Court Claim Received - Found in favour of VCS :-(

danonj

Hearing went ahead this morning by way of video call.
Unfortunately, they found in favour of VCS.  The majority of my defence appeared to be dismissed as an "internet defence".
The judge did however agree that the claimants claim for an additional £60 and 8% interest was unreasonable and therefor rejected.
Disappointed that I didn't get the desired outcome, but at least it's over and the amount that VCS originally wanted from me has been reduced from over £250 to £150.

Snakes_Belly

Sorry that you lost the case. It seems very unfair but at least you managed to get the claim reduced.

Le_Kirk

danonj said:

Hearing went ahead this morning by way of video call.
Unfortunately, they found in favour of VCS.  The majority of my defence appeared to be dismissed as an "internet defence".
The judge did however agree that the claimants claim for an additional £60 and 8% interest was unreasonable and therefor rejected.
Disappointed that I didn't get the desired outcome, but at least it's over and the amount that VCS originally wanted from me has been reduced from over £250 to £150.

Sorry you lost but pleased you didn't have to pay the add-ons!  It does annoy me that claimants and now judges refer to "an internet defence" what is one of those?  Just because you received some help (presumably this forum) doesn't make it invalid.  If you had popped down to your local library and received the same help from someone sitting in there, would it have been similarly dismissed?  All defences should be taken on their merits, what they say and what they claim unless they are disproved by facts.  Let's wait an see what the judgment states - it surely cannot be simply that the judge found for the claimant due to the defence being "from the internet".

danonj

Le_Kirk said:

danonj said:

Hearing went ahead this morning by way of video call.
Unfortunately, they found in favour of VCS.  The majority of my defence appeared to be dismissed as an "internet defence".
The judge did however agree that the claimants claim for an additional £60 and 8% interest was unreasonable and therefor rejected.
Disappointed that I didn't get the desired outcome, but at least it's over and the amount that VCS originally wanted from me has been reduced from over £250 to £150.

Sorry you lost but pleased you didn't have to pay the add-ons!  It does annoy me that claimants and now judges refer to "an internet defence" what is one of those?  Just because you received some help (presumably this forum) doesn't make it invalid.  If you had popped down to your local library and received the same help from someone sitting in there, would it have been similarly dismissed?  All defences should be taken on their merits, what they say and what they claim unless they are disproved by facts.  Let's wait an see what the judgment states - it surely cannot be simply that the judge found for the claimant due to the defence being "from the internet".

Especially annoying when it appears that they form their claims based on rinse and repeat templates referring to out of date arguments that have been proven to be invalid.
You would think Judges would be keen to rid these vexatious cases from their work load and treat them with the distain they deserve to deter the parking scammers from operating in this manner.
The other point they raised was that other than my "internet defence" I was relying on the fact that the machine was displaying a message that stated "NOT IN USE", but had no evidence to support it.  It was my belief that this message wasn't telling me that the machine was out of order, just that it wasn't taking payments at the time, so why would I take a picture of it.  Even if I had, why would I keep it for 3 years and 8 months!
Anyway, it's done now and I'll do all I can to avoid parking in a VCS car park ever again.

Snakes_Belly

"The other point they raised was that other than my "internet defence" I was relying on the fact that the machine was displaying a message that stated "NOT IN USE", but had no evidence to support it.  It was my belief that this message wasn't telling me that the machine was out of order, just that it wasn't taking payments at the time, so why would I take a picture of it.  Even if I had, why would I keep it for 3 years and 8 months!"

I think that you were unfortunate in the DJ lottery because it is down to the Claimant to prove that their machines were operational. My guess is that it had not been emptied and was full. 

beamerguy

danonj said:

Hearing went ahead this morning by way of video call.
Unfortunately, they found in favour of VCS.  The majority of my defence appeared to be dismissed as an "internet defence".
The judge did however agree that the claimants claim for an additional £60 and 8% interest was unreasonable and therefor rejected.
Disappointed that I didn't get the desired outcome, but at least it's over and the amount that VCS originally wanted from me has been reduced from over £250 to £150.

Shame, still cheaper than paying VCS £160 they were scamming you for.

VCS are only a winner in name only, it would have cost them far more than the £150 they will get back.  Court costs alone, they laid out £75  If they hired a legal (did they?) at least £100 even for a cheapie legal.    All very poor accounting by VCS ?

No doubt in future cases they will use "internet defence"
But that's OK, as in the same case they can be quoted as being "unreasonable"