Update Judgement - Both struck out (29th Feb) - Victoria Quays - Sheffield, S2 5SY

Coupon-mad

Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking is another very well established authority.  It says that terms must be clear at the barrier, as you enter a barriered car park.  Anything attempting to be added later, comes too late.  Go read that and use it and Fairlie v Fenton.

Use both.  And refer to Simon Clay v CEL but you will have to search the forum to find it.

Grizebeck

@Coupon-mad is right. I know that car park well having used that car park on several occasions.

Le_Kirk

Anto_28 said:

Got this in response to the reply forms requesting a document to delay them 30 days.

I should also mention, something I may of may have forgotten, this "car park" (road) has absolutely no public invitation to park. To enter you need to type a 4 digit code into the barrier to gain access. You then display a single day temporary yellow permit to park provided by the business you are visiting.

That seems a strange response to a letter asking for a document and.or a delay!  How did you get into the parking area if the barrier was not raised by someone at the other end of the intercom?  You were therefore de facto authorised to park.  Did they then fail to give you a permit to display?

Anto_28

Le_Kirk said:

Anto_28 said:

Got this in response to the reply forms requesting a document to delay them 30 days.

I should also mention, something I may of may have forgotten, this "car park" (road) has absolutely no public invitation to park. To enter you need to type a 4 digit code into the barrier to gain access. You then display a single day temporary yellow permit to park provided by the business you are visiting.

That seems a strange response to a letter asking for a document and.or a delay!  How did you get into the parking area if the barrier was not raised by someone at the other end of the intercom?  You were therefore de facto authorised to park.  Did they then fail to give you a permit to display?

I work for a company on Victoria Quays.

We have the code for the car park barrier which we tap into the key pad to gain entry. We then have to display the blue VCS permit found earlier in this thread.

Anto_28

VCS dont seem too keen on handing over the agreement. I know the land is VQMCs, I just don't know how Eddisons appointed VCS given that VQMC appointed Eddisons. Would the VQMC appointment of Eddisons include a right to farm out the parking management to a 3rd party.

Probs wont be needed given the plethora of failures by VCS already here.

Anto_28

Received this just now. Did VCS really just give my illegally obtained personal data to a 3rd party company......

I've not filed my claim yet, as I was waiting for VCS to file theirs and then I'll file my own (then I would add it to my case as further harassment). I'll be doing it as a new claim not a counter claim as advised in this thread

Should I bother contacting ELMS Legal and telling them or just let them get on with it 🤔

Grizebeck

Why haven't you filed your claim yet?
It makes no sense waiting for them to file theirs to file yours
you said on the 12th you was sending the claim of tomorrow
Your tactic makes no sense 
there is no harassment, not sure where you got that idea from and yes they are entitled to use elms

Anto_28

Grizebeck said:

Why haven't you filed your claim yet?
It makes no sense waiting for them to file theirs to file yours

Simply to add to the harassment claim. As its now gone to ELMS, I can file mine, as VCS clearly now wont be filling one, ELMS will.

I'll re-do my particulars today, get you guys to have one quick check, and then send the claim off. I've got everything I need now and more to shoot them down

you said on the 12th you was sending the claim of tomorrow

blame my mate for telling me the more they chase the more it can be considered harassment (ferguson vs VCS)

Grizebeck

But it quite simply isn't harassment 
The fact elms may do it is neither here or there as they are simply doing it on behalf of VCS

Coupon-mad

Yes - this final stage isn't harassment.  Adds nothing to your proposed claim.