VCS - Southend Airport No Stopping - RK - Not Driver - Costs Awarded - Another One Bites the Dust

Coupon-mad

No SAR at this stage.

stop_this_nonsense

Thanks again all. Response to LBC now sent (posted and emailed - I used the litigation email address on VCS's contact page). I'll wait to see what their response is ... then feign surprise when they double-down!

stop_this_nonsense

I have an interesting question, although not necessarily an irrelevant one ... !

If I have asked for the debt to be put on hold for 30 days in my response to the LBC, then what can VCS do, or not do, during that period? Could I still expect, for instance, to get a letter from ELMS Legal (who I believe are their shyster of choice) informing me that they will take action, even if it is within the 30 day PAP hold? 

Just an idle thought 

KeithP

The Pre-Action Protocol that you mention states that the creditor should not start court proceedings within that thirty days.

stop_this_nonsense

Thanks @KeithP

So ...

Got this in the post today. An opportunity to:

(1) robustly respond with a repeat of the LBC text;
(2) take an opportunity to spleen vent and tell VCS and ELMS what I think of them; or
(3) ignore?

  

Coupon-mad

All of the above!

stop_this_nonsense

Coupon-mad said:

All of the above!

A smorgasbord of fun!

Fruitcake

Having responded to the LBC, I suggest you do nothing except start preparing for a court claim to arrive. This should include obtaining proof that you were not the driver using for example 'phone location logs, SatNav logs if you were driving a different car for which you are also the keeper, receipts for purchases made in person, work logs, witness statements from people who knew where you were at the material time, and home or work security camera videos.

None of it should be necessary because the claimant can't prove you were driving, and the CEL v Chan case says they can't assume you were the driver, but if you can prove you were elsewhere, then you can show the judge that they were being unreasonable when they said it is reasonable to assume you were driving. You can then ask for ordinary costs, plus costs for unreasonable behaviour, although that is difficult to achieve.

I also suggest that you do not consider a counter claim for two reasons. One is that, and I mean no disrespect, I don't think you are court savvy enough to pull it off, and second, I think it would fail.
Proving harassment is extremely difficult, and a very high bar to achieve. Had I known you were considering this, I think the regulars would have advised you against it before you responded to the LBC.

stop_this_nonsense

Small update.

I sent a letter of complaint to the Airport along with a request for information / clarification re the extent of VCS/Excel infestation on airport land and copies of the various agreements with them. I also requested copies of the Data Privacy Impact Assessments / Legitimate Interest Assessments for surveillance on the road within the lease boundary at the airport, requesting confirmation of whether or not VCS is a joint controller for this processing.

I also pointed out the poor choice of partner VCS is, helpfully providing the links to Hansard. 

What I received back was, I am sure, written by VCS! It was a lovely puff-piece about what a trusted partner they are  and how they have even been appointed by "Gov UK" at NHS trusts (further contributing to the nation's national mental health crisis, no doubt). As Southend Airport (VCS really!) proudly state, this is:

"a demonstration of their competence and professionalism"

Reach around anyone?

 

They even pointed out that I had not followed VCS advice to appeal using IAS ... which was obviously not the advice, because that avenue is for the driver only!

I look forward to what I get back from their DPO / legal team on the above request. I'll post what I get back here. 

stop_this_nonsense

I have been a bad person 

Received a claim form in the post today from Elms Legal / VCS!

I would have started this post with the single word, "Unbelievable!" but, having been an avid reader of the posts on this forum for some time now, it is not physically possible to act surprised at the greed and moronic behaviour of these scammers.



POC (in text, for the site search engine and to assist other scam-ees):

The Claim is for a breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The Defendant's vehicle, *******, was identified in the Southend Airport on the ********** in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The Claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

There comes a time in everyone's life when they are either a fcuk-er or a fcuk-ee. Thankfully, I know which side of the relationship VCS are on. Let's do this!!!