VCS issued PCN after 25 days, I told them where to stick it, now DCB Legal have sent me an LBC

DoaM

Another one bites the dust!

The_Deep

They have wasted your time, now waste some of theirs.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/taking-legal-action/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/

Garyswork2

Brief overview of the case:-
- Car was alleged to have overstayed in an ANPR car park, but VCS posted a NTK out of the 14 period.
- Case was passed to DCBL 3 years later and £60 was added to the claim, then interest and further costs including contracting another solicitor to attend court for a now inflated £553 claim.

The morning of the hearing:-
- I wore my lucky suit so it showed I had made an effort.
- Turned up to court 30 mins early, which helped me settle my nerves. I found it better to sit there and think about the case & lower my heart rate for 30 mins, rather than rush around and arrive out of breath.
- The Usher confirmed that the claimants solicitor was present, but we didn't acknowledge each other, not even any eye contact. In fact I told myself that I would walk away if approached.

The initial part of the Hearing:-
- The judge went through the the introductions and explained for my benefit how the hearing runs.
- The judge went straight for the claimants rep (around late 20's) citing my Defence Point 6 over being out of time for a NTK over POFA12 9.4 & 9.5, asking "So you're out of time, why are we here?" The Claimant said because according to CPR the judge can use discretion to make the claim stand. The judge wasn't having that stating numerous times, "But you're out of time. You're out of time though aren't you. Why have you brought the claim to court when you're out of time". The Claimant stuttered & stammered using the words "But Sir", "Well Sir" etc, like it was a replacement for "Errm", meanwhile I'm sat there having not said a thing trying not to smile, but also wondering if I'm next.
In the end the claimant says "we're assuming the Alternative". Judge-"Alternative what?". Claimant="That the Defendant was the Driver". Judge-"Do you mean to say that you concede to the point about being out of time?".
Now this is where the Claimant tried not to concede the loss by repeatedly claiming that I must be the driver because I didn't say otherwise, at which point the Judge said that he wasn't even going to entertain that argument until we address the point of being out of time first, which the Claimant eventually did, but by doing so the Judge then said that how is he expected to take their presumption seriously when they made a mess of the first point.

- With the out of time defence sorted we then moved on to the Claimants assumption that I was the driver. Bear in mind that I've still not said a word at yet. The Judge again pressed the Claimant to confirm what their evidence was that I was the driver, which they replied with their Witness Statements points 17 & 18, which were that I had been given plenty of time to say who the driver was, hadn't said that it wasn't me, and had admitted that I was the RK. The Judge replied with two interesting points, firstly, "So your evidence that the Defendant was the driver is purely assumption", second asking "The Defendant has been completely upfront about being the registered keeper, so what do you think he is going to say if I ask him if he was the driver? I think we both know the answer to that". So he asked me if I was the driver and this was the first time I actually got to say anything, so I was ready and replied with, "I've since Googled the carpark in question and it turned out to be a shopping centre carpark, therefore I can confidently say that it was likely not me as there's one thing that I dislike almost as much as being taken to court over unsubstantiated charges and that's shopping". The Claimant muffled his laughter.
Again the Judge went back to the Claimant asking how he was going to prove I was the driver with this in mind. The Claimant repeated that I was given ample time to name the driver so i must be me. The Judge summarised the point and asked if there was anything else I would like to add, which I said that I was under no obligation to name the driver to the Claimant unlike an N.I.P. and unless the Judge ordered me to do so I would not voluntarily put anyone else through this process. I also brought out a copy of Henry Greenslade's words about keeper liability (thanks to Coupon-mad for point that out), which the Judge asked me to hand to him. The Claimant said that this was an ambush, but the Judge replied by saying it's relevant to my defence and he already knew about it anyway, he just wanted to check that it wasn't something he didn't already know.
In addition I asked the judge if he would like me to submit evidence to further prove my point that it I wasn't the driver, he asked how, I said that I had brought copies of Insurance documents for multiple vehicles proving my entitlement to drive other vehicles and also other drivers entitlement to drive the vehicle in question. I reached for my folder but he said no need.

That was the the case defended. TBC

nosferatu1001

Nicely done

nyermen

The judge went straight for the claimants rep (around late 20's) citing my Defence Point 6 over being out of time for a NTK over POFA12 9.4 & 9.5, asking "So you're out of time, why are we here?"

Love it :beer:

Garyswork2

The judgement:-
The Judge explained again for my benefit that this is the bit where he summarises the case, his findings, the outcome and that this is the part where we don't interrupt, partly because it's being recorded.
Essentially he ran through the facts pretty effortlessly but very accurately. I got confused part way through as he said that there was no case to answer about being out of time, but the claim about who the driver was stands, I thought this meant I'd lost, but he carried on summarising the case and his findings, then followed up with, another Coupon-mad term mentioned earlier in my thread, that he believed that, "on the balance of probabilities the Defendant was not the driver and therefore neither the Defendant nor the driver have any case to answer". :T

Defendant Cost claim:-
- Damages
I put a case forward for £626.86 in damages, but the Judge tried to explain as best he could about how anything outside of the Ordinary Costs can only be claimed if the Claimant had acted unreasonably (CPR 27.14(2)(g)). I mentioned about the personal torment, he said whilst he understood that I was right to go to court, that's litigation for you. I also went on to explain about unsubstantiated costs being added, the claimant sitting on the case for 3.5 years and then adding interest on costs before the costs had actually been added, the Judge just said that this is just a part of the case and you can't claim harassment for being pursued.

- Ordinary Costs.
The Judge asked the Claimant if they had any objections to my Ordinary Costs.
This sparked another bout of directness from the Judge when the Claimant announced that they had been directed to oppose all costs. The Judge replied with, "So if you had won the case are you telling me that you wouldn't be claiming for your full costs?"
Claimant, "Yes we would be claiming for our costs".
Judge, "So on what basis are you objecting to the Defendants Costs?"
Claimant, 'Because that's what I've been instructed to do".
The Judge then directed at me with my Cost Schedule in hand querying my days wage. He asked what I do, which I answered, told him that I'd booked the full day off work for this and pulled out a years worth of payslips complete with calculations of my day rate. Unfortunately he said that he could only offer me the basic due to not being able to prove the Claimants unreasonable behaviour.

So he awarded me the attendance, fuel & parking costs.
He calculated it at £101, although I'm not sure if he missed the £4 parking. The irony...

beamerguy

Well done you :beer::beer:

Elms Legal has been splattered with a bad rotten egg on their face.

Fancy the rep saying " he had been told to oppose all costs"

So wet behind the ears is this rep, what next, will Elms be sending a schoolboy next time ???? Write 100 times .. I've been told to oppose all costs
Put that in a Dalek voice and it's even funnier

And DCBL ????? It really makes DCBL LOOK SO INCOMPETENT

AND VCS, not forgetting Simon Renshaw-smith ?? He must be cringing at ever taking on DCBL in the first place

What a joke .... hey you won though:beer:

Redx

Excellent court report

To be honest , I absolutely hate shopping too , so I am sat here whilst the vehicle registered in my name has a driver in it who is out shopping as I write this , so I understand the irony in trying to presume that keeper and driver are one and the same

It beggars belief that they expect heads we win , tails you lose to apply to costs , if they are willing to claim costs , they should expect a defendant to do so too

It's a shame that the bar is set so high in proving harassment

On the other hand , they failed POFA and the judge hammered it home

Amis95

Excellent result! I had the exact same experience yesterday at mine, it was an enjoyable one at the end!

Coupon-mad

Brilliant! Well done; another VCS one bites the dust!

I was ready and replied with, "I've since Googled the carpark in question and it turned out to be a shopping centre carpark, therefore I can confidently say that it was likely not me as there's one thing that I dislike almost as much as being taken to court over unsubstantiated charges and that's shopping".

:T