback, and get the nod if what I have put together is suitable and convincing enough.

Much appreciated,

1505grandad

9.On the 26th of August 2023  -  ?

Para 10  -  is this correct  -  "A fact not disputed by the Claimant during either the appeals process or in their Witness Statement,I refer to paragraph 27 in my Defence..."

Lagroid

1505grandad said:

9.On the 26th of August 2023  -  ?

Para 10  -  is this correct  -  "A fact not disputed by the Claimant during either the appeals process or in their Witness Statement,I refer to paragraph 27 in my Defence..."

Thanks on the date. 

Para 10 I’m trying to reference my Defence para 27 where I mention that the Claimant hasn’t once disputed my claim that I did put the permit in the window before leaving the vehicle. Assuming it’s not very clear?

1505grandad

In the D posted on page 7 para 27 refers to costs  -  perhaps it was altered later?

Lagroid

1505grandad said:

In the D posted on page 7 para 27 refers to costs  -  perhaps it was altered later?

Sorry, looks like I did add to it slightly, I’ll photocopy in my Defence and add to the post tomorrow, but para 27 is:

”it is clear from point ,3 that there is no legitimate interest in charging or pursuing the Defendant because the Claimant knew there was a valid permit visible on the day, and as such, it should have been cancelled.”

thanks for being so eagle eyed