Case Dismissed - Vehicle Control Services

olodhin

VCS continued there attempts to extort money out of me and thankfully failed yet again. 

However this time I would say it was not as easy and it was looking like I would lose the case right up until the end.

I will do my best to describe the events as best I can but it may not be 100% accurate as I am going from memory. 

This time round it would appear the judge was more focused on the balance of the case of not picking any side (which I suppose is the right way); however he helped me as much as he could by being patient and explaing things to me that might not be apparent to people without a solicitor.

The solicitor that VCS used also seemed to make a more comprehensive argument which might again have made things more difficult for me. It would appear that from the outset they came in with a much more focused and stronger argument stating that they are allowed to operate on behalf of the landlord and the terms and conditions were valid and easy to read at the time of the contraventions. They had provided their agreement between themselves and X1 amongst other photos of my car. They request that my defence be struck out, however the judge declined. 

The judge clarified that it was an assigned bay and that my vehicle was parked in the bay assigned to me. To which their solicitor confirmed. 

I can't remeber exactly what he said, but he initially ruled out most of my evidence (such as my pass, lease agreement, photos of my communication with VCS etc). As he said that the main point in my defence was as to the legitimacy of VCS claims (or to that effect). Now at this point it was defintely looking like I was loosing, by choice of wording by the judge and by how it was being presented.

He first went through my defence an addressed each point to which I replied honestly. Firstly being that I did not display a pass and did I agree that the terms posted on site were clearyly visible. I agreed that the main portion of it was, however I did state the small print was illegible. However this didn't matter. 

He then gave me a chance to address the main point in my defence of legitimacy of the contract. This was the most difficult part, especially trying to remain factual and not let your feelings get involved. I tried to articulate the points surrounding primacy of contract, that contractually I am provided that parking space and that by enforcing a permit to be displayed conflicts with that part of the contract if I am unable to display that permit; which I explained earlier was due to having access to several vehicles and sharing with my roommate. I also stated that I have permission via my lease agreement to park there and that I was not provided with any additional terms from VCS or X1 prior to signing the lease. 

After stating that and being inexperienced I didn't really know what else to say and did start to go-off topic so I stopped myself and concluded my points. 

The judge offered their solicitor to add to any points which they just re-iterated on the agreement they have which does give them authority to act on behalf of X1. 

He then sent us off for 10-15 minutes whilst he reviewed the case files and evidence. 

When we returned I was pretty sure I was going to be paying VCS. He began by addressing the lease betweeen X1 and VCS specifically the points in that agreement which allow VCS to be in control and owners of the debt essentially. He then went on to point out several areas which had been redacted. He stated that this is not unusual however in this instance, the dates of the agreement, the position of the person signing and the names and dates of the signature were also redacted. To which he concluded that he could not verify the legitimacy of this contract and therefore dismissed the case.

I think if I was in a similar position again I would probably get legal help, but then again the advice given in this forum was sound. (I am just extremely bad at keeping on top of things.)

In hindsight I realised that I had more ammunition in the validity of their agreement as in January I received an email from X1 stating that VCS will no longer patrol the car park and they are switching to ANPR with another company. My tickets were after this fact and so if I had that information to hand it would have been a lot simpler. This also raises the point that I don't think the evidence VCS supplied in relation to the contract was actually valid and potentially fradulent given the information they had redacted and the email I had recieved from X1.

I am considering taking legal action against them to recover some of the costs I have incurred and for stress and harrassment. If anyone knows of someone willing to discuss this with me please send me their details as that would be very much appreciated. 

I will do my best to respond to questions or queries but I am not that active on social media so expect some delay.

Good luck to everyone else in my position, and hopefully one day we can screw over these greedy, sneaky parking companies.

 

Car1980

I also stated that I have permission via my lease agreement to park there and that I was not provided with any additional terms from VCS or X1 prior to signing the lease. 

Lease or tenancy agreement?

olodhin

Are they not one and the same? I guess Tenancy agreement would be more accurate.

Gr1pr

You should have provided a costs assessment in your WS bundle and asked the judge to award them at the conclusion of the case, before departing 

I doubt that you will get anything for stress and harassment,  a very high bar to prove,  with medical evidence 

But well done on your win, probably due to the redacted contract and your validity to park there

olodhin

Gr1pr said:

You should have provided a costs assessment in your WS bundle and asked the judge to award them at the conclusion of the case, before departing 

I doubt that you will get anything for stress and harassment,  a very high bar to prove,  with medical evidence 

But well done on your win, probably due to the redacted contract and your validity to park there

Yeah the judge explained at the time also that as I was representing myself there were limits to what I could claim for anyway.

So I just take the win here in that regards. 

For the stress and harrassment side, are you saying it would be very hard to prove - even with - medical evidence?

I will submit a complaint with the ICO regarding mis-use of personal data as I don't think they had rights to request my information after January 2024 as I suspect they were no longer contracted.

Car1980

olodhin said:

Are they not one and the same? I guess Tenancy agreement would be more accurate.

No, the tenancy agreement is a contract between you and the landlord and is usually irrelevant.

The lease lays out the rights that go with the flat and may grant the leaseholder (and any tenants) exclusive rights over the space.

The judge should find against the parking company if the lease allows them no access or rights over the land.

The fact he didn't makes me think it was just a tenancy rental agreement.

Good job their landowner contract was faulty.

Have you actually obtained a copy of the lease from the landlord or another owner occupier? This is the key to actually getting them kicked
off site, which would be the best way to get revenge.

olodhin

No, the tenancy agreement is a contract between you and the landlord and is usually irrelevant.

Hmm ok interesting, I didn't know that. 

Have you actually obtained a copy of the lease from the landlord or another owner occupier? This is the key to actually getting them kicked
off site, which would be the best way to get revenge.

I have a copy of the agreement between VCS and X1 where the dates and other details like the signatory and their position have been redacted. From what I can see (it is also extremely low quality) there isn't any mention of access or rights over the land apart from the very last clause which states they are appointed as a managing agent and entitled and authorised to enforce rights duties powers under the contract. 

One of the points states the main wording of "Valid Permit Holders Park Only In Allocated Bays" with reference to additional terms may be stated.... Later under the client obligations which it refers to as X1 state that it is the clients responsibility to ensure that all vehicles using the car park display a valid permit. 

I wonder then if you could have argued that the onus is actually on X1 to ensure the pass is displayed as per their agreement with VCS and not myself. Maybe someone with a gifted tongue could do so.

Car1980

Yep, that's the landowner contract between VCS and X1.

Every flat will have a lease and it may say something like "the leaseholder has the exclusive right to use space 123, as marked on the map, to park a roadworthy vehicle in, but not to carry out any business on the land blah blah..."

Sometimes they say you must adhere to any regulations imposed by the freeholder, but that's quite rare.

Get hold of a lease from someone.

olodhin

I'm not sure how I would be able to get the lease information as I don't have direct contact with the landlord as it is managed by X1, I no longer live at the apartment either. I doubt X1 would provide a copy of any lease.