Claim form received HX incomplete VRN

whiskeytoothpaste

I haven't got a skeleton argument- I'm just writing some bullet points which consist of counter arguments to their WS and the strongest points of defence

Le_Kirk

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

So. In court on Monday. Can someone explain in lay terms why consumer notices are not exempt to the fairness test under the CRA?
I have worked out that it is because the £60 is not transparent?
I can't work out the business about the 'core exemption'. I would feel more confident if I was able to explain it- in case I have to.

If you read CEC16's thread you will see the explanation given by Coupon-mad.

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

I haven't got a skeleton argument- I'm just writing some bullet points which consist of counter arguments to their WS and the strongest points of defence

Skellies are not a requirement just used as an aide memoire for you to guide the judge through your defence and witness statement. You can just use a crib sheet with bullet points, it does not have to be formal and it does not have to be submitted.

Coupon-mad

Can someone explain in lay terms why consumer notices are not exempt to the fairness test under the CRA?

You don't need to know WHY they are exempt, just that they are exempt (always).

You probably don't need to know this, but this is just in case the PPC says ''it's a price term so it's exempt...''

...then you can say ''oh no it isn't!''

Terms are only exempt anyway if they are prominent and transparent (and not illegal! Goes without saying but, e.g. it's not OK to have a racist or discriminatory price term just because it's prominent and transparently shown, of course!).

The CMA explains about consumer notices in the Govt guidance on the Act:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/450440/Unfair_Terms_Main_Guidance.pdf

Introduction
3.1 This part of the guidance sets down the CMA’s views as to the scope of the exemptions from the fairness assessment in Part 2 of the Act. The partial exemption for main subject matter and price-setting terms – the 'core' exemption – is dealt with first, covering the purpose and objectives of this exemption and then the detail of the legislation.

'The core exemption'
Purpose of 'the core exemption'
3.2 The Act includes an exemption from the fairness test in Part 2 for terms that deal with the main subject matter of the contract or the adequacy of the price, provided they are transparent and prominent. (This exemption does not extend to consumer notices but businesses are unlikely to wish to use wording that has no legal force to determine ‘core’ contractual issues).

whiskeytoothpaste

Thank you - I get that now!

whiskeytoothpaste

In court waiting. Don't know if there is an HX rep here.
Asked the usher to ask the judges permission that I can speak in court.

Umkomaas

whiskeytoothpaste wrote: »

In court waiting. Don't know if there is an HX rep here.
Asked the usher to ask the judges permission that I can speak in court.

Have you used the specific term 'Lay Representative'? Do you have a copy of The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 with you? If not, here's a link you could use if the Judge is hesitant or difficult about it.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1225/made

Best of luck. Let us know the outcome later on please.

whiskeytoothpaste

Won. HX rep (Jackson) arrived late. In front of DDJ Joy who seemed friendly enough and explained the process to my aunt. Ms Jackson kicked off and pretty much blustered her way through evidence. She focussed on breach due to incorrect vrn and argued that the signage was clear etc. Then our turn. I skipped the change in signage as it had been submitted by ms Jackson. I focussed on no instruction that vrn should be on the ticket and did CM's 1,2 (there was no 3).
DDJ Joy asked my aunt a few questions. He then stated that he is focussing on this case only regardless of the reputation. He felt there was nothing unusual about the (exhorbitant) charges even the additional £60.
He then failed the claim on de minimis.
Awarded 1/2 days loss of wages plus parking.
Felt there was no justification for unreasonable behaviour costs. (This was in Stoke and we're usually way behind anyway)

Umkomaas

Well done. A win is a win. I hope your Aunt is feeling good now it's all over. And kudos to you for all your hard work. :T

beamerguy

Well done "whiskey" :beer:

whiskeytoothpaste

Well done "whiskey" - yes please...

Well done all of you. I admire your relentless effort for such a worthy cause.

I've won a few at POPLA and I've somehow managed to keep VCS at bay but this is the first time I've been to court. Would I do it again for someone else? Yes.