Abuse of Process ... District Judge tells BWLegal

Fosh

My judge today was very interested in the report from the Wales VCS case recently that is somewhere on the forum. He requested to keep the printout of that judgment and I of course obliged.



He pressed hard on this £60 with the VCS rep. He argued about the £60 debt collection fees not being listed on the signage, that the costs incurred by VCS was standard business costs such as sending letters. He made the guys squirm a bit before the rep agreed that he'd be happy to remove the £60 costs.



I won my case on a different point, so I don't know if it was enough to throw out the case, but he wasn't happy with the £60.

Coupon-mad

He argued about the £60 debt collection fees not being listed on the signage,

Even if it is, that sum is still unrecoverable due to the POFA and the BPA/IPC CoP ceilings of £100, and (most weighty) the Beavis case that knocked the following idea into touch:

that the costs incurred by VCS was standard business costs such as sending letters.

Look at the Beavis case para 98 and 198 - which both say very clearly that the costs of the operation are covered by the £85 and the (large percentage) rest is profit.

The PPCs' arguments are blown out of the water if you cite that (well not you, as you already won!). And in addition, Defendants must use in evidence with their Witness Statements, the DRP webpage to prove that debt collection letters for private PCNs are done on a no collection, no fee basis.

Someone needs to save a screenshot of that page and embed it here please! In case they change it.

NB: this does NOT apply to ParkingEye cases. They do not add £60.

beamerguy

Fosh wrote: »

My judge today was very interested in the report from the Wales VCS case recently that is somewhere on the forum. He requested to keep the printout of that judgment and I of course obliged.

He pressed hard on this £60 with the VCS rep. He argued about the £60 debt collection fees not being listed on the signage, that the costs incurred by VCS was standard business costs such as sending letters. He made the guys squirm a bit before the rep agreed that he'd be happy to remove the £60 costs.

I won my case on a different point, so I don't know if it was enough to throw out the case, but he wasn't happy with the £60.

The penny has not yet dropped with VCS about adding fake amounts. They picked up this bad habit from their ex mates BWLegal, just copycats. The result in time, once judges around the country understand the scam, will be a thousand spankings ?

It would actually be a shame if VCS/EXCEL stopped their add-on scam because we all need a good laugh when they are spanked

Umkomaas

The result in time, once judges around the country understand the scam, will be a thousand spankings ?

There'll be too many punters, traumatised by court claims dropping on their doormats, rushing to pay to avoid court, that no matter what (effectively) trifling deputy circuit Judges have to say, BWL, Gladstones and their represented PPCs will always be quids in.

It would need a monumental legal decision to make any real difference, and we're not in a position to orchestrate that. All we can do is help individual cases, which, in reality, are little more than a drop in the ocean.

beamerguy

Umkomaas wrote: »

There'll be too many punters, traumatised by court claims dropping on their doormats, rushing to pay to avoid court, that no matter what (effectively) trifling deputy circuit Judges have to say, BWL, Gladstones and their represented PPCs will always be quids in.

It would need a monumental legal decision to make any real difference, and we're not in a position to orchestrate that. All we can do is help individual cases, which, in reality, are little more than a drop in the ocean.

YES, I agree that too many punters pay up.
But, this is not on the scale you think. With court closures, there is actually a limited amount of courts and they are not crammed full with parking cases. Having spoken to a county court judge, he may see one in a week.

Parking companies may well have creamed it off in the past and it's the past they are digging up 3-4 up to 6 years tickets. You say you live in South Africa so you will not see just how many car parks are half full and probably 90% of the cars leave within the time period stipulated.

There is one supermarket near me with no APNR. Sometimes you see a warden on patrol but it's rare and there are at least 200 car park spaces. There will be car parks that are money mules but from what I see in my area, it's not happening

Umkomaas

Having spoken to a county court judge, he may see one in a week.

Because so many pay up, after visiting the toilet, relieving (pardon the pun) the courts in the process.

You say you live in South Africa

I've never said that, just some of my time. I see sufficient car parks during my UK stays to see what happens.

I do not comment without understanding.

[Deleted User]

The numbers of parking cases coming to trial (as with all litigation) is substantially lower than the issued claims. The number of issued claims is extraordinarily high.

The big concern with the £60 bolt-ons from my perspective is that where so many cases are determined by default judgment, with each of those cases "enhanced" by nearly 50%, that's quite the money-spinner for an operation.

I don't see a justifiable basis for that element of the claim and clearly many DJs don't either. The surprise for me was the Soton judges that considered it reason enough to use powers under CPR 3 to strike out.

Coupon-mad

As did the Caernarfon Judge:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gexc6psfmi8y6d8/VCS%20Claim%20Struck%20Out%20-%20Abuse%20of%20Process.jpg?dl=0&m=

Both decisions are being challenged by applications to set them aside. Britannia and VCS.

Both important cases...

[Deleted User]

Not seen the Welsh one before. It is inmho harder to appeal as a judgment. Solid reasons are given.

The human rights argument (denied access to a fair trial) is met with the explanation that fair warning was given and that this is a culmination of cases.

In relation to this element, it would be ideal if anyone on here could supply the respondent with a statement or copy of a judgment in which VCS were criticised at previous hearing(s) in that court over the £60.

An issue that VCS may have on appeal is that if they were primarily relying on PoFA to bring the claim that legislation of course caps the recovery at £100 - and that's before we revisit Beavis.

The respondent in both cases should lodge detailed statements - and shouldn't lose opportunity to show *when* the £60 is applied (often before solicitors are engaged, so not reflecting any legal cost) and the evidence of the fee-free nature of the debt collectors engaged.

BrownTrout

What help has the appeal case person got ?