VCS Letter Before Claim Clarification Request

beamerguy

LordHorrendous ... what a waste if time for you. What was the judge thinking, you have a claimant legal who does not know about the contract, such incompetence.

Oh well, VCS will have to wait now, as coupon said probably until Spring as the courts have much more important things at the moment than stupid parking tickets.

It's all about money money money ....... desperation times for PPC's right now and they put in a legal who does not have a clue about the contract ... how sad is that
This is defo Mickey Mouse V Donald duck

Redx

Devil's advocate question

Can VCS discontinue and if done in time then not be liable for costs ?

Never underestimate them for deviousness

Were_Doomed

Redx said:

Devil's advocate question

Can VCS discontinue and if done in time then not be liable for costs ?

Never underestimate them for deviousness

If there's no current order for costs then yes.

Johnersh

Write to them. Tell them:
1. the claim is without merit;
2. They cannot 'fix' the contract, one of the parties no longer exists;
3. This is easily apparent from a cursory review of public records;
4. Even absent points 2 & 3 above the claimants case is not made out etc etc. 

You can then tell them that you will seek the costs thrown away by today's hearing and seek costs of unreasonable conduct in bringing the claim at the next hearing. It should have been apparent from the outset that they could not support what is claimed in the template statement that is said to have been verified. 

That *may* prompt the discontinuance. It'd be annoying not to recover costs, but perhaps there's value (to you) in heading off further time /inconvenience if they throw in the towel now. 

LordHorrendous

The farce continues!
VCS have emailed me today (for the first time, all previous correspondence has been done by post.  I had informed them back at the very outset of the thing that they did not have permission to send documents by email) along with the court, giving their supplementary witness statement. 
In this statement they claim that I have not submitted the evidence to them by the deadline.  I did, and have proof in the sent email and their automated receipt reply.  Unfortunately this reply does contain a line stating they do not accept service of documents by email.  This is new, though, because they accepted my defence document by email, and even reproduced the whole thing in their witness statement.
Secondly to this, the evidence they provide for a contract being in place is: 1 letter referring to a contract, but no actual contract; 2 screenshots of Notepad.txt files containing the text of emails that vaguely refer to their ability to give tickets in that carpark.

I've drafted a reply to send to the court, all the email addresses they've ever contacted me from, and possibly by post. I'd be grateful if anyone gives it a once-over and tells me if I'm doing anything wrong.

Text of statement:

To address the Claimant’s assertion that the documents were not served:

1. Evidence was sent to Claimant at xxx on xxxx  to litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk. (exhibit …)  A receipt reply was sent from this address confirming delivery. (exhibit …)

2. The Claimant will claim that they do not accept service of documents by email.  This is a deliberate attempt to inconvenience and ambush Defendants.

3. The Claimant has already made false, innacurate and misleading claims in their original witness statement. This is more of the same.

4. The Claimant has been happy to accept service of documents by email until this point – they received the Defendant’s defence by email to this address and subsequently included it in their own witness statement, indicating that emails to this address are checked within xx days (as the email was sent on xxx and the Claimant witness statement sent out on xxx.  It is therefore established that documents served to this address are read and acted upon promptly.

5. Given the current pandemic, it is wholly unreasonable to insist on the service of paper documents.  The court itself is happy to accept email documentation at this point.  The Claimant cannot arbitrarily decide to stop accepting emailed documents when email correspondence has already been established.

6. Additionally, the Claimant has chosen on this occasion to use email to serve their own documentation.  They cannot have it both ways – if they are happy to serve documents by email, they must be happy to receive served documents by email also.

7.  The defendant explicitly instructed the Claimant not to serve documents by email at the outset of this dispute (exhibit …), but they have chosen to do so at this point. It would be entirely possible for the Defendant to refuse to accept service of documents via email, and claim that the Claimant has failed to meet their obligations.  This would be a dishonest attempt to gain advantage and I will not do so.  The Claimant must not be allowed to do so either.

 

To address the documents served by the Claimant:

8. The letter provided references a “Contract between Vektor Investments Management Ltd and Vehicle Control Services Limited, which is dated 31st December 2007.”  The contract itself is not provided.  The Claimant has provided no evidence that this contract exists, and has given the court no opportunity to examine the particulars of this contract.

 

9. The letter refers to “patrol and signage to the newly incorporated area as described above and detailed in the map”.  No map is provided, and there is no information as to what this “newly incorporated area” is, or how this is relevant to this case.

10. The two ‘emails’ provided by the Claimant are, in fact, Notepad text files.  It would be a trivial matter to edit the original text of an email, or entirely fabricate the text, in Notepad, and the Claimant has provided no evidence to show that these are genuine emails.  The Defendant questions why copies or screen-shots of the original emails have not been produced.

11. In the absence of the contract or a map, the content of the two ‘emails’ reproduced in the Claimant’s witness statement is irrelevant.  The “land” referred to in the email is not defined or identified.

12. Neither of these emails refer to the matter of this case, or give any indication as to how they apply to this case.  As such, they are irrelevant and do not satisfy the issue as to whether a contract was in force at the time of the parking event.

Castle

LordHorrendous said:

The farce continues!

To address the documents served by the Claimant:

8. The letter provided references a “Contract between Vektor Investments Management Ltd and Vehicle Control Services Limited, which is dated 31st December 2007.”  The contract itself is not provided.  The Claimant has provided no evidence that this contract exists, and has given the court no opportunity to examine the particulars of this contract.

The only company shown at Companies House under that name is Company number 04517261 which changed its name to OLDCO999 Ltd in December 2017 and was dissolved in July 2019; having been "wound-up" on 6th February 2018.
(So that  "contract" ceases to exist, (if it ever did), in February 2018).

LordHorrendous

Castle said:

LordHorrendous said:

The farce continues!

To address the documents served by the Claimant:

8. The letter provided references a “Contract between Vektor Investments Management Ltd and Vehicle Control Services Limited, which is dated 31st December 2007.”  The contract itself is not provided.  The Claimant has provided no evidence that this contract exists, and has given the court no opportunity to examine the particulars of this contract.

The only company shown at Companies House under that name is Company number 04517261 which changed its name to OLDCO999 Ltd in December 2017 and was dissolved in July 2019; having been "wound-up" on 6th February 2018.
(So that  "contract" ceases to exist, (if it ever did), in February 2018).

Amazing. I found a different Vektor on companies House, still trading, and assumed that one was it. The named was slightly different though.  I will add this information and question it in my statement.
Thank you!

nosferatu1001

Only helps if your parking event was after the company wound up. 

You really should refer to their exhibits by the exhibits ref. That's why exhibits have a ref. So you'd say "the two "emails" (ref exhibits xxxxxxx)....."

Castle

LordHorrendous said:

Amazing. I found a different Vektor on companies House, still trading, and assumed that one was it. The named was slightly different though.  I will add this information and question it in my statement.
Thank you!

My "Vektor" was actually called by a different name in 2007; JGWCO207, as it changed it name to Vektor Investment Management in 2009.

Coupon-mad

LordHorrendous said:

The farce continues!
VCS have emailed me today (for the first time, all previous correspondence has been done by post.  I had informed them back at the very outset of the thing that they did not have permission to send documents by email) along with the court, giving their supplementary witness statement. 
In this statement they claim that I have not submitted the evidence to them by the deadline.  I did, and have proof in the sent email and their automated receipt reply.  Unfortunately this reply does contain a line stating they do not accept service of documents by email.  This is new, though, because they accepted my defence document by email, and even reproduced the whole thing in their witness statement.
Secondly to this, the evidence they provide for a contract being in place is: 1 letter referring to a contract, but no actual contract; 2 screenshots of Notepad.txt files containing the text of emails that vaguely refer to their ability to give tickets in that carpark.

I've drafted a reply to send to the court, all the email addresses they've ever contacted me from, and possibly by post. I'd be grateful if anyone gives it a once-over and tells me if I'm doing anything wrong.

Text of statement:

To address the Claimant’s assertion that the documents were not served:

1. Evidence was sent to Claimant at xxx on xxxx  to litigation@vehiclecontrol.co.uk. (exhibit …)  A receipt reply was sent from this address confirming delivery. (exhibit …)

2. The Claimant will claim that they do not accept service of documents by email.  This is a deliberate attempt to inconvenience and ambush Defendants.

3. The Claimant has already made false, innacurate and misleading claims in their original witness statement. This is more of the same.

4. The Claimant has been happy to accept service of documents by email until this point – they received the Defendant’s defence by email to this address and subsequently included it in their own witness statement, indicating that emails to this address are checked within xx days (as the email was sent on xxx and the Claimant witness statement sent out on xxx.  It is therefore established that documents served to this address are read and acted upon promptly.

5. Given the current pandemic, it is wholly unreasonable to insist on the service of paper documents.  The court itself is happy to accept email documentation at this point.  The Claimant cannot arbitrarily decide to stop accepting emailed documents when email correspondence has already been established.

6. Additionally, the Claimant has chosen on this occasion to use email to serve their own documentation.  They cannot have it both ways – if they are happy to serve documents by email, they must be happy to receive served documents by email also.

7.  The defendant explicitly instructed the Claimant not to serve documents by email at the outset of this dispute (exhibit …), but they have chosen to do so at this point. It would be entirely possible for the Defendant to refuse to accept service of documents via email, and claim that the Claimant has failed to meet their obligations.  This would be a dishonest attempt to gain advantage and I will not do so.  The Claimant must not be allowed to do so either.

 

To address the documents served by the Claimant:

8. The letter provided references a “Contract between Vektor Investments Management Ltd and Vehicle Control Services Limited, which is dated 31st December 2007.”  The contract itself is not provided.  The Claimant has provided no evidence that this contract exists, and has given the court no opportunity to examine the particulars of this contract.

 

9. The letter refers to “patrol and signage to the newly incorporated area as described above and detailed in the map”.  No map is provided, and there is no information as to what this “newly incorporated area” is, or how this is relevant to this case.

10. The two ‘emails’ provided by the Claimant are, in fact, Notepad text files.  It would be a trivial matter to edit the original text of an email, or entirely fabricate the text, in Notepad, and the Claimant has provided no evidence to show that these are genuine emails.  The Defendant questions why copies or screen-shots of the original emails have not been produced.

11. In the absence of the contract or a map, the content of the two ‘emails’ reproduced in the Claimant’s witness statement is irrelevant.  The “land” referred to in the email is not defined or identified.

12. Neither of these emails refer to the matter of this case, or give any indication as to how they apply to this case.  As such, they are irrelevant and do not satisfy the issue as to whether a contract was in force at the time of the parking event.

I wouldn't play email tennis with the court.  As you have already submitted your WS I would use the above as a crib sheet for the hearing.  If you do it that way, make sure on the day of the hearing that you have the auto-receipt and 'sent item' to hand so that you can state (when VCS' rep lies that you didn't file & serve it in time) that you have the evidence that they DID receive it and given they used email, so did you and it is disingenuous to suggest that consumers have missed deadlines when that is patently untrue).

BTW, VCS have started to make a habit of that tactic (getting their Elms Legal reps to try that first) so definitely be ready to proof the email was sent and received..

Alternatively, you could head your submission above up as: SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT and sign and date it under a statement of truth again, and attach your proof of VCS receiving the WS and evidence, which during the pandemic is perfectly acceptable to all, including the courts...and VCS.  It's unreasonable to expect paper right now.

Typo here, if you decided to send it as a supplementary WS, and if you do, you must also send it to VCS (by email is fine, and again, keep proof!)

innacurate