Received a Letter Before Claim from Vehicle Control Services - help

beamerguy

Chucky1234 wrote: »

Thank you. It was District Judge Sehdev. Where do you get this information?

Definitely seems like it would be worth me trying to change where the hearing is held, high chance I get that judge again and he seemed to immediately favour the Claimant and almost took a dim view of me using the internet. It was only when I confidently spoke up for myself and put my argument across he seemed to take more interest.

If I may add ...... Snakes Belly fought VCS and so he did his homework.

The great thing about Mr Snake is in theory he lost with VCS but the judge only asked him to pay £3 ..... yes £3

VCS lost a LORRA money that day as they are doing with you

Fools rush in ....... as they say

Chucky1234

Even if it does go to another hearing and I end up losing, I will feel satisfied knowing I have cost them way more than they have recovered.

BrownTrout

Dont bother trying to change courts , judges move around courts on the circuit

Chucky1234

I did type the judges name into google and everything historical that came up relating to this judge was at the court I sat at

Coupon-mad

Did VCS put in their evidence pack, the stuff about the Taxi Drivers/Great Western case, that lost this person their attempt to strike out a VCS Airport case by contesting jurisdiction?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76465747#Comment_76465747

Sounds like you will need to have a watertight case if you get that Judge again. There is nothing wrong with the advice people get on the internet!

How else are people meant to win cases, and it's people like us who have driven home the point about the added £60 that Judges had been cluelessly allowing for years before we started shouting louder about it.

”Especially when they were told at their Caernarfon appeal that they cannot add on the fake £60 ??

I wondered how that appeal had panned out? Is there a link?

There will be a summary when the time is right, shortly.

Snakes_Belly

The information is on Courtserve. You need to register but don't have to pay just to look at the listings. I think that this judge operates mainly between Walsall and Dudley. You need to look at the daily cause in Web Services, civil listings. Sometimes there will be listings under the name of a specific judge or Daily DJ's.

Did your paperwork come from Wolverhampton?

My case was rescheduled and the first judge told Excel's (owned by the same people as VCS) representative to provide evidence that the ticket machine was not working. Basically she said put up or shut up but they still went ahead.

In general judges don't seem to realise how difficult the PPC's are to deal with. Neither do they seem to understand that there is no impartial appeal's system. The judge that heard my case (who was very fair) seemed to think that this should have been sorted out between myself and the PPC. I guess though that if you have just had to deal with evictions or taking children away from their parents for their safety, then parking claims must seem trivial.

Going to court is a lottery as judges can be very random. That said I would sooner take my chance at court than have some kind of criteria based (computer says no) system.

Snakes_Belly

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74099151#Comment_74099151

Chucky1234

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Did VCS put in their evidence pack, the stuff about the Taxi Drivers/Great Western case, that lost this person their attempt to strike out a VCS Airport case by contesting jurisdiction?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76465747#Comment_76465747

Sounds like you will need to have a watertight case if you get that Judge again. There is nothing wrong with the advice people get on the internet!

How else are people meant to win cases, and it's people like us who have driven home the point about the added £60 that Judges had been cluelessly allowing for years before we started shouting louder about it.

There will be a summary when the time is right, shortly.

Yes, VCS mentioned in their Witness Statement about the Taxi Drivers/Great Western Case. I attempted to distinguish it in my Witness Statement by the following;

31. The Claimant wishes to rely on Jones and Tighilt (on behalf of National Taxi Association) v First Greater Western Ltd.

This case appears to clarify that a private landowner can exercise rights and have a permit scheme for taxis. VCS are not a private landowner, nor are they operating a permit scheme, nor is the Defendant a taxi, so no comparisons can be made from this case and it should be distinguished immediately.

I have a few questions;

1: When the Claimant told me they had recently won another case relating to Byelaws on this same site, it was probably the case you referred to. Presumably then, my attempt to distinguish this case from it needs to be a lot more comprehensive and thorough, if this is going to be the main point of contention?

2: If the Claimant includes the case above that the other poster lost and the judge agrees, this means I cannot use the argument that Byelaws take precedence over terms and conditions on the site, so doesn't have to be held in Mag's etc. However, can I still argue that it is not relevant land for POFA purposes so they cannot hold the keeper liable. Is this correct?

3: If the case does get adjourned and goes ahead, under what situation would I be liable for extra costs? As I said, the Claimant wanted to get the case adjourned as they said I didn't receive my evidence via email, although I have proof it was sent in a timely manner and also an email response to my DQ from the same email confirming they have forwarded that to the relevant department, so clearly a live email. The Claimant stated that in their DQ it states they do not accept documents via email, however, I had never received this and I sent an email to chase this up, and copied the court in, which I can prove.

My main questions here are; Is it possible they would argue I have been unreasonable due to the above and order me to pay extra costs?

In your opinion, is it likely that this argument will succeed, based on the information above?

If it does succeed, what is the likely extra costs I will have to pay?

Just wondering if it does get to that stage, I don't want to risk having to pay £300 - £400 when I could pay £85 now to get it closed. I don't mind taking my chances and having to pay £185 but I really don't want to / can't really afford to pay upwards of £300.

Thanks all

Chucky1234

Snakes_Belly wrote: »

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/74099151#Comment_74099151

This is very interesting to say the least. For everyone's benefit and to save you reading this thread, this case was heard by the same judge as mine and the Defendant won on the basis of the photos provided by the claimant only showed a single timeframe.

Now, I am out this weekend and all of the evidence is at home, but I am 99% certain that the photos in my case also show a single timeframe. Although it was a different car park to the one mentioned in the case above, the terms and conditions of the site state something along the lines of 'anyone remaining on this car park for 10 minutes agrees to be bound by these terms and conditions'.

Could I argue that it is entirely possible that the driver of a vehicle may not have parked for longer than 10 minutes, and that there are a various scenarios why they may have done that in this case. They could have parked to go inside to enquire about a journey they need to make, purchase tickets for a later date, even pick somebody up and went inside to meet them. The Claimant's evidence cannot prove otherwise and only show a timestamp.

I also remember on the NTK, it simply said 'time of contravention' and stated a set time, not a period of parking, which I know is relevant for POFA purposes but could also be relevant for this.

Is this a good idea or clutching at straws?

Le_Kirk

Chucky1234 wrote: »

Also a big concern - when I directed the court towards my evidence which was a signage confirming the Railway Byelaws apply on this site (which is displayed in their car park) the Claimant said the photo is just a photo of a sign, it is not date stamped or time stamped so it is not relevant. How do I prevent this the next time?

If you can, go and take a date/time stamped photo. Did the claimant provide any photos of their signage in their evidence pack? Is there a Google street view of the car park?