VCS COUNTY COURT CLAIM FOR STOPPING AT HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT |
VCS COUNTY COURT CLAIM FOR STOPPING AT HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT |
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 15:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Hello
I’m hoping that I am posting this in the correct place the correct way (trying to do along this on my phone) I’m unlucky enough to have received County Court Claim form today for what seems to be an 11 second stopping spell in the renowned bus stop lay-by trap at Humberside Airport. I’ve thrown all I have at VCS since November last year, failed the appeal, received god knows how many debt collection letters, responded to their letter before claim and now this. So I believe I now need to acknowledge this claim and send my defence. So what I’m really looking for is some help on the defence, as I suppose this is now my last chance to shake VCS off. I’ve not drafted anything yet but will get onto it ASAP. I’m thinking of following along the lines of my response to the letter before claim which I have copied below. Any help/pointers/advice will be gratefully received. I am in receipt of your letter before claim dated 22nd July 2018. I was surprised to receive this correspondence as since your last correspondence I have received no less than 5 letters from your debt collection agencies Zenith and DRP for this alleged 11 seconds worth of “parking charge” which allegedly took place on 7th November 2017. After what can only be described as 10 months worth of relentless threats and harassment from yourselves and your partner “debt collectors” with their threatening correspondence even in the absence of a County Court Judgement against me. I am once again having to spend quite some time away from my infant son to defend myself from what can only be classed as extortion. It has only this past year, been suggested by our very own members of Parliament that parking outfits such as yourselves be further regulated as poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and opaque appeals processes indeed have no place in 21st century Britain and quite frankly you have no place persistently interfering with my day to day life. To date you have served to be nothing short of a noose around my neck during a time when I should be focusing on life as a new mother and I should be directing all of my attention toward my infant son. You may, or may not be interested to know that I am not of the type of person that goes out of their way to take my chances in relation to the rules of the road and their respective laws. You certainly seem to be quite insistent that I am indebted to you because you seem to believe you have some sort of level of authority. I am copying into this response to you, Humberside Airport also, as I am sure it will be in their commercial interests to see why perhaps members of the public aren’t utilising their services. Since the beginning of your harassment campaign for an alleged 11 second long carparking charge, it appears that you have inflicted your “carparking charge” reign of terror on many many people around me also. I for one, certainly won’t be paying Humberside Airport a visit any time soon to utilise any of their services for fear of being held liable by yourselves for undertaking some sort of innocent action which you may disguise as a “parking charge”. I do not accept liability of the said debt or “parking charge”. No doubt you are still in possession of all the correspondence in relation to this matter to date dated 21st November 2017 and 28th November 2017. To summarise my reasons for not accepting liability:- Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 does not apply as Humberside Airport is subject to Humberside International Airport Bylaws 1999 which are clearly stated on their website and enshrined in law. As a result you are not legally entitled to pursue me for any sort of “parking charge” under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. A parking charge for a period of parking cannot cannot apply to the stopping a vehicle. Your notice to keeper states “stopping” as the reason for your “parking charge”. A “parking charge” can also not apply to any area of land which is not a car park. Your charge notices appear to be nothing more than an attempt to impose a fixed penalty in which you have no authority in law to do so. The photographs you have provided on your two charge notices show a vehicle that cannot even be identified as the one I am registered keeper of with it’s brake lights and rear number plate lights clearly illuminated. A parked car does not have illuminated lights. The amount charged does not represent a genuine estimate of loss. Nothing has been provided to me to date to state yours or any land owner or Humberside airports particular losses arising out of this specific alleged incident. It is unreasonable for you to pursue “parking charges” for the stopping of vehicle for a mere 11 seconds given that 15 minutes free parking is indeed available a matter of meters away from where you claim the said incident occurred. You have repeatedly stated that you consider your charges not extravagant or unconscionable as supported by the Supreme Courts decision in the case of ParkingEye v Beavis. However I fail to see any similarity between the individual circumstances here and this case that you repeatedly refer to. There is no contract with the registered keeper as per ‘The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regulations 2013 To date you have not provided me with evidence that you are legally entitled or contracted by the registered owner of the land to pursue charges/penalties/raise invoices for alleged incidents. Indeed such time has now passed in that a Landowner can no longer make a claim. You are trying to enforce an unfair contract as per ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999’ & OFT ‘Unfair Contract Terms I would also point out that you have claimed within your two charge notices to have obtained my details from the DVLA Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. However, as the registered keeper of the vehicle, you are not entitled to pursue me under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, as this Act does not apply to the land on which the alleged offence took place. You have unlawfully obtained and then misused my personal information and this is a breach of DVLA Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002. You have utilised information from the DVLA to undertake your campaign of harassment and extortion for your own financial gain. I reserve the right to pursue a complaint in this regard to DVLA. Should you continue to insist that you will commence legal proceedings against myself, I shall of course ask the Judge to consider all of the above and all that stated on my previous correspondence to you to date. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 15:32
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 21:27
Post
#81
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Good luck Babyshark, my wife has just received the 'Letter of Claim' prior to issuing a claim in the County Court. This is from 7 June 2013 and is for an 18 second stop at the infamous 'Bus Stop'. Thank you Grimsby Ranger. Good luck to you too. I’ve located your thread. I hope you intend to fight to the bitter end and keep your thread up to date. It does make me wonder if there will now be a flurry of claims arising out of Humberside Airport. This post has been edited by Babyshark: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 - 21:29 |
|
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 13:42
Post
#82
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
I now have VCS witness statement all 54 pages of including exhibits. I've been mulling it over for a few days whilst drafting/ building my witness statement. They seem to be arguing law of agency in respect of the unidentified driver and the alleged contract formed by signage. As you know, I am a complete newbie, but to me there seems to be a lot of waffle and irrelevant points in their document that don't show much resemblance to matters at hand. I have looked at numerous witness statements on MSE and on here and they vary a great deal in size and detail and are generally a lot shorter than this.
Do I go all out and produce a similarly large witness statement responding to every single point they have mentioned even if their point could be irrelevant? This post has been edited by Babyshark: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 13:43 |
|
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 13:51
Post
#83
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,898 Joined: 15 Dec 2007 From: South of John O'Groats, north of Cape Town. Member No.: 16,066 |
In general, anything you don't contest, you are deemed to have accepted.
The law of agency case they are quoting is probably CPS v AJH Films. It doesn't apply to you because there is no employer/employee relationship. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017...-ajh-films.html Do they also mention Elliott v Loake? Do a search and see if you can work out for yourself how to rebut that one. -------------------- Cabbyman 11 PPCs 0
|
|
|
Wed, 5 Dec 2018 - 16:48
Post
#84
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Thanks cabbyman I will continue to respond to each point.
They haven't mentioned anything about CPS V AJH films or Elliott V Loake. |
|
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 12:23
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
Your WS is your facts
Likely the WS make s a lot of sassumptions and si not a witness statement, but a load of previously unadvanced claims and legal arguments |
|
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 13:10
Post
#86
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Thanks for the clarification Nosferatu.
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 18:32
Post
#87
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 211 Joined: 27 Dec 2014 Member No.: 74,894 |
I bet some Judge will be very impressed reading through 53 pages of Jakes crap.
|
|
|
Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 23:13
Post
#88
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,825 Joined: 16 Nov 2008 Member No.: 24,123 |
|
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 20:04
Post
#89
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18,751 Joined: 20 Sep 2009 Member No.: 32,130 |
QUOTE They seem to be arguing law of agency in respect of the unidentified driver Use Excel v Smith (appeal) to rebut that (see the Parking Prankster's case law, the transcript is there and you can use it with your WS). At that appeal hearing, the Judge admonished Excel - sister company of VCS, both owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith - for misusing AJH Films and also demolished any attempt to use the law of agency (which is where the first Judge had erred). Make sure YOUR Judge knows the first Judge in Excel v Smith erred in law re the law of agency argument, just in case your Judge has a similar wrong view. Steer them away. This post has been edited by SchoolRunMum: Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 20:05 |
|
|
Fri, 7 Dec 2018 - 20:34
Post
#90
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Many thanks For the advice SchoolRunMum
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 22:22
Post
#91
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
I'm still on with responding to VCS' excessively huge witness statement within my own witness statement. They've thrown in Excel Parking Services V Nick Jenning (2017) in order to sway the judge in their favour that registered keeper is liable under law of agency. I've already incorporated in my witness statement Excel v Smith. Am I correct in that their reference to Excel v Jennings 2017 amounts to very little as it is outweighed/overtaken by Excel v Smith appeal since Excel v Smith was an appeal? I'm struggling to find the words to shut them down on this point.
|
|
|
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:14
Post
#92
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
I'm still on with responding to VCS' excessively huge witness statement within my own witness statement. They've thrown in Excel Parking Services V Nick Jenning (2017) in order to sway the judge in their favour that registered keeper is liable under law of agency. I've already incorporated in my witness statement Excel v Smith. Am I correct in that their reference to Excel v Jennings 2017 amounts to very little as it is outweighed/overtaken by Excel v Smith appeal since Excel v Smith was an appeal? I'm struggling to find the words to shut them down on this point. Excel vs Smith was at Appeal, so a higher authority and can be asked to be persuasive as it addresses the issue of agency directly, with references to Bowstead on Agency. . Excel vs Jenkins was just a small claims case and not binding. Include the judgement of Excel vs Smith in your WS as the judge's summary of agency is excellent. The judge also warned about citing cases (like Jenkins) which did not establish new law in small claims cases and threw out CPS vs AJH on that basis and also that it wasn't a defended case, so the legal arguments from both sides was never heard. This post has been edited by Spudandros: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:17 |
|
|
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:20
Post
#93
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Many thanks Spudandros, your help is very much appreciated.
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 09:34
Post
#94
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,126 Joined: 31 Jan 2018 Member No.: 96,238 |
Could request that the VCS witness statement is struck out because it's impossible to separate the facts from the extensive legal arguments that have no place in the document
It has, as a result, required your own witness statement to be longer than necessary in order to address the errors in the Claimant's argument Could include a comment after Excel v Smith that, if the legal principle existed that the driver is an agent of the registered keeper, Parliament would not have found it necessary to create a right of recovery in POFA |
|
|
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 09:59
Post
#95
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Thanks Redivi.
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 17:10
Post
#96
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 18:33
Post
#97
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
|
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 17:47
Post
#98
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 240 Joined: 7 Feb 2016 Member No.: 82,244 |
Yes, crutchley too. Ok. You should prepare a defence against that, so read up on it. Main difference is that the land on which the Crutchley judgement was based was not covered by bylaws. Loosely what Crutchley held was that as there were a large number of repeater signs saying "No Stopping", it wasn't neccessary for the driver to stop and read the T&C as he was already aware stopping would incur a charge. |
|
|
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 - 18:29
Post
#99
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 31 Aug 2018 Member No.: 99,657 |
Thanks Spudandros. I have incorporated byelaws. I had to put my witness statement in today, it was the last day for submission! I took it to the Court personally given I was cutting it fine with the deadline.
|
|
|
Tue, 18 Dec 2018 - 08:46
Post
#100
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,687 Joined: 27 Nov 2007 Member No.: 15,642 |
And you should be prpeared for -= how is that OFFERING anything?
No stopping is not an offer It is clearly meant to prohibit stopping It is also unlawful to do so without it considering crcumstances, as you MUTS be able to stop on a roadway accessbiel to the public AND to claimant as well? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:57 |