Miss R versus VCS Ltd

JesterShoe

That's most reassuring that everything is good, and thank you all for your comments, knowledge and help.

I'm all set then, just waiting for the day, I'll do a lot more reading and go over my bundle to make sure I know everything.

JesterShoe

First of all, I would like to give a very big thank you to the great people on this forum who have helped me with this case. You all deserve a very big pat on the back.

Myself and my Lay rep were in court today and both claims have been struck out.

The main argument that the Judge summarized on was that there was no consideration in the contract. The point is that the parties must exchange something of value. Consideration is needed so that both parties incur some sort of burden or obligation in the agreement. VCS could not offer me anything of value as I was already parked in my own demised parking bay, so no contract could exist.

I also had £250 cost awarded in my favor but the claim for unreasonable behavior was not entertained.

Artegal

Yay. So pleased you’ve seen this through. Celebrate over the weekend.

beamerguy

Well done JesterShoe:beer:

VCS seem to be drowning in failures at the moment. They do after all bring rubbish claims

Snakes_Belly

Well done. S.R.S. may have to sell the yacht at this rate.

Redx

Well done , nice costs too

Another one bites the dust !

Le_Kirk

Yep, brilliant result - well done, especially on costs.

Snakes_Belly

Just as a matter of interest, was this claim one of the VCS 2015 claims?

beamerguy

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

Well done. S.R.S. may have to sell the yacht at this rate.

HA, we can only hope that SRS invested the £3 you send him wisely, maybe a new scam :rotfl::rotfl:

twhitehousescat

JesterShoe wrote: »

First of all, I would like to give a very big thank you to the great people on this forum who have helped me with this case. You all deserve a very big pat on the back.

Myself and my Lay rep were in court today and both claims have been struck out.

The main argument that the Judge summarized on was that there was no consideration in the contract. The point is that the parties must exchange something of value. Consideration is needed so that both parties incur some sort of burden or obligation in the agreement. VCS could not offer me anything of value as I was already parked in my own demised parking bay, so no contract could exist.

I also had £250 cost awarded in my favor but the claim for unreasonable behavior was not entertained.

The main argument that the Judge summarized on was that there was no consideration in the contract. The point is that the parties must exchange something of value. Consideration is needed so that both parties incur some sort of burden or obligation in the agreement. VCS could not offer me anything of value as I was already parked in my own demised parking bay, so no contract could exist.


I like that , worth remembering