VCS Excell parking Birmingham Albert Street court date adjournment Options

[ruokhunz]

Hi I'm wondering if anyone could help please today I've had a court date adjournment for the regular VCS sting! Sadly I've had a court date adjournment pending a witness statement to be provided by myself wiring seven days and to be submitted to the court.

To be honest I don't really remember the said incident as this was back in 4/7/17

Im not sure what to do to be honest I have been asked to produce a witness statement and within seven days I'm not sure of the do's an don'ts here to be honest this whole case is causing me so much stress and anxiety.

I remember the date as I was attending Ariana and friends in Manchester so unfortunately whilst I am the registered keeper of the vehicle I don't believe my vehicle could of been parked there for an extended time limit.

VCS to be honest it's not entirely clear what they are claiming wether they are saying the vehicle wasn't wholly within a bay or if it was parked in a designated area where there's no parking.

Likewise the judges confusion as to what the reference in the statement was saying it's only in VCS witness statement photographic evidence has been supplied.

Could anyone please help with where to go with this I'm not sure at all with regards to what should now be put in my witness statement.

Many thanks

I'll try an attach a picture of the said "parking bay"

Attached thumbnail(s)

 

[Advertisement]

[ostell]

So what was on the original PCN? Those look like regular parking bays, with no restrictions.

Write down a list of what you think happened on that day, from your point of view ?

Have you complained about their unclear particulars of claim>?

[ruokhunz]

So what was on the original PCN? Those look like regular parking bays, with no restrictions.

Write down a list of what you think happened on that day, from your point of view ?

Have you complained about their unclear particulars of claim>?

Hi Ostell sadly I don't have the original PCN it was not parked wholly within a bay there's photographic evidence since been produced of the vehicle over the markings which aren't solid lines.

Not yet complained about the unclear particulars of claim I have really little knowledge in this area so not sure what to do?

The judge has adjourned the case I will be held liable for VCS costs for the travel etc today. An I'm to submit a witness statement to both the claimant an the court within 7 days

Thanks for the reply

[Churchmouse]

What's the total demand at this point?

--Churchmouse

[ruokhunz]

At this point I am to cover the expenses for VCS photographic evidence was produced via an iPad yesterday which was in the witness statement I received from VCS this is the first time evidence has been provided.

The evidence shows that the said vehicle wheel alignment is over the bay however I have photos also that indicate the bay is not clearly marked the carpark is poorly maintained.

VCS are to make clear wether they are suggesting the vehicle wasn't parked wholly in a bay or was parked in a restricted zone.

An I need now to produce a witness statement and submit to court an the claimant within seven days and cover the costs which I have 14 days to do so.

Feel like this is such a mess to be honest VCS Eugh!

[nosferatu1001]

NO, whats the amounton hte claim

Thats what we're asking about

When you got the court date letter, that letter told you, usually on the back, that you were to produce this witness statement. By not doing os, you are in breach of the court order and thats why you are going to end up paying their costs for today.

Yes, its a mess because you didnt do any reading up or prep. Tihs is a formal legal process and you HAVE to do the ground work. Failing to prepare, which is what youve done, is a way to fail.

So, a witness statement is a series of FACTS - you are the keepr of car XYZ, the vheilce was parked by WHO on the day? Was it you? Was it someone else? Do VCS or the court know who drove? If it was someoene else, how can you know this?

[ruokhunz]

Hi all,

Thanks for the advice so far I am trying to attach the copies of the PCN which I the registered keeper never received.

I have also prepared a draft witness statement

I will also attach the photographic evidence documented in the claimants witness statement

Any advice greatly appreciated

[SchoolRunMum]

Can you show us their evidence as well please?

[ruokhunz]

I'm trying to upload items it allowed me yesterday to upload files from my phone an add attachments I've now tried to do this via phone an laptop no success not sure as to why I'm unable to upload?

Newbie slowly sinking

Please send help ha! 😉😊

All help so far greatly appreciated

[SchoolRunMum]

Put them in Dropbox and show us a share link, not an upload.

[ruokhunz]

thanks SchoolRunMum I've just managed to do this now VCS docs

[SchoolRunMum]

Which car park is this then, as your draft WS says there are some signs mentioning VCS and some with Excel on them.

Is it Albert Street Birmingham, where there WERE signs with the 'wrong' company on them and there have been other cases, some of them blogged about by the Parking Prankster if you Google the car park and his blog name.

You haven't shown us their evidence of the signs, any pics of the car and a sign in the same view? Can we see those?

What about their evidence of their Notice to Keeper (both sides) as their WS suggests that they are trying to rely on the POFA/keeper liability, but we'd say they DON'T comply.

[ruokhunz]

This is Albert Street carpark in Birmingham SchoolRunMum the point I am referring to in the witness statement is that VCS have included a photograph of signage artwork the one that refers to Vehicle control services there's photos I have that mention Excell I find the sinage here misleading.

My vehicle I believe was parked there at 12:32 an the PCN issued at 12:52 they have included photos of a ticket it's Excell parking on the ticket artwork provided.

The Google Drive link id added photos of the vehicle in situ I shall add more. In terms of photos with a sign in the same view there is nothing been provided for that.

There is one photo where there's a potential obstruction in the bay infront but photographs have been taken closer to the vehicle to not see the full view.

Interestingly enough no photographs have been provided whereby it is a clear indication of who was driving the vehicle and the time upon entry and exit?
This car park states it has ANPR technology. So wouldn't a photograph be captured upon entry?

I will take a photo of the NTK

Thank you

[ostell]

There have already been cases where the signage says Excel but the claimant has been VCS. They are sister companies but legally separate. In parking within an Excel car park you create a contract with Excel. For VCS to then claim for breach of contract, or whatever, is incorrect as they are strangers to the contract between you and Excel. This is an important, and probably winning, point.

[ruokhunz]

I have updated the folder with the NTK an a few other bits

Interesting about the other cases the photographic evidence that VCS has supplied is unclear an you cannot tell what is stated in the T&Cs also the logo is Excell no idea if that makes a difference but personally I find that totally misleading.

They have supplied supposed artwork of sinage which obviously would work in there favour.

I shall work further on my witness statement

Thanks


https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1rPi...BYWoYrK37f0kI9V

[ostell]

If the signage says Excel then, as I said, your alleged contract is with Excel and VCS can't then claim from you as they are a stranger to the contract. Cases like this have been thrown out because of this. You must check the signs

Just checked your attachments in the previous post. Looks like VCS may have shot themselves in the foot by supplying pictures of the signage that says Excel in no uncertain terms. They cannot bring a claim against you as they had no contract with you. This is unreasonable behaviour by VCS and you want to claim all your costs from VCS, your time at £19 per hour and printing and postage costs.

This post has been edited by ostell: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 - 17:33

[SchoolRunMum]

Your WS also needs to expose them for misusing Vine v Waltham Forest. Judges have admonished them for that before (the quote they use, is not part of the final decision, it's the Respondent's argument!). See a solicitor poster on MSE called Johnersh explain how misleading that is, here in a draft skeleton argument:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showth...17#post73971817

The Claimant appears to have led the Court to the Respondent's argument in Vine v London Borough of Waltham and, critically, NOT the ratio of the judgment from Roch LJ that provides as follows:

To show that the car owner consented or willingly assumed the risk of his car being clamped, it has to be established that the car owner was aware of the consequences of his parking his car so that it trespassed on the land of another. That will be done by establishing that the car owner saw and understood the significance of a warning notice or notices that cars in that place without permission were liable to be clamped. Normally the presence of notices which are posted where they are bound to be seen, for example at the entrance to a private car park, which are of a type which the car driver would be bound to have read, will lead to a finding that the car driver had knowledge of and appreciated the warning. In this case the Recorder might have reached such a conclusion about the appellant's state of knowledge, but he did not do so. The Recorder made a clear finding of fact that the appellant did not see the sign. That finding is not surprising in view of the absence of any notice on the wall opposite the southern parking space and the appellant's distressed state, the reason why the appellant parked and left her car hurriedly. It was the appellant's evidence that she did not see the sign. There was never any suggestion that the appellant was other than a truthful witness.

The above (paragraph 19 of the judgment) is quite different from the general presumption that the Claimant invites the Court to make. It is for the Claimant to show that their signage is capable of forming a contract, of sufficient number to be seen, illuminated where the parking occurs at night and clear.

You need to read other Albert Street cases as well, e.g. those blogged about by the Parking Prankster - and your WS can include printouts of his blogs. Your WS needs to attach your evidence (as it should have done all along, like the Claimant did, you should have done the same).

they have included photos of a ticket it's Excell parking on the ticket artwork provided.

Do you mean the PDT from the machine was in the name Excel, making any contract ONLY with Excel? I seem to recall another poster said the PDT machine was an Excel one with Excel logos on the ticket you pay for. Can you actually make that out on their evidence? You need to state that in your WS as well.

If you do not know who parked that day or it wasn't you, then also attach to your WS proof of where you were, and note the failure of the NTK to properly use the POFA wording - for example the 'please be warned' section at the end of page 1 of the NTK has the 28 days 'beginning with' the wrong date. This not only misleads a keeper as to the date that they could otherwise have been established as potentially liable under the POFA, but it simply does not comply with the mandatory words in the statute. Therefore it's fundamentally not a document that can lead to keeper liability. The POFA wording is simple and if the Claimant cannot replicate the prescribed warning and period until keeper liability, and you can show you were not likely to have been that driver, and because the contract (signage, and the PDT itself) were not even in the name of this Claimant - then their case has no merit at all.

[ruokhunz]

I have updated the folder with the NTK an a few other bits

Interesting about the other cases the photographic evidence that VCS has supplied is unclear an you cannot tell what is stated in the T&Cs also the logo is Excell no idea if that makes a difference but personally I find that totally misleading.

They have supplied supposed artwork of sinage which obviously would work in there favour.

I shall work further on my witness statement

Thanks


https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1rPi...BYWoYrK37f0kI9V

[SchoolRunMum]

also the logo is Excel no idea if that makes a difference but personally I find that totally misleading.

You NEED to know why that makes an enormous difference. We did say!

because the contract (signage, and the PDT itself) were not even in the name of this Claimant - then their case has no merit at all.

[DancingDad]

Just to comment on Excel v VCS.
Signs on entrance are purely Excel, no mention of VCS whatsoever.
Signs by ticket machine do mention VCS as agents (I have some pics I can find if needed) but IIRC also say Excel.
On my court appearance on that car park, VCS lawyer was adamant that VCS signs were at entrance, judge made no ruling on that but my photo of entrance sign clearly shows no VCS.
PM me with email address if you need any.
Parked outside of markings?
What markings ?????
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/NCP+Car...33;4d-1.8928988
Spot any that are not worn to oblivion ?