liverpool airport

Coupon-mad

wedding1944 wrote: »

I have now received a "NOTICE OF PROPOSED ALLOCATION TO THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK" this is apparently because i am defending the claim regarding my breakdown on Liverpool Airport service road VCS are certainly trying hard but it will fail as either way no payment is going to be made

But you are not defending it at all unless you send a full defence to the Court now and ask the judge to consider it as part of your defence - and send a copy to VCS.

Have we not spelt it out? Sorry but your 'defence' is worse than useless.

morrisoscar

wedding1944 wrote: »

In defense it was put down that the car coasted to a halt after engine stopped responding to accelerator peddle so we had no control of what was happening and then having to pull over to side of road but after a 30 second stop a time of stop given by VCS we managed to get car to respond and moved off and that at NO TIME was car causing a danger to other road users and was not even on the bus lane part of road only one other car passed whilst stopped

Sorry if I'm wrong but your insistence on using mitigation as a defence and ignoring advice not to is starting to look a little bit like a wind up to me.

The_Slithy_Tove

wedding1944 wrote: »

I am defending the claim regarding my breakdown on Liverpool Airport service road

And if you continue that line of defence you will lose. Courts deal with points of law, not mitigating circumstances. Unless you challenge VCS and the claims they are making on legal points, they'll win for sure. Why are you not taking this more seriously?

wedding1944 wrote: »

VCS are certainly trying hard but it will fail as either way no payment is going to be made

VCS may be trying hard. You, clearly, are not. As things stand, they will win, and you WILL be paying (or ending up with a CCJ). This is so easily defended on so many points, yet, from what we've seen so far, you are not doing so.

wedding1944

well after nearly a year since my breakdown on Liverpool airport road for approx. 30 second it went to court in Bradford mid December. In a previous thread I explained how I failed with POPLA it went on from there with VCS eventually submitting a claim against me at the clearing court they use. the court sent me some forms VCS wanted the case to be in Sheffield I put down I wanted Bradford, the case went to BRADFORD.
The first thing I received was a large envelope sent recorded delivery with an A4 folder and about 40 sheets of photo copies outlining the contract VCS have with the airport these were required to be sent as VCS may use them in court these copies were binned within 30 minutes but the A4 folder is handy plus a CD disc which contains a video of my car stopped this video was very amateurish it started by filming the grass in front of person walking who took it the wobble footage of car in distance could have been done on a mobile phone not very official at all.
A month before case a phone call from court was an option given me to settle out of court I asked the court official if they broke down on a restricted stopping zone would you pay over £180-00 I got my answer to court we go.
In court VCS sent there own person from Sheffield from their LEGAL department.
The judge asked if I new there was no stopping on that road I remarked that yes and the signs were all over but what could I have done under the circumstances I asked the Judge what would you have done given the same problem.
VCS the produced a document from some local council (not from VCS) outlining excuses for breakdowns in restricted areas the Judge would not allow it as it had NOTHING to do with the case.
The judge then asked VCS what they would do if he accepted what had happened, VCS told him that the case would have to be dropped, well the judge said I do accept what happened CASE OVER.
This cost VCS 2 lots of charges for court and a fee to POPLA a recorded delivery parcel 60 pieces of A4 paper and a persons time and travel from Sheffield involving a half day.
This was a big waste of time and money for VCS I am retired and travel was free on local bus.
SO THEY VCS HAD THIER DAY IN COURT AND LOST

esmerobbo

Well done and thanks for coming back and letting us know. Their legal rep wasn't called Rachel Coates was she?

You seem to have won this case on pure logic rather then a detailed defence, well done to the judge for showing the same logic. I bet they thought they would have an easy win because they had won at POPLA.

Shame you are retired could have hit them for costs!

wedding1944

The person from VCS was an Asian man

Folkiedave

I am pretty sure Rachel was a hired in legal or para legal.

Binning details of their contract was a shame - it might have proved useful later.

The_Slithy_Tove

Good grief! While a win is a win, you were on b***dy thin ice there. You appeared to have NO legal defence, and completely ignored all the good advice here around putting together a proper defence. Consider yourself very lucky indeed.

esmerobbo

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Good grief! While a win is a win, you were on b***dy thin ice there. You appeared to have NO legal defence, and completely ignored all the good advice here around putting together a proper defence. Consider yourself very lucky indeed.

Proves one thing how much of a lottery the county court is, we have seen excellent defences defeated, and seen victories with poor ones.

I think this judge needs commending on the fact that common sense should have prevailed, before it even got to court. After all no one has control over a vehicle that wont go!

nigelbb

As I commented on this same case over on PePiPoo I don't think that this judgement is perverse at all. The motorist's defence was that the car "spluttered and car refused to pull I was stopped for 30 seconds before it started to run correctly". We have no reason to doubt his version of events and neither did the judge. Given that even in real 'no stopping' zones you won't get fined for a breakdown I don't see how any other verdict could have been reached. There was no need to get into whether there was a contract or whether £100 was a GPEOL.

I am however surprised that VCS chanced their arm with this case when there are plenty of others where no breakdown occurred. It may be that they thought that there had a sure fire winner because the OP's POPLA appeals as turned down.

I do hope that the OP will inform POPLA of their mistake in refusing his appeal & all the expense that they have cost VCS with this fruitless court case.