VCS Parking - CCCF Letter Received - Defence helped needed

[Deleted User]

Just spoke to someone in the Notts Crown Court who says the Notts Civil Court all turn their phones off after 2PM! This is tragic

...
And that my friend is the outcome of cuts to the court service budget in the UK. No-one will notice right? And no-one likes it when lawyers whinge anyway....

saarchy

Johnersh wrote: »

...
And that my friend is the outcome of cuts to the court service budget in the UK. No-one will notice right? And no-one likes it when lawyers whinge anyway....

Yup, not exactly an inspiring sight...

So I've received nothing from VCS at all today, which is in breach of the court documents I sent (all documents had to be submitted by the 2nd). The only document they've sent to date is the PoC, surely they can't be relying on just that?

Given I haven't received anything today, what options are open to me?

[Deleted User]

If they're very late I'd be saying they are debarred from relying on the statement and telling them to apply for relief from sanctions. See the thread from chambi01

nosferatu1001

When you can get hold of the court, ask if the court has a copy of VCS byundle
State you do not have a copy and wondered if they did

IF they dont have a copy - and they may have a backlog so its sitting unopened somewhere - ask the court to strike the claimants case as they have failed to follow the courts order of X date.
At least get them to record this fact that you made the request on X date as you had not been served either.

You then add this to the list of reasons why VCS is unreasonable and you are due more costs under CPR27.14(g)(2) including at least £19 per hour or try for 50% of a Band D fee earner which is somehting like £60 an hour.

saarchy

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

When you can get hold of the court, ask if the court has a copy of VCS byundle
State you do not have a copy and wondered if they did

IF they dont have a copy - and they may have a backlog so its sitting unopened somewhere - ask the court to strike the claimants case as they have failed to follow the courts order of X date.
At least get them to record this fact that you made the request on X date as you had not been served either.

You then add this to the list of reasons why VCS is unreasonable and you are due more costs under CPR27.14(g)(2) including at least £19 per hour or try for 50% of a Band D fee earner which is somehting like £60 an hour.

Finally got through to somebody. Nice lady who, whilst working in the family's Dept, was covering for the Civil team.

So no documents have been received by the court from VCS. However, they also haven't acknowledged my documents, which were 100% submitted on time. So it's likely they both might be sat in a backlog somewhere. Given the state of the phone systems, it wouldn't surprise me if that was pretty hefty!

Either way, I was told to send an e-mail to enquiries@blabla stating I hadn't received any documents from VCS and asking them to strike out the claim. Turns out they did pay the court fee on the 27th July though, so I'm guessing they must just be late sending out their documents....

Either way, 24+ hours delayed on legal documents. How look a grace period do they have before they're REALLY late....?

nosferatu1001

There was a court win on here recently, where the Judge took 2 days to be highly prejudicial - as well as blatant fact theyd amended their WS to try to counter the defendants WS, making the delay deliberate.

Edit: Found it! hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72934957#27

As there is no disclosure in a small claims case, the WS and bundle are the first time a defendant gets to see the claimants real case - so any delay causes a severe imbalance, and when its by a "professional" firm who issue lots of claims, it is inexcusable.

Hiopefully someone here can recall it.

Ask them to use their CASE MANAGEMENT powers to strike the claim of their own volition. THis means youre not asking for a hearing to strike the claim - which costs at least £100! - youre just asking them to go "well the claimants misbehaved, and has not obeyed the courts orders, so bye bye claim"

Umkomaas

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72934957#27

saarchy

nosferatu1001 wrote: »

There was a court win on here recently, where the Judge took 2 days to be highly prejudicial - as well as blatant fact theyd amended their WS to try to counter the defendants WS, making the delay deliberate.

Edit: Found it! hxxp://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=72934957#27

As there is no disclosure in a small claims case, the WS and bundle are the first time a defendant gets to see the claimants real case - so any delay causes a severe imbalance, and when its by a "professional" firm who issue lots of claims, it is inexcusable.

Hiopefully someone here can recall it.

Ask them to use their CASE MANAGEMENT powers to strike the claim of their own volition. THis means youre not asking for a hearing to strike the claim - which costs at least £100! - youre just asking them to go "well the claimants misbehaved, and has not obeyed the courts orders, so bye bye claim"

Excellent, thanks for the link. Very interesting read.

I received the trial bundle from VCS today (4th August) so 2 days late. I'll upload their documents here shortly, but wanted to act on the above first.

I've drafted the below e-mail which I believe I need to send to enquiries@nottsblabla.com. That is the e-mail address I was given over the phone as the best one to use for contacting the Civil team. Can you please let me know if the below is appropriate to send?

Good Afternoon,

As per the below communication, please can the court note that the Defendant has now received the trial bundle from Vehicle Control Services Ltd today, Friday 4th August 2017 for Claim XXXXX

This is in direct breach of the this court's ruling that 'Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court offices copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 2nd August 2017.'

As such, please can I ask the court to use their Case Management powers to strike this claim of their own volition. This is due, but not limited to, the following;

- The claimant is a professionally represented serial litigant with unlimited access to Legal advice from qualified Legal professionals. It is inexcusable for them not to comply with the court's directions, and their failure to do so is an abuse of process and contempt of court.

- The late-filed witness statement capitalises on my own statement being filed on time, by attempting to rebut the points I had made in it, creating an unfair advantage for the claimant

- This submission date is the first opportunity that the Defendant has disclosure on what evidence is being submitted by the Claimant. As such, and in addition to the aforementioned point, the Defendant has not had the allocated time, allocated by the court, to prepare their documentation prior to submission.

The Defendant urges the court to not tolerate this serious breach of judicial equality and to take all steps necessary to eradicate this lax culture of non-compliance by striking out this claim.

In addition, the Defendant seeks guidance from the Court as to whether this trial bundle is now inadmissible due to failing to meet the deadline and as such, should be ignored.

I look forward to hearing from you,

Saarchy

[Deleted User]

I don't think that is the correct approach. You should be writing to VCS to tell them that they are out of time and that they are now required to apply to COurt for relief from sanction if they wish to rely on the evidence. You will seek debarral from reliance on the evidence.

The longer they leave it without applying for relief from sanction, the greater the risk that the claimant will be disallowed from reliance upon the evidence.

The relevant legal test is Denton v TH White, as I have noted on the thread linked to (which is, of course that of Chambi01 that I had earlier referred to also). If you revisit the postings, you will see from the report that the test was applied in relation to each part of the failures. The test is as follows:

1. Identify the default and assess its “seriousness or significance”: relief will usually be granted for breaches which are neither serious nor significant (the word “trivial” used in Mitchell has been dropped);

2. Consider why the default occurred (i.e. whether there is a good reason for it);

3. Consider “all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable [the court] to deal justly with the application”. It is not the case that an application for relief from sanctions for a non-trivial breach for which there was no good reason will automatically fail. The particular factors mentioned in the rule (the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and court orders) “may not be of paramount importance [but] are of particular importance and should be given particular weight” (interestingly, Jackson LJ dissents on this point, saying that those factors have to be considered but not necessarily given greater weight than others). The promptness of the application, and other past or current breaches, will also be relevant at this stage.

saarchy

Johnersh wrote: »

I don't think that is the correct approach. You should be writing to VCS to tell them that they are out of time and that they are now required to apply to COurt for relief from sanction if they wish to rely on the evidence. You will seek debarral from reliance on the evidence.

The longer they leave it without applying for relief from sanction, the greater the risk that the claimant will be disallowed from reliance upon the evidence.

The relevant legal test is Denton v TH White, as I have noted on the thread linked to (which is, of course that of Chambi01 that I had earlier referred to also). If you revisit the postings, you will see from the report that the test was applied in relation to each part of the failures. The test is as follows:

1. Identify the default and assess its “seriousness or significance”: relief will usually be granted for breaches which are neither serious nor significant (the word “trivial” used in Mitchell has been dropped);

2. Consider why the default occurred (i.e. whether there is a good reason for it);

3. Consider “all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable [the court] to deal justly with the application”. It is not the case that an application for relief from sanctions for a non-trivial breach for which there was no good reason will automatically fail. The particular factors mentioned in the rule (the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and court orders) “may not be of paramount importance [but] are of particular importance and should be given particular weight” (interestingly, Jackson LJ dissents on this point, saying that those factors have to be considered but not necessarily given greater weight than others). The promptness of the application, and other past or current breaches, will also be relevant at this stage.

Thanks for your thoughts as always Johnersh! 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?

On that note, I've just been re-reading their trial bundle and noticed they've dated the document 28th July, as well as the brown envelope the document came in being postage stamped with the date 28.07.2017. I absolutely only received this today (4th August) but I don't have any way to prove this, other than an e-mail I sent to the court yesterday advising that I hadn't received.

Did it really take a week to arrive? Or is is this a trick of some sort? How do I get proof this arrived today?