Vcs letter before claim...mistake of calling VCS when receiving NTK...Help!

Suggii

thanks C-M, I amended para 11 below, (just want to ask, i mentioned in Para 20 about them being different legal entities, should i omit it from there?)

11.The claimant is alleging that the driver formed a contract with them by reading the terms and conditions on the sign and accepting them by remaining on site (as opposed to rejecting them and leaving). This is called acceptance by performance. However, the defendant could only form a contract with Excel Parking Limited (LTD), not the claimant, by virtue of the signs being in the name of Excel. According to Companies House website, Excel Parking Services Limited company number is 02878122, whereas V.C.S Car Park Management Limited company number is 02638134. This only proves that both are different legal entities. Exhibit XX companies house website. It is further confirmed by the email correspondence by Excel Parking that the claimant is clearly a stranger to any contract and has no legal capacity to issue a claim. Exhibit


20. Should the claimant provide evidence to substantiate their claim then the signage at the entrance to the car park and in and around the car park must have been unclear, insufficient and/or confusing to the vehicle driver. Excel parking and Vehicle control services are two different legal entities see Exhibit XX vat details.

I also added a paragraph on the Caernarfon case on abuse of process;

45.That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.'' Exhibit XX

finally omitted Para 65 and few others from there as they sounded repetitive and only kept the two below;

62. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

63. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Suggii

if anyone can critique anything else, i would be grateful. i hope it all flows and makes sense.

other than that onto sorting the evidence bundle..

would i need to print out case transcripts of the cases i have mentioned for the court and claimant? as VCS didn't seem to have any in their bundle.

can anyone advise, i just scan the whole document with evidence into a PDF file and email to the VCS litigation email address that is on the covering letter that was with the WS?

please do correct me if i am wrong.

regards

U414830

Best to have printed case transcripts in your bundle for the Judge to view,

email vcs don't waste a stamp on them, put in for your costs too.

Umkomaas

Which 'transcripts' are you thinking of including? Those such as PE v Beavis? In which case just lift the relevant paras, not copy the whole Supreme Court transcript.

Suggii

I mean as in have the cases that I have cited I.e beavis, jopson etc , would I need them in only my evidence bundle or to include them in the courts bundle too?
As I have mentioned paragraphs from the cases or overall mentioned issues. Do I need the proof of the transcript.

Or as you have mentioned just print out sections that apply as evidence in exhibit?

Suggii

I just remembered would it be worth comparing the beavis sign to excels? Or leave that out

Coupon-mad

You do not need the actual transcript of the Beavis case at all, so save your ink and paper! It's well known & binding case law, no need to append it.

Take this out of your #20 and put it in your #11 instead if you are adding vat proof as well as Companies House:

Excel parking and Vehicle control services are two different legal entities see Exhibit XX vat details.

would it be worth comparing the beavis sign to excels?

Yes, how about putting it alongside the Beavis sign like someone did with an OPS sign here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/it7518rshgmnppy/IMG_8716%20%281%29%20Beavis%20sign%20comparison.PNG?dl=0&m=

Does that link work? Do something similar. It shows how small the £xx is and how wordy the other sign is - and the difference in overall signage size, clarity and font - compared with the one by ParkingEye.

Suggii

Yes the link works. Thnx C-M
I will add #20 into #11.

Is it ok to use my skeleton argument within my WS. As someone on Pepipoo advised to make my WS separate and Skeleton argument separate?

Its confusing me as to what will be better.

If I did have a skeleton argument would I need appended evidence with it?

Coupon-mad

As someone on Pepipoo advised to make my WS separate and Skeleton argument separate?

We know they do, and Southpaw insists on it on pepipoo. But we don't!

Easier to put it all in one document IMHO and the Judges never seem to mind.

Suggii

Then that's fine, thank u for clearing it up for me C-M. I was beginning to worry there.

I will post back when I have made amendments.