County Court claim recveived for PCN issued nearly 4 years ago!

[charitynjw]

Scrub the notice of assignment...not applicable.

1. *Details of the terms and conditions for the Staples & Soundcontrol Carpark site.
2. Details of the size and location of the signs that you say were displayed on the site.
3. Details of the wording on the signs that you say were at the entrance and details of the wording on the signs that you say were located at prominent locations throughout the site, if the wording differs.
4. Copies of all documentation which you will rely on in court as evidence, including, but not limited to, a copy of the notice to the registerd keeper.
5. A copy of the landowner/parking company contract enabling you to operate on the site plus any other relevant intermediate contracts.
6. A copy of the KADOE agreement btween yourselves & DVLA.

*Not sure what you are requesting here. The alleged contract is the wording on the sign. (Your para #3)
I've fiddled around with various other bits.

[Mavs24]

Brilliant, thank you. I was at my In Laws last night so got a little assistance with the * points in the letter, but will copy this over and get it printed and sent today.

I have also been in contact with an old colleague who was also victim to this company in the same car park. They advised at the time they were ticked, they contacted the land owners and were advised that VCS did not have permission to ticket in this location????!!!

[charitynjw]

I have also been in contact with an old colleague who was also victim to this company in the same car park. They advised at the time they were ticked, they contacted the land owners and were advised that VCS did not have permission to ticket in this location????!!!

Yep.
& I'll bet my (second best) shirt that they will not disclose the landowner etc contract.
Many of them (or their sols) assert that it is a legally priviliged document, & therefore exempt from disclosure.
Imho that is *carp!


*Sorry - predictive text.

[Mavs24]

Haha!! Well, I'm feeling much more at ease today about things prior to my travels! Letter printed and will be in the post Asap! I believe you'll be keeping your (second best) shirt a while longer!! But thank you for setting my expectations - trying to establish who the land owners are, but not succeeded so far!

[Mavs24]

Yep.
& I'll bet my (second best) shirt that they will not disclose the landowner etc contract.
Many of them (or their sols) assert that it is a legally priviliged document, & therefore exempt from disclosure.
Imho that is *carp!


*Sorry - predictive text.

My former colleague got back to me last night after doing a little digging - the landowners are http://evans.dighigh.co.uk//portfolio/ - the 'Citygate' plot on this page is the site the ticket relates to. Just wondered if you have any advice on this prior to my attempting to make contact re permission to ticket on this land? I was advised by my former colleague they just called them at the time and were told VCS did not have permission, but they would not provide confirmation of this at the time, similarly 4 years ago.

I have sent the letter via registered post yesterday directly to VCS requesting their evidence as described above (so batted it back to them!!) - just want to plan my next move!!

[charitynjw]

I doubt whether Evans would have any direct involvement in hiring a private parking co for their sites.
It's much more likely that it would be a management co. on their behalf.
Might be worth contacting them to find out who is responsible for the day-to-day running.

[Mavs24]

I doubt whether Evans would have any direct involvement in hiring a private parking co for their sites.
It's much more likely that it would be a management co. on their behalf.
Might be worth contacting them to find out who is responsible for the day-to-day running.

Thank you - on it now!! :-)

[Mavs24]

I got through to a really helpful guy at Evans - he was able to search through some old emails (as he didn't work there in 2015) and was able to advise that his predecessor was not happy with the conduct of VCS and started terminating their contract in November 2015 - this came to an official end in April 2016, so this in after the alleged incident! He was also able to send me a copy which I have posted below......:-(

[charitynjw]

I got through to a really helpful guy at Evans - he was able to search through some old emails (as he didn't work there in 2015) and was able to advise that his predecessor was not happy with the conduct of VCS and started terminating their contract in November 2015 - this came to an official end in April 2016, so this in after the alleged incident! He was also able to send me a copy which I have posted below......:-(

Looks like they're cream crackered, then, lol!

[Mavs24]

Looks like they're cream crackered, then, lol!

....

[charitynjw]

My alleged incident took place in August 2015, so is within their contract term - not sure how that will stand for my defence if they're able to produce relevant documentation?

Ah yes....I misread your post.
In that case I doubt whether it's of any advantage to mention it.
See what they come up with (if anything) re that CPR 31 request.
But don't miss the defence deadline.

[Mavs24]

Ah yes....I misread your post.
In that case I doubt whether it's of any advantage to mention it.
See what they come up with (if anything) re that CPR 31 request.
But don't miss the defence deadline.

Hello charitynjw , I'm back from my travels! I can also confirm I have had no response to the letter I sent re the CPR 31 request as you predicted. Should I make any further contact to chase this or just go ahead with me defence? I intend to submit my defence no later than Thursday next week to hit the deadline of 29th July, so will be working on it this week. I will no doubt be seeking advice on this too if you would be so kind!

[charitynjw]

Did you get proof of posting for the CPR 31?

[Mavs24]

Yes I did. I sent it registered post requiring a signature, and I have the receipt.

[Mavs24]

Hi charitynjw - thank you for all your help and advice so far - I've been working on my defence this evening, and have a couple of questions for you please before I get this in the post.....

I will post below two alternate defence statements - the first one has much more detail in than the other - could I ask you to offer any advice on which is better (if any good at all!). Also, I have the proof of postage and a signature to confirm the CPR 31 letter was received by VCS who subsequently have ignored me - would you recommend sending copies of this to the court with my defence or holding back on this for now?

Version 1:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and was the driver of vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date (14 August 2015). The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. In order for the Claimant to win their case there are a number of issues to be decided by the Court.

a. Does Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCSL) have a contract with the landowners or occupiers of the Staples & Soundcontrol Carpark (the Carpark) that allows them to operate?

b. Are the signs “large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so” as was the situation in ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (UKSC 2015/0116)?

c. If the signs are large, prominent and legible, can the wording actually create a contract ?

3. I am unable to answer any of the above questions myself as, despite the fact that I requested VCSL to provide certain details, they have failed to provide me any of the information I requested. I attach a copy of my letter of 1 July 2019. The letter was sent by registered post and I attach a printout of the confirmation of receipt, as signed for by a representative of VCSL. Nevertheless, I have attempted to answer these questions myself.

4. I have not received confirmation from VCSL that they do, indeed, have a contract with the landowners or occupiers. I visited the Carpark on 27 June 2019 to see what was said on the signs to answer questions b and c and found that VCSL do not currently operate the Carpark and so am unable to use the signs to confirm the nature of the contract between the landowner or occupier and VCSL as set out in paragraph 2.a.

5. Since VCSL have not replied to my letter, I am also unable to comment on either the size oprominence of any signage that VCSL claim to have been in the Carpark to answer the question posed in paragraph 2.b. You will see that I had asked VCSL to provide details of the size and location of the signs as I do not recall there being any large signage when I used the Carpark in August 2015.

6. On 27 June 2019, when I visited the Carpark, I examined the entrance to see what signs are currently situated and to see if any evidence exists of a previous sign. On approaching the Carpark from Leeds Inner Ring Road along Wellington Bridge Street there is currently no sign facing the driver and I could not see any place where a sign could have been attached in the past.

7. When approaching the Carpark from Kirkstall Road the driver is faced with a small sign put up by the current operator of the Carpark. However, this corrugated plastic sign appears to be a recent and temporary sign. It is held in place by means of two thin strips of metal attached to a low post. I can see no indication of any permanent or longstanding post to carry a sign at the entrance.

8. As a result of my visit in June 2019, I do not think that any prominent sign could have been displayed in August 2015 and I repeat my earlier statement that I do not recall seeing any prominent signs in August 2015.

9. As VCSL have not provided me with the wording of the signs and alleged contractual terms, I am unable to answer the third question as set out in paragraph 2.c.


Version 2:

1. The Defendant was the registered keeper and was the driver of vehicle registration number xxxxxx on the material date (14 August 2015). The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to relief in the sum claimed, or at all.

2. In order for the Claimant to win their case there are a number of issues to be decided by the Court.

a. Does Vehicle Control Services Limited (VCSL) have a contract with the landowners or occupiers of the Staples & Soundcontrol Carpark (the Carpark) that allows them to operate?

b. Are the signs “large, prominent and legible, so that any reasonable user of the car park would be aware of their existence and nature, and would have a fair opportunity to read them if he or she wished to do so” as was the situation in ParkingEye Limited v Beavis (UKSC 2015/0116)?

c. If the signs are large, prominent and legible, can the wording actually create a contract ?

3. I am unable to answer any of the above questions myself as, despite the fact that I requested VCSL to provide certain details, they have failed to provide me any of the information I requested. I attach a copy of my letter of 1 July 2019. The letter was sent by registered post and I attach a printout of the confirmation of receipt, as signed for by a representative of VCSL. Nevertheless, I have attempted to answer these questions myself.

4. I have not received confirmation from VCSL that they do, indeed, have a contract with the landowners or occupiers to confirm the nature of the contract between the landowner or occupier and VCSL as set out in paragraph 2.a.

5. Since VCSL have not replied to my letter, I am also unable to comment on either the size or prominence of any signage that VCSL claim to have been in the Carpark to answer the question posed in paragraph 2.b.. You will see that I had asked VCSL to provide details of the size and location of the signs as I do not recall there being any large signage when I used the Carpark in August 2015.

6. As VCSL have not provided me with the wording of the signs and alleged contractual terms, I am unable to answer the third question as set out in paragraph 2.c.




Any advice is always greatly received - thank you again.