Permit at work VCS DCB Legal court claim

Coupon-mad

Also print your appeal you made ages ago (unless it's already in their bundle?).  Make the point that the permit WAS visible through the windscreen and that you engaged early, did not ignore it, so VCS should have cancelled both PCNs on appeal because they knew you were authorised:

"Here is the appeal that has been sent:

'I decline your invitation to name the driver, which is not required of me as the keeper of the vehicle. I will not be paying your demand for payment for the following reasons:

The charge sought is not a valid, genuine pre-estimate of loss – because the permit was already paid for. Even in the case of the vehicle being parked without ‘displaying’ a valid permit (which is denied), the fact remains that a valid permit is in place for the vehicle, and no financial or other loss has occurred to either the landowner or PPC. Therefore the charge sought is invalid.

The alleged contravention did not occur. The contravention is for a permit not being displayed in the vehicle. However, as shown in the attached evidence the permit is displayed in the vehicle. It was originally on the windscreen and unfortunately fell into the footwell after the driver had started their shift. Although the permit is in the footwell it is still displayed faced upwards and can clearly be seen by looking in the passenger window as shown I’m the photos provided.

There was insufficient signage. The unremarkable and obscure signs were not seen by the driver, are in very small print and the terms are not readable to drivers. The signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces and the notice of the parking charge is in small print. There is nothing at all on the signage which states a contract is formed or implied by parking at the location as you can see by the attached photographic evidence provided by yourself.

Mitigating circumstances. The tax disk holder which secured the permit to the windscreen became unstuck sometime after the drivers shift started at 8am. The tax disk holder no longer being sticky is evidenced in a video.

The driver was authorised to park on site with a valid permit. The permit was displayed inside a tax disk holder. The permit was still visible as displayed in the photos on the passenger side floor. A video has also been uploaded showing the driver attempting to put the tax disk holder back onto the windscreen after being notified of the parking charge showing that it has lost its stickiness. The driver is a valid permit holder.  

If you choose to pursue me please be aware that I will not enter into any correspondence and this will be the only correspondemce you will receive from me until you answer the specific points raised."

Kitkat8

Theu have photographic evidence it wasn't visible through the windscreen so I don't know how I can argue that point thays the bit that worries me the most. 

Kitkat8

Also should I print the entirety of the cases i have referenced? Or just the specific paragraphs? 

Coupon-mad

Don't print Beavis!

But other authorities, yes in full.

kryten3000

Kitkat8 said:

Theu have photographic evidence it wasn't visible through the windscreen so I don't know how I can argue that point thays the bit that worries me the most. 

But do they really?  Attendant photos can be flattering to deceive, they will usually take pictures at angles to benefit their case.

Kitkat8

yes they do its very clear it is not in the windscreen. However, i will say they have conveniently angled the image on the passenger side to not show the permit on the floor from the window

Coupon-mad

Kitkat8 said:
yes they do its very clear it is not in the windscreen. However, i will say they have conveniently angled the image on the passenger side to not show the permit on the floor from the window

Which is your point. It WAS visible. 

Kitkat8

I just got back! Struck out due to Henderson V Henderson not being addressed in claimants WS and if incorrect was dismissed due to the tax disc holder falling being 'out of my control'. It was not a purposeful breach of contract and so the judge was actually very kind. The lawyer was also extremely kind and said to us before hand that he didn't know why we were all there because it was clear I had a permit. He got told off by the judge a few times. Judge has asked lawyer to feed back to Claimant to discontinue 2nd claim as abuse of process to the court. Costs awarded. It really is worth it all! The judge was very kind. It was a meeting room rather than a court room with a table and chairs with me and the claimants lawyer. The judge was behind a small desk with mikes. It was similar set up to a panel meeting or an interview? So don't be scared! I promise it's all worth it!

Gr1pr

Yay, another one bites the dust   !  Well done for sticking with it 

VCS & DCB Legal spanked in court due to a speculative claim that's gone nowhere and cost them plenty 

Umkomaas

Well done on your successful day in court. 👍

Judge has asked lawyer to feed back to Claimant to discontinue 2nd claim as abuse of process to the court.

I wouldn't fall asleep on it, given that VCS have defied court instructions previously. Be vigilant.