VCS Defence Advice

Brooklyn_Bridge

First of all I would like to thank everyone who has supported me during this. The help and advice from this forum have been incredible.

I'm pleased to say the claimant's case was dismissed :j

I arrived for the 10am time and the rep on behalf of VCS approached me to introduce himself, explained the process and what costs may be charged by them if I lose. That actually settled my nerves a bit as he seemed like a nice guy. We were then told it wouldn't start before 12pm so another 2 hour wait.

A couple of key things I learnt/was reminded of on the day. While waiting someone outside were discussing their approach and said "Don't jump in with your answer to questions. Take a moment, ask for it to be repeated if needed and only answer what is asked" Sounds obvious but I found myself answering more than I needed at times and had to keep pulling myself back.

Also again seems obvious but don't try and help the claimant. They hadn't included an example of the red card in their WS exhibits and the judge was asking where it was. I pointed her to my copy in my WS. I didn't need to do that.

My rough notes in no particular order:

Keeper Liability
The Judge decided this was the key point in the case and suggested she wouldn't consider any other evidence if this was found to be wrongly applied for.
VCS tried to convince the judge I was the driver. The judge said that nowhere in the Defence or WS does it say I am the driver or use any words to imply I am. She said the fact I mention the unavailability of permits in my statement does not imply I was and "It's not enough" for them to use that. After a few discussions she said "I'm not satisfied on a balance the defendant is the driver. It is up to the claimant to prove otherwise".

She then asked me how that affected my case. I talked about not complying with POFA and sections 8 & 9. I mentioned @adambuzz14's case that whatever the piece of card says it can only be considered a NTD. After lots of backwards and forwards she said "If it looks like a duck, and is shaped like a duck, it's a duck!" :rotfl: and agreed with me and said "that is my judgement what it is". A NTD not a duck obviously :-)

She then asked as a NTD how it affected the case. I said it failed to comply with par.7, we went through why and as it did fail they were unable to apply to the DVLA for keeper details. I also said even if it had complied with par.7 they had prematurely applied to the DVLA for my details as keeper of the vehicle and so were not complying with the POFA par.8 and their trade body IPC Code Of Conduct.

During this I got a little mixed up and referred to it as a PCN and not a NTD and the rep picked up on it but was swiftly moved on.

After all that she stated for those reasons the claimants claim had failed.

The claimant then asked to discuss signage which the judge granted.

I made my points about the signs being unlit, small print etc, impossible to read but she said the "signs are effective, visible by darkness and the print sufficient to highlight consequences are likely"

I drew her attention to the fact their stock photographs of the signs were dated prior to their contract to operate. She said to the claimant that this was "an odd thing to do" to which he replied "not odd but I agree it's not the norm".

She then also questioned why the signs at the entrance were a different colour to the signs in the WS and within the car park itself, we talked about the confusing bay markings and the fact they have orange and blue ones on their WS car park map but the car park itself isn't coloured to match that map,

At the judgement she summarised:
On keeper liability
- Considering all probability the claimant hasn't proved as keeper of the vehicle I was the driver and it cannot be assumed
- They have issued a PCN to the driver, it bears all the hallmarks of a NTD and in her opinion is intended to be
- The NTD does not meet the requirements of POFA
- The NTK was premature and so did not meet the requirements of POFA
On signage
- The signage itself is sufficient and there are signs at the entrance and around the car park itself
- The signs submitted as evidence by the claimant are not from the date of the event and cannot be relied on as evidence
- The signage in the claimants evidence photos with the vehicle in view are difficult to see
- There are no bay markings to show the difference between the orange and the blue zones

I was awarded my annual leave and travel costs but nothing for unreasonable behaviour.

I think that's how it went. I may not have restated the facts correctly but I'm trying to get it all down while it's fresh in my mind.

Thanks again to everyone. I've been pretty relaxed up until the last couple of days and then had a couple of sleepless nights. It was stressful being in there but now I am out and reflecting on the whole thing it wasn't that bad.

Over to you @Coupon-mad

Le_Kirk

Good result, well done and a nice court report but did she actually say this: -

"I'm not satisfied on a balance the defendant is the keeper. It is up to the claimant to prove otherwise".

or did she mean: -

"I'm not satisfied on a balance the defendant is the [strike]keeper[/strike] driver. It is up to the claimant to prove otherwise".

Coupon-mad

Over to you @Coupon-mad

:T

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Well done you!!

A story to dine out on with friends & family this holiday season when they ask what you've been up to recently!

Umkomaas

Great court report about an excellent win.

You smashed the PoFA issues, well done on getting a detailed understanding of Schedule 4 and were able to lead the Judge through it, in an undoubted pressure situation. Well impressed.

:T

beamerguy

Brooklyn_Bridge ........ well done:j

Another VCS SPANKING