VCS Parking - CCCF Letter Received - Defence helped needed

[Deleted User]

Deemed date of service is 2 working days. As such, if postmarked 28/7 (Friday) the second day is the following Monday - 31/7.

It doesn't matter what analysis you use, the documents are late.

If they've failed to put enough post on, it could have arrived second class. In which case the date of arrival, not deemed date of service is what is relevant.

[Deleted User]

Is there not an argument to do both? Ask the court to dismiss the claim, as well as writing to VCS to inform them I received the documents late?

By all means once you are in front of a judge, but the Court is highly unlikely to strike out the entire claim without hearing from the Claimant - otherwise thy cannot address the test above. Principles of natural justice do apply. Technically, also, the penalty would be strike out of the bundle not the claim (albeit that the effect may be amount to the same) so the case is also unlikely to be struck out entirely just on that basis.

If you are going to ask the judge to exercise their powers - particularly the nuclear ones, I would suggest trying not to appear opportunistic. If you write to VCS and give them the chance to remedy their defect and they ignore you or (even better) refer you to the reply in Arkell v Pressdram, i'd go armed with that material to the Court and ask for the evidence to be excluded, making plain that the Claimant was on notice of the failure and that you expected them to apply for relief.

saarchy

Johnersh wrote: »

By all means once you are in front of a judge, but the Court is highly unlikely to strike out the entire claim without hearing from the Claimant - otherwise thy cannot address the test above. Principles of natural justice do apply. Technically, also, the penalty would be strike out of the bundle not the claim (albeit that the effect may be amount to the same) so the case is also unlikely to be struck out entirely just on that basis.

If you are going to ask the judge to exercise their powers - particularly the nuclear ones, I would suggest trying not to appear opportunistic. If you write to VCS and give them the chance to remedy their defect and they ignore you or (even better) refer you to the reply in Arkell v Pressdram, i'd go armed with that material to the Court and ask for the evidence to be excluded, making plain that the Claimant was on notice of the failure and that you expected them to apply for relief.

Thanks for all your help so far mate, really appreciated. Could you give a glance over the below letter and let me know if it's appropriate? I've kept it short, but please do amend/embellish if it'll help! I'll send VCS a copy by e-mail for redundancy. Is it worth sending the court a copy of the e-mail as well for their records?

Dear Adam Glasby,

I write in regards to claim XXXXXX. Please note that the trial bundle that was sent in relation to this claim was received by the Defendant on Friday 4th August 2017. As is clear, the court required all documentation pertaining to this claim to be submitted to all parties no later than Wednesday 2nd August 2017.

As Vehicle Control Services have not been able to meet this deadline, the trial bundle is inadmissible. It is therefore suggested that you request a relief from sanction from the court in order to rely on this evidence moving forward.

Given the Claimant is a professionally represented serial litigant with unlimited access to Legal advice from qualified Legal professionals, it is inexcusable to not comply with the court's directions whilst the Defendant, being a litigant-in-person, was able to do so. As such, the Defendant will seek debarral from reliance on this evidence.

Regards,

Saarchy

[Deleted User]

Hi Saarchy

By all means send it, but reviewing the thread and now you have flagged the terms of the Order, I may have inadvertently confused matters. Please check the dates carefully.

The envelope is postmarked 28/7. So it was, on balance, sent in time. If the correct postage was applied, the Claimant is then entitled to expect that that it will reach you within 2 working days under the Court rules (CPR 6.28) - even if the documents never arrived at all. If they can certify that the documents were sent/confirm that to the Court they will not be subject to penalty.

On my calculation the second working day is Tuesday 01 August, which is before the date of the Order (just). If I am correct in the above - do double check - I think you are better off choosing a different battle with VCS to fight.

saarchy

Hey all,

Just under a week now before the court date. In a strange way, I'm looking forward to it and putting an end to this 9 month saga. Given I've never ever been on the wrong side of the law, I have to admit to being a little nervous about the whole thing, but I'm pretty damn confident in my argument and hoping any reasonable judge will see that.

The trial bundle that VCS sent is 150 pages (compared to my measly 16 pages) but a huge amount of it is items not relevant to my case in the slightest. There's a number of issues & contradictions in their bundle that I'm looking forward to discussing, but I'm cautious of sharing those intimate details on a public forum, especially given the likelihood that this site is being monitored.

That being said, I've uploaded the Witness Statement part to a new Imgur gallery (http://imgur.com/a/Uf6M1) and would love your thoughts/feedback on it. Given it's 150 pages in total, I've only uploaded the Witness Statement at this stage, but happy to share more details if you wish. Sorry in advance for the quality, my scanner finally arrived but seems to be DOA (typical). I've also spent the last 2 hours fighting with Imgur to upload the pictures correctly and at a resolution that makes them legible.

I'm also preparing to send my Schedule of Costs to the court via e-mail this weekend which (please correct me if I'm wrong) is acceptable given the 3 day buffer period prior to the court date. Was there any amendments I needed to make on the schedule of costs.

Finally, VCS have submitted 3 previous cases (Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking, Vine vs Waltham Forest & PE vs Beavis). Should I upload those transcripts as well or is this something you're all familiar with.

Let me know if there's any questions/further information that would help. Massively appreciate all the help as always!

saarchy

Anything on this one guys?

Coupon-mad

Just reminding us all of the facts of your case, which sounds like you can show the signs were badly placed and not capable of forming a contract (you can't pretend you didn't see them, because of collecting more than one PCN, but you can say the signs were on the opposite side of the road and not relating to the place where all cars were parked and ticketed in a predatory, systematic milking of the workers):

I worked for a company for 5 years with poor parking facilities. I used to park on a nearby road in the same industrial estate, but after it became popular, VCS moved in. They only signposted half the road (only the parking bays) and would regularly ticket every car on the road, on both sides as well. After my first few tickets, I came here and read through the newbie forums. I found the template, fired that out to VCS and both of my parking tickets were cancelled. Excellent work MSE! I still collected tickets though for parking there (often dubiously) but instead of continuing to challenge them (as I had done the previously) I started ignoring them.

I've just had a CCCF issued to me on the 15th Feb from the CCBC for a grand total of £880.

The trial bundle that VCS sent is 150 pages (compared to my measly 16 pages) but a huge amount of it is items not relevant to my case in the slightest.

I think the word to describe that, is 'prolix' and the Judge might even call it that!

VCS have submitted 3 previous cases (Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking, Vine vs Waltham Forest & PE vs Beavis). Should I upload those transcripts as well or is this something you're all familiar with.

We are all familiar with those cases.

- Thornton v Shoe Lane (in basic terms) established that a contract existed when a driver put coins in a machine, and that other terms could not be added later. Doesn't help their case, not similar, no contract agreed.

- Vine v Waltham Forest (in basic terms) established that terms on a sign are there to be seen and can form a contract, but in fact in that case Miss Vine won on appeal because she didn't see the signs and the sign in question had something like less than 10 large font words on it - something like 'No parking - unauthorised vehicles will be clamped - £XXX release fee'

- The Beavis case is recent and from 2015: you will surely have read about it already, and need to distinguish your case from it. He was deemed to have agreed to a contract to pay £85 because the signs were prominent and plentiful and the £85 was in the largest font:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eYdphoIIDgE/VpbCpfSTaiI/AAAAAAAAE10/5uFjL528DgU/s640/Parking%2Bsign_001.jpg

System

Why not suggest to the judge that the case is adjourned so the Claimant's witness can attend to explain their WS in relation to the papers presented.

Might get VCS or is it BW Legal to see some sense.

bargepole

IamEmanresu wrote: »

Why not suggest to the judge that the case is adjourned so the Claimant's witness can attend to explain their WS in relation to the papers presented.

Might get VCS or is it BW Legal to see some sense.

Neither of those firms have a track record of doing that previously, not sure why they should start now.

OP, am I missing something here? That VCS W/S says, at para. 4: "This action relates to a commercial car park situated within the demise of Nottinghamshire. The car parks are situated inside Globeside Business Park".

I thought this case related to Globeside Business Park in Marlow, Buckinghamshire.

This casts doubt on their entire W/S, which is clearly a template document prepared by someone who has no first hand knowledge of the location, or any of the alleged parking contraventions.

If this witness does not attend the hearing, and as a result you have no opportunity to cross-examine him on the statement, you can ask the Judge to strike out the statement pursuant to CPR 27.9.

Once the statement is struck out, they effectively have no case.

[Deleted User]

What i've seen of the statement is (as noted above) error of fact - the parking is in Buckinghamshire and IMHO not connected to any motorway network. Mr Glaseby also fails to explain the source of facts not known to him, but which he states. That is, strictly speaking, a requirement of his statement. Perhaps most fundamentally there is also misstatement of the CPR in a manner which is, frankly, disingenuous.

CPR 16.1(d) states:
16.2
(1) The claim form must –
(d) contain such other matters as may be set out in a practice direction.

So, what does the practice direction say:

7.3 Where a claim is based upon a written agreement:
(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and
7.5 Where a claim is based upon an agreement by conduct, the particulars of claim must specify the conduct relied on and state by whom, when and where the acts constituting the conduct were done.

Whilst Part 27 permits a Defendant using MCOL not to attach a contract with the Particulars (i.e. PD 7.3(1) can be bypassed), it is not permitted to now advance by means of a witness statement, an allegation that the contract was formed on the basis of conduct. That needed to be pleaded in the Particulars.

So what do the Courts say:

As you know, whilst the statement of case should be concise and, in any event, supported by evidence, it needs to be more than a bare statement:

‘Pleadings are…required to mark out the parameters of the case that is being advanced by each party. In particular they are still critical to identify the issues and the extent of the dispute between the parties.’

That's from McPhilemy v Times Newspapers Ltd [1999] 3 All ER 775 (Woolf MR). As Judgments go, it's an oldie, but a goodie

That said, the Court may well accept that there is at least a 51% chance you were the driver throughout if the tickets took place at or in the vicinity of your work.

Clearly the core defence grounds will be (a) not their land - which is not addressed - and (b) poor signage. As regards the prohibitive signs, the statement tries valiantly to say that a prohibition on parking can be a contract, but it can't. On his logic you agree to a £60 fine the moment you even stop the car to read the sign. I think not.