Court Case VCS EMA East Midland Airport BP Petrol CCJ defence to set aside

[50437]

Hi

*I have a telephone hearing coming up.*

I am requesting for supoort especially by those that know of successful concoided cases against VCS (Vehicle Control Services), No stopping charge at BP Petrol Station next to East Midlands Airport. Cases from 2019 onwards woukd be ideal.

I shall post more details below.*

[50437]

Hi
I have found this forum is very helpful,* i can not seem to find cases related to EMA,*East Midlands Airport, BP Gas Petrol Station, VCS, Vehicle Control Services cases that are similar to mine.*

I managed to get my illiterate-self a defence together and thus I have got a telephone call coming up from court.

I emailed Harvest Energy (who said they are kand owner) who said that usually they have a minute-long video usually and that what i have sent m
them that i have a bank statement receipt of purchase by the passenger (so not fair and I question why i got PCN) emailed them then they should be able to help me and they said they are waiting for VCS hopefully they drop case.*

But i still need to prepare for this telephone hearing.*

So i sent the court more evidence, the video going in and out to show how tough it is too see the sign. If anyone wants it i can send a YouTube link.*


I want to send the court a document about a byelaw that is in place, which I have mentiined in my defence and other airport cases defences may have been won due to that please help me if you have links and a defence put together regarding* byelaw and EMA airport.*


Anything else people can advise to ensure i get to back up my claim

see my defence below.*

Thanks*

[50437]

IN THE COUNTY COURT

*

CLAIM No: XXXXXXX

*

BETWEEN:

*

Vehicle Control Services Limited (“the Claimant”)

2 Europa Court

Sheffield Business Park

Sheffield

S91XE

*

-and-

*

XXXXXX (“Defendant”)

*

DEFENCE

*

1. The defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

*

No keeper liability

*

2. The vehicle, registration XXXX XXX, of which the Defendant is the registered Keeper, appears from the evidence supplied by this Claimant to have entered a petrol filling station from a private road and stopped briefly. As the Claimant does not know the identity of the driver of the vehicle in question, it must be presumed they are pursuing this claim against the keeper of the vehicle.

*

3. The land entered is not ‘relevant’ land as defined in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (POFA). Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 of POFA states that land is not ‘relevant’ where byelaws apply to it. In this case, the land in question is covered by East Midlands Airport Byelaws 2001, issued September 2009. As the land is not ‘relevant’ land the Claimant does not have the right to recover any unpaid parking charges from the Keeper of the vehicle.

*

No contract existed

*

4. The Claimant claims that there was a breach of contract for “breaching the terms and conditions” set on private land.

*

5. The Claimant’s case relies upon the signage at the site constituting a ‘contract’ between a driver and the Claimant, and the breaching of terms presumably refers to the supposed ‘contract’ formed by this signage.

*

6. In other correspondence, The Claimant invites the Defendant to refer to the ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ case. In the ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ case, it was found that a contract could exist because there was a meaningful ‘offer’ made to the Defendant (that of a licence allowing free parking for a set period of time) and that the Defendant’s agreeing not to overstay this period could constitute a ‘consideration’ in respect of this. There is no such ‘offer’ made by the signage in this case, no ‘contractual licence’, no ‘benefit of free parking‘, and no conceivable way anyone could have benefitted from this alleged ‘contract’ without breaching its terms. The ‘Parking Eye vs Beavis’ judgement is littered with references to the disputed charge being justifiable only in the context of the ‘contractual licence to park’ being given to the Defendant, e.g. ‘They must regard the risk of having to pay £85 for overstaying as an acceptable price for the convenience of parking there’.

*

7. The parking contract in ‘ParkingEye vs Beavis’ case was judged to be ‘objectively reasonable’ partly because ‘motorists generally’ did accept it. The landowner wanted as many people as possible to use the car park in question so the contractual arrangements were designed to be attractive to the average motorist. This is the complete antithesis of the supposed ‘contract’ in this case which is designed to actively discourage motorists from parking at the site. The terms of this ‘contract’ are not ‘objectively reasonable’, but deliberately designed to be so heinous that no one in their right mind would agree to them. It follows that this is not a ‘contract’ but a prohibitory notice masquerading as such.

*

8. In the Parking Eye vs Beavis case the Supreme Court Judges reiterated the requirement for fair and open dealing, at Para 205: “The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer.”

*

9. The Court is requested to consider the fairness of a term, where it is not 'prominent and transparent’. At the roadway where the PCN was issued, it was not transparent that anyone was agreeing to some sort of contract to pay £100 to park under some sort of licence. In this case, the unfair terms include the penalty fine itself and also the added £60 'debt collection costs' bolted onto this claim which themselves are unfair and breach Part 2 'Unfair Contract Terms' of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (CRA).


Inadequate, Contradictory, Unclear and Confusing Signage

*

10. It is the Defendant’s position that the accepting conduct and declining conduct are contradictory as one cannot be performed without first performing the other.

*

11. In Ransomes vs. Anderson (“the Ransomes case”), a persuasive County Court judgement on appeal, Judge Moloney QC said:-

*

12. “the notice was insufficiently clear to constitute a valid contractual offer capable of acceptance by conduct. […] Although the doctrine of acceptance by conduct, on the basis of the terms on a notice in a parking place or similar zone, is an obviously right, valuable and useful one, it is an essential minimum that the contract be sufficiently simple and clear that the motorist is in no doubt before he performs the accepting conduct what he is letting himself in for”.

*

13. It is the Defendant’s further position that due to the size of font used on the signage, the accepting conduct laid out in the signs was not readily legible without having first performed the accepting conduct and therefore fails when viewed in the context of the Judge’s comments in the Ransomes case in that there is doubt before performing the accepting conduct.

*

Unfair Terms Contrary to the Consumer Rights Act 2015

*

14. If, by pursuing this claim, the Claimant is denying that the Defendant has declined the alleged contract in accordance with the declining conduct, then the Defendant avers that the Claimant is forcing the contract irrevocably on the Defendant who has not had reasonable time to read and digest the terms, rendering it an unfair term as stated in Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015:-

*

“A term which has the object or effect of irrevocably binding the consumer to terms with which the consumer has had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract.”

*

No Grace Period

*

15. According to the current Contract between DVLA and parking companies, in order to obtain “Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event” (KADOE) information from the DVLA, Clause A6.1 states that “The Customer shall at all times be a member of a DVLA Accredited Trade Association (“ATA”) and maintain membership of the ATA and comply with the ATA’s Code of Practice or Conduct”.*

*

16. The Claimant is an Accredited Operator and a member of the International Parking Community (IPC), and according to the ‘Notice to Keeper’ issued to the Defendant, operates in accordance with their Code of Practice.

*

17. The IPC Code of Practice (Sixth Edition that was in force at the time of the event) Clause 15.1 states that a ‘grace’ period must be allowed:

*

“Drivers should be allowed a sufficient amount of time to park and read any signs so they may make an informed decision as to whether or not to remain on the site”.

*

18. A reasonable grace period in any car park would be from 5-10 minutes from the period of stopping. According to the evidence supplied by the Claimant, the Defendant’s vehicle was stopped for a period of less than one minute. Thus, a grace period was not observed and therefore the Claimant is in breach of the IPC Code of Practice, and therefore in default of the contract that exists between them and the DVLA; hence the Claimant has obtained Keeper details under false pretences.

*

19. Additionally, no contract can be in place by conduct until a reasonable period elapses.

*

20. Thus, the signage is simply a device to entrap motorists into a situation whereby the Claimant sends them invoices for unwarranted and unjustified charges, for which motorists can have no contractual liability due to the terms and conditions not having been sufficiently brought to their attention.

Double Recovery

*

21. The Claimant is seeking an additional £60 ‘debt recovery cost’ over and above the original Notice to Keeper amount of charge of £100.

*

The purported added 'costs' are disproportionate, a disingenuous double recovery attempt, vague and in breach of both the The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the CPRs), and the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Schedule 2 in respect of 'terms that may be unfair'.

24. The Defendant has the reasonable belief that the Claimant has not incurred an additional £60 in damages or costs to pursue an alleged £100 debt. The arbitrary addition of a fixed sum purporting to cover 'damages/costs' is also potentially open to challenge as an unfair commercial practice under the CPRs, where 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

25. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported added £60 'damages/costs' are wholly disproportionate, are not genuine losses at all and do not stand up to scrutiny. This has been recognised in many court areas. Differently from almost any other trader/consumer agreement, when it comes to parking charges on private land, binding case law and two statute laws have the effect that the parking firm's own business/operational costs cannot be added to the 'parking charge' as if they are additional losses.

26. Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67 ('the Beavis case') is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in the Beavis case) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model including recovery letters. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged 'parking charge' penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending upon the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters.

31. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 ('the POFA') at paras 4(5) and 4(6) makes it clear that the* will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (further, the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim, and this constitutes double recovery.

[ostell]

If you want help then stop annoying people by hijacking other threads, 11 at the last count.

So how can anyone help if you don't post up the original documents?

[50437]

Sorry. Here is there evidence. And as DB from harvest energy said, they have video. What i have is receipt in form of bank statement of item from that petrol station from the passenger.*

[50437]

CCJ says. The claim is for breach of contract for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. The defendants vehicle was identified in the fuel station in 3rd quater of 2019 in breach of advertised terms and conditions. Namely stopping in a zone where stopping prohibited. At all material times the defendant was registered keeper and or driver. The terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. The sign was the offer anf the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely the parking charge notice will be issued, and the defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.*

[ostell]

And the Notice to Keeper?

[yorkie246]

Just tell them the Airport and it’s land are covered by by laws and therefore is not relevant land. VCS have obtained the registered keepers details *From the DVLA on the grounds of a parking Charge Relying on POFA 2012 (parking) not a breach of contract. The first paragraph in the regulation says “relevant land” Technically they shouldn’t have asked for keeper details or sent out a PCN so you should not be answering to them as there industry guidelines do not cover stopping or parking on non relevant land.

[50437]

I cant find the NTK
â€
I have put relevant land bye law in the defence.

Please sss above, is that correct, anything i should add?*

have you got any links to cases with positive outcome.*
*

[50437]

I have received email from ELMS LEGAL today saying they passing my case over to litigation@excelparking.co.uk today as i have ordered judgement to be set aside and they deal with case including telephone hearing*

[ostell]

Usual Excel/VCS mixup. Excel were taken over by VCS and they occasionally use the wrong name to respond. Where the signs VCS or Excel, who was the PCN from?


SAR toVCS to get the docs

[50437]

VCS originally*
their legal rep were ELMS Legal and now they passed to Excel who, yes, you are right have same address as VCS.*

[50437]

How do i perform SAR?*

[50437]

Found this on ISOYou might not want all the personal data that the organisation holds about you. It may respond more quickly if you explain this and identify the specific data you want. When making an access request, include the following information:

• Your name and contact details.
• Any information used by the organisation to identify or distinguish you from other people with the same name (account numbers etc).
• Any details or relevant dates that will help it identify what you want.

For example, you may want to ask for:

• your interview statements;
• footage of you captured through CCTV/ other recordable devices
• custody records; and
• correspondence between the police and other organisations, such as those providing support to you.

Letter template

[Your full address]

[Phone number]

[The date]

[Name and address of the organisation]

Dear Sir or Madam

Subject access request

[Your full name and address and any other details to help identify

you and the data you want.]

Please supply the data about me that I am entitled to under data protection law relating to: [give specific details of the data you want, for example:

• emails between ‘officer A’ and ‘officer B’ (from 1 June 2017 to 1 Sept 2017) about me
• CCTV camera situated at (‘location E’) on 23 May 2017 between 11am and 5pm
• copies of statements provided to the police on 9 April 2017
• custody record of 9-10 October 2017

If you need any more data from me, or a fee, please let me know as soon as possible.

It may be helpful for you to know that data protection law requires you to respond to a request for data within one calendar month.

If you do not normally deal with these requests, please pass this letter to your Data Protection Officer, or relevant staff member. If you need advice on dealing with this request, the Information Commissioner’s Office can assist you. Its website is ico.org.uk or it can be contacted on 0303 123 1113.

Yours faithfully

[Signature]

[50437]

Usual Excel/VCS mixup. Excel were taken over by VCS and they occasionally use the wrong name to respond. Where the signs VCS or Excel, who was the PCN from?


SAR toVCS to get the docs

VCS was the claimant not excel.