PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Issued on Residential Parking Space CC claim issued
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 12:24
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



I have been issued with CC claim from Simon Renshaw-Smith of VCS.
It is my intention to robustly defend this claim and countersue.
My case will be in court within the next few weeks.

My case:
125 yr Lease Purchased April 2015
Residential Parking Spaces x 2 demised through lease
35 PCN's to date - all ignored by me, no court action from VCS, apart from this one.
Landowner's Agent EM Estates instruct FirstPort to maintain apartment block and common /demised land within boundary - carpark.
FirstPort engages VCS to manage car park.
VCS claim breach of Contract by conduct
ie I ignored signage.
Contract law is clear on this - A Contract cannot be lawfully upheld by Performance, nor can it assumed nor implied.
No contract exisit between me & VCS
VCS Signage cannot overide my Lease.
This claim is therefore without merit.
I would make a request to have it 'Struck Out' but I intend to Countersue


No contract exists bewteen Lessor (me) and Landowner (Lessor) to allow a third party to unilaterally change the t&c’s of my lease.
No Deed of variation of said lease exists to allow same.


Therefore VCS have no legal authority to operate on land which I own by virtue of lease.
FirstPort have no legal authority to instruct VCS to act on behalf of Lessor
This is a complete breakdown in instruction
The PCN’s are unlawful and therefore unenforceable
In essence VCS has no legal authority or proprietary interest to operate on my demised land

This mean that VCS has ‘no right to an Audience’ and herein lies the rub!
A Judge will take a dim view of having his / her time and court resources wasted by people (VCS) who use the courts in this way whom have NO legal right to do so.
The courts do not exist as an additional debt collection agency for VCS nor do they exist to Wet Nurse the likes of Simon Renshaw Smith with their scurrilous activities.

I am Countersueing using Davey V UKPC as my guide - a good read.
(DVLA information being illegally gained - £750 claim met etc)

Many thanks to anyone reading this and able to offer additonal input


Best regards
Pearl




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
12 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 12:24
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:04
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,835
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Contracts can be formed by conduct but I agree it appears you have primacy.

But the judge may also take a dim view of you ignoring them.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:52
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,146
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



It has been held that a notice on the wall can create a contract.

Agreed that your lease has primacy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 16:08
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 14:04) *
Contracts can be formed by conduct but I agree it appears you have primacy.

But the judge may also take a dim view of you ignoring them.


Can VCS ask for 35 other PCN's to be taken into consideration?
Is not the case, that only the material fact presented on the day can be presided over?

Incidentally, in my defence I have 2 parking spaces and VCS only ever issued me with one permit.
Despite my sending Tiltle Deeds accompanied by Land Registry Doc showing 2 spaces clearly marked.
In additon too 17 emails - 10 Phone calls and 2 letters which also followed on to the FM Company asking them to intervene.

Thoughts?

Thanks
Pearl


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 16:45
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,146
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



This is not a criminal court, if it ever gets to court so the option of taking into considertion is not an option. They could ask for all 35 to be heard in one case but have not done so. I suspect that they are trying one case and if they win will try for the rest.

VCS are required, by the IPC Code of Practise, to have the authority of the landholder to be able to operate. You are the landholder therefore no authority.

As VCS have been made aware that you are the owner then they should not be proceeding. I would say that it is reasonable to allow them to get your name and address from the DVLA but once they find that it is the landholder they are dealing with then they should quietly go away. That should be the basis of your counterclaim. Why are you displaying permits? Is this only as a convenience to their operatives to show that you have a right to be there? There was no intention at all to create a contract with VCS. Did you pay/sign for the permits?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 18:52
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



I comprehend the distinction between Criminal Law and Civil and with, respect I apologies for the overuse of the word ‘ preside ’ and offer instead ‘officiate’.
However, taking into consideration the case of UKPC v Davey it was deemed that the PCN issued was unlawful and therefore followed that the procurement of data was also unlawful. UKPC had no legitimate business reason to obtain date from the DVLA
Mr Davey countersued and was awarded £750 accordingly.



I am encouraged that you offer the opinion that VCS should go away quietly.

I only ever displayed a permit as courteousness to other residents to show that the vehicle in question did not belong to some opportunist.

No payment was ever given for the parking permit
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:13
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,835
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



From memory, Davey was freehold and he sought an injunction and was awarded damages. I don’t believe data protection was part of the claim.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:39
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



Correct, Davey was a Freeholder.

The similarity is that carparking was/is allocated by purchase.
That is sacrosanct. No third party can intervene.

I'll look again, but I'm convinced I saw an award for £750 for wrongful data collection.


That said, I stand to be corrected at any point, hence my posting to gain knowledge.

Many thnaks
P
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:56
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,835
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Just checked. He claimed damages for trespass and sought an injunction.

They continued to ticket him after telling them to cease and desist on his land.

It was 'just' £150 for the trespass and £1,280 costs.

Some MIL cases have seen large 'data protection' awards of around £750.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:59


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 00:38
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 789
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Counterclaiming is a lottery. A few people have done nicely out of counterclaims, but judges often dismiss them, particularly those involving application for and receipt of data from DVLA.

In my residential case, the judge dismissed the claim against me and, in doing so, stated that "the entire scheme is invalid and they have got no legitimacy in issuing parking tickets for this land".

She did, however, also dismiss my counterclaim on the basis that, until I convinced her that the scheme was invalid, the parking company believed their scheme was valid and, as a result of holding that belief, they had "reasonable cause" to apply for and obtain my details from DVLA.

My purpose in making a counterclaim was to get the case heard. I succeeded in doing that. I succeeded in being awarded my costs (i.e. loss of pay, mileage and parking for the day in court). What must have hurt the parking company most, however, was that the parking company had to pay for Counsel who, having written a statement of legal arguments for them, then represented them in Court. I suspect that would have cost at least £2,000.

So, if you want matters to come to a head by having your day in court, do issue a counterclaim, but don't get over-optimistic about the counterclaim succeeding.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 00:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
publicenemyno1
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 08:18
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 104
Joined: 18 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,938



That's interesting - so since then you have been able to park without a 'permit' and have had no further tickets?

Have they issued a specific instruction not to ticket your car and/or space, or just given up on your location generally (even if signs still exist and/or permits are still offered).

I wonder what a GDPR request would flush out regarding your address / location / registration?

Frankly that's also ******** logic by the judge, superficially it sounds reasonable, but is no better than the City police letting Phorm off the hook for snooping on
peoples broadband traffic because 'they were trying to do something good and help people'. I imagine notwithstanding the DVLA there must have been a lot of stressful discourse
between you even after you had stated your ownership of the land / right to enjoyment right from their very first begging letter? No LiP claim for paperwork?

This post has been edited by publicenemyno1: Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 08:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 08:44
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



This isn’t about the money. This is about justice. This is about seeing Mr Simon Renshaw Smith across the table. This is about bringing SRS to Newcastle from Sheffield and the expenses he will incur therein.
This is about me wanting to see the whites of his eyes.

This case is another embarrassing one for the industry-funded British Parking Association (BPA), of which VCS is a member, because Mr Renshaw-Smith holds a senior position in the organisation.

BPA- statement ‘Our code of practice requires members to obtain authority from landowners to pursue parking charges from motorists on their behalf.

He of all people should be aware of the IPC code of Practise. To plead ignorance of compliance is not going to stand up to test.




QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 09:18) *
That's interesting - so since then you have been able to park without a 'permit' and have had no further tickets?

Have they issued a specific instruction not to ticket your car and/or space, or just given up on your location generally (even if signs still exist and/or permits are still offered).

I wonder what a GDPR request would flush out regarding your address / location / registration?

Frankly that's also ******** logic by the judge, superficially it sounds reasonable, but is no better than the City police letting Phorm off the hook for snooping on
peoples broadband traffic because 'they were trying to do something good and help people'. I imagine notwithstanding the DVLA there must have been a lot of stressful discourse
between you even after you had stated your ownership of the land / right to enjoyment right from their very first begging letter? No LiP claim for paperwork?


Yes, Im claiming for LIP at £19 per hr
If judgement is granted in my favour also loss of earnings at £35 per hour.

Tort claim for distress & Trespass currently under review
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ostell
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 09:24
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,146
Joined: 8 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,457



You mean you are after vengeance not justice.

You are using both BPA and IAS as if they are interchangeable. VCS is an accredited operator under the IPC scheme, having moved from the BPA in 2014 so why is it an embarrassment for the BPA? They can be a member of both but the operate under the IPC Code of Practise.

Claim in court will be for loss of pay, limited to £95 per day plus travel at 45p (?) per mile plus parking

To claim LIP rates you will have to show that VCS has been totally unreasonable. I forget the actual legislation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 10:00
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 10:24) *
You mean you are after vengeance not justice.

You are using both BPA and IAS as if they are interchangeable. VCS is an accredited operator under the IPC scheme, having moved from the BPA in 2014 so why is it an embarrassment for the BPA? They can be a member of both but the operate under the IPC Code of Practise.

Claim in court will be for loss of pay, limited to £95 per day plus travel at 45p (?) per mile plus parking

To claim LIP rates you will have to show that VCS has been totally unreasonable. I forget the actual legislation.


"Vengance" such an ugly word for a sunday morning.
Personally, I prefer "Retribution"
....but then again its all a matter of semantics.

The “embarrassment “ comes about from having had the exalted Mr Simon Renshaw Smith as a board/council member, when his activities compromise and breach their policies and regulations.
As I see it the, conduct of SRS has resulted in a breach of his duty; and the breach resulted in harm to another party (Me) and my property (Trespass) .
Ipso Facto : Embarrassment


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:14
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Why would he actually travel there? You cannot compel his appearance.
CPR27.14(2)(G) is what you need to be reading up on. To even get £19 ph you will need to show how they have behaved unreasonably, so you will need to heavily lean oin the fact that they KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that they had free- or leaseholders to deal with, and thus would need to gain indivudlal permission. So you will likelyt need to drag in other cases where HIS firm has lost at SCC level in residential cases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:32
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:14) *
Why would he actually travel there? You cannot compel his appearance.
CPR27.14(2)(G) is what you need to be reading up on. To even get £19 ph you will need to show how they have behaved unreasonably, so you will need to heavily lean oin the fact that they KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that they had free- or leaseholders to deal with, and thus would need to gain indivudlal permission. So you will likelyt need to drag in other cases where HIS firm has lost at SCC level in residential cases.


Many thanks for this information, it is greatly appreciated.

He has signed the CC form as the Claimant.
Would this not compel his or his representatives appearance ?






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:20
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Of course not. He just sends ahired goon who only gets the papers that morning. Costs them about £300 or so but better than travelling.
You need to read a LOT of court report, here and on MSE, to understand WHEN your costs can be claimed in excess of £95, the difficulty in getting this, and some of the grounds you will need to establish. I assume youve read CPR27.14... by now to see how this is arequirement, due to the rules of the small claims track.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pearlofwisdom
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:56
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 101
Joined: 2 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,224



Yes I have read CPR27:14 and now have a better understanding of the procedure.

Naïvely, I imagined SRS / VCS to be of substance and principle whereby they firmly believe they have entitlement and will justify their convictions by attendance.

How wrong can you be?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 09:00
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,616
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Why on earth would you, as a company, spend employee time on this when its cheaper and better (as they cannot be directly questioned on the no doubt shoddy "witness" statement theyll produce) to send a rep?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Eljayjay
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 16:05
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 789
Joined: 1 Apr 2017
Member No.: 91,235



Imagining a parking company "to be of substance and principle" was pretty naïve.

Your first priority is building your defence. Residential parking cases are often very easily defended, but you have to do your homework and do it thoroughly.

Your lease is almost certainly your greatest friend. If you can, get it scanned as a searchable pdf document - you need something better than the free version of Adobe for this. Then conduct a search for "park". Copy and paste every bit of the lease mentioning "park" into a new document.

Then go through it again to look for anything that makes provision for changes to the lease to be made or for rules and regulations to be added by the landlord and/or the management company. Copy and paste those bits to the new document.

Do the same again but, this time, looking for anything about "rights of third parties". Copy and paste again.

Search for "rent", "charge" and "permit". Copy and paste anything of relevance.

Do not just select extracts which suit your case, copy and paste everything of relevance. The reason for this is that, if the parking operator gets a copy of the lease, you need to figure out how to defend yourself from extracts that they throw at you.

On each search, go though the lease from beginning to end.

Post what you find.

Ask the freeholder whether it has ever signed a parking contract with the parking company or authorised anyone else to do so on its behalf. Often, parking contracts are made between the parking company and managing agents without the latter having sought and obtained authorisation from the owner or occupier of the land.

Even a scheme implemented under a parking contract signed by the freeholder is likely to be invalid. For example, if the lease grants you a right to park (and to authorise others to park) in an allocated parking space, any attempt by the freeholder to grant a share of that right to the parking company without your consent would be doomed as it would be contrary to the principle of non-derogation of grant implied in every lease.

This post has been edited by Eljayjay: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 16:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

12 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 21st September 2018 - 16:49
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.