We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
Simon Renshaw-Smith Hit By Double Whammy
bargepole
Posts: 3,236 Forumite
Milton Keynes today, before DDJ Simpson.
Case No. D9QZ6Q0J – VCS v Mr C.
Claimant represented by Mr Smith (Solicitor’s Agent)
Defendant represented by me.
The Defendant, a single chap aged 25, lived in an apartment complex, and was issued with a parking permit for a specific space by VCS, and a key fob to open the electronic gate to the underground car park.
He received 9 x PCNs, four of them for parking partly across the next bay, and the other five for not displaying the permit. His excuse was that his grandmother had recently died, and he was not concentrating on what he was doing.
Shortly afterwards, he moved out of there, and back home at his Mum’s address. He updated his details with the DVLA, and the LBCCC arrived. He ignored that, and the Court Claim, and the Default Judgment, because ‘he thought it was a scam’.
DCBL then turned up, to collect a debt which had risen from the original £993.34, to £2,677.77. He was out at the time, and they clamped his Mum’s car. Even though she could prove it was her property, she paid them in full to get it released.
He then applied for, and was granted, a set-aside of the Judgment, and today was the substantive hearing of the claim.
The DDJ started by asking if the £2,677.77 had been repaid to the Defendant following the set-aside in January. Mr S replied that it was still held by DCBL, pending the outcome of today’s hearing.
The 4 tickets for parking outside of a bay were quickly dealt with, because firstly, the signage didn’t mention the need to park in a bay, and secondly, the NTKs all said ‘parking without a permit’. So the DDJ said there is no cause of action for these, and Mr S abandoned that element of the claim.
For the 5 tickets for no permit, we argued that the AST, which was silent on the subject of parking, gave the tenant an implied right, and the fact that he had been issued with a key fob to access the electronic gate to the underground parking area, meant that he was a de facto authorised user.
The DDJ agreed, and said that the displaying of a permit was a matter of convenience to VCS, but there was no legal obligation for authorised users to display one. He said it was clear that the purpose of the scheme was to deter random interlopers, which did not apply here.
He dismissed the claim, which he said was ill-conceived, and improperly pleaded.
He ordered that VCS must repay the £2,677.77 to the Defendant within 7 days, whether or not they have recovered it from DCBL by then.
They must also pay interest at 8% on the money since the set-aside date of 31 Jan, which comes to £99.12, plus today’s costs of £95.
So a total of nearly £3k to come out of the VCS coffers, on top of the almost £1k that Lamilad stung Excel for yesterday – SR-S will have steam coming out of his ears.
Case No. D9QZ6Q0J – VCS v Mr C.
Claimant represented by Mr Smith (Solicitor’s Agent)
Defendant represented by me.
The Defendant, a single chap aged 25, lived in an apartment complex, and was issued with a parking permit for a specific space by VCS, and a key fob to open the electronic gate to the underground car park.
He received 9 x PCNs, four of them for parking partly across the next bay, and the other five for not displaying the permit. His excuse was that his grandmother had recently died, and he was not concentrating on what he was doing.
Shortly afterwards, he moved out of there, and back home at his Mum’s address. He updated his details with the DVLA, and the LBCCC arrived. He ignored that, and the Court Claim, and the Default Judgment, because ‘he thought it was a scam’.
DCBL then turned up, to collect a debt which had risen from the original £993.34, to £2,677.77. He was out at the time, and they clamped his Mum’s car. Even though she could prove it was her property, she paid them in full to get it released.
He then applied for, and was granted, a set-aside of the Judgment, and today was the substantive hearing of the claim.
The DDJ started by asking if the £2,677.77 had been repaid to the Defendant following the set-aside in January. Mr S replied that it was still held by DCBL, pending the outcome of today’s hearing.
The 4 tickets for parking outside of a bay were quickly dealt with, because firstly, the signage didn’t mention the need to park in a bay, and secondly, the NTKs all said ‘parking without a permit’. So the DDJ said there is no cause of action for these, and Mr S abandoned that element of the claim.
For the 5 tickets for no permit, we argued that the AST, which was silent on the subject of parking, gave the tenant an implied right, and the fact that he had been issued with a key fob to access the electronic gate to the underground parking area, meant that he was a de facto authorised user.
The DDJ agreed, and said that the displaying of a permit was a matter of convenience to VCS, but there was no legal obligation for authorised users to display one. He said it was clear that the purpose of the scheme was to deter random interlopers, which did not apply here.
He dismissed the claim, which he said was ill-conceived, and improperly pleaded.
He ordered that VCS must repay the £2,677.77 to the Defendant within 7 days, whether or not they have recovered it from DCBL by then.
They must also pay interest at 8% on the money since the set-aside date of 31 Jan, which comes to £99.12, plus today’s costs of £95.
So a total of nearly £3k to come out of the VCS coffers, on top of the almost £1k that Lamilad stung Excel for yesterday – SR-S will have steam coming out of his ears.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
2
Comments
-
quite right too, well done Mr C on helping justice to prevail on this one
looks like judges are getting clued up on leaseholders rights in these tenancy cases , especially when pleaded correctly (in the end , lol)
also makes the point that people should not IGNORE an LBC or an MCOL though0 -
quite right too, well done Mr C on helping justice to prevail on this one
looks like judges are getting clued up on leaseholders rights in these tenancy cases , especially when pleaded correctly (in the end , lol)
also makes the point that people should not IGNORE an LBC or an MCOL though
+1 So no Xmas card from Mr SRS - again.This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
Well done Bargepole :T:T
Was this BWlegal ??0 -
-
twhitehousescat wrote: »default ccj
I know but .....
Claimant represented by Mr Smith (Solicitor’s Agent)0 -
Well done Bargepole :T:T
Was this BWlegal ??
No, this was VCS who managed to screw it up all by themselves.
If the third and fourth letters in the claim number are DP, it was issued by BW Legal. This one is QZ, which means it's VCS/Excel.
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.0 -
No, this was VCS who managed to screw it up all by themselves.
If the third and fourth letters in the claim number are DP, it was issued by BW Legal. This one is QZ, which means it's VCS/Excel.
Thanks, good info.
So I guess that if VCS do not pay within 7 days, the defendant
can take it to the high court and send in DCBL for collection
OR, if DCBL do not pay VCS, VCS can go to the high court
to instruct an enforcement officer to call on DCBL to collect ?
All sounds a bit like Brexit to me0 -
Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.So a total of nearly £3k to come out of the VCS coffers, on top of the almost £1k that Lamilad stung Excel for yesterday !!!8211; SR-S will have steam coming out of his ears.
Well done, bp. I'm back in Skipton next month so hopefully I can add to his pain.0 -
He ordered that VCS must repay the £2,677.77 to the Defendant within 7 days, whether or not they have recovered it from DCBL by then.
Well done David, it is always good to read of own space cases going against the PPS, but have I missed something?
He paid presumably paid DCBL £2677 which is being refunded by SRS. What is going to happen to the money which DCBL are holding. Will they deduct their fees and return the balance to SRS?
And what about his poor mum, whose car was unlawfully clamped, was she compensated in any way.You never know how far you can go until you go too far.0 -
For those old enough to remember, Renshaw Smith's beaming face reminds me of Alfred E Newman from Mad Magazine:-Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke.
Well done, bp. I'm back in Skipton next month so hopefully I can add to his pain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._NeumanWhat part of "A whop bop-a-lu a whop bam boo" don't you understand?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.2K Spending & Discounts
- 243.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 597.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.5K Life & Family
- 256.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards