Advice needed on Defence already submitted- going forward to contest VCS

Snakes_Belly

Very well done. Good to see VCS losing these historic cases (and all cases). It gives some of the others on the board fighting these cases a boost when defendants like yourself win.

With the great help from the regulars it does seem as if defendants are getting slicker at defending against VCS and Excel. Some courts are getting wiser too or perhaps just fed up with them wasting court time.

Snakes_Belly

gumgirl wrote: »

Thanks! Yes I was surprised that the judge did not know. And I am happy to offer help if relevant to others with my limited experience, I will check back on the forums from time to time when I can.

When you look on Courtserve and see the listings the judges that hear the parking claims seem deal with a large number of cases per sitting. These seem to be mainly repossessions either from the mortgagor or landlord. You would think that they would read a quality newspapers though.

gumgirl

As a newbie, I would say to anyone thinking about fighting them that it’s worth it, a real sense of achievement afterwards and all these small steps that successful individual cases take add up for sure.

The fact regulars are prepared to spend so much of their time and energy is amazing I must say and the help from them was invaluable- as at first it seemed daunting; the threat of court action, looking at case law etc, but looking back, it’s a learning curve but a very do-able one if you just put some time in.

Gina

gumgirl

The court usher told me there were 3 parking cases in that afternoon, and I got the impression they did them in blocks.

He also said the judge was reading the papers from VCS and myself only about 15/20 mins before I went in. So though he had an overall grasp of things when we sat in his office, I was able to play this to my advantage, as I had been a bit obsessive over the detail previously and knew my evidence and argument and theirs back to front, so could point them both to the evidence at times. So on the issue of signage which won the case, when the VCS legal person did not appear to know what evidence VCS had included, e.g. crap photos of the signs, I could direct the judge to my photos to support my argument not theirs. (I had imagined the legal representative was going too be a legal terrier on behalf on VCS -but he was going through the motions really- I assume as he had no real vested interest in the case and clearly found it routine.)

Also, I got the impression the judge found things a bit amusing as it was a parking case, he obviously knew the legal rep from other cases, but was fair in how he oversaw proceedings . The way I read it was that a bit of humour did not go amiss as the judge saw it as a chore and anything too make it a bit less humdrum and routine.. But what a sorry state of affairs when judges have to go through the motions on these cases when they could be dealing with other legitimate business. Doing this has really deepened my view that the parking companies are immoral and not just because they chase ‘ the little people’ but because they are making mockery of the law.

Again, credit to posters on the forum for telling me to get the documentation in order, be precise with language etc when writing up my WS. Sorry I’ve gone on a bit here but still a bit elated!

Gina

Snakes_Belly

The legal reps that represent VCS and Excel are very ill prepared because they don't receive the eighty page witness statement early enough. That is a big advantage and it certainly helped in my case.

goroaming

gumgirl wrote: »

The summary of my main arguments against VCS is below: (Full witness statement on another thread) :

a. The actions of the Claimant to (a) offer a contract in the form of a sign, (b) establish a parking charge, and (c) to claim against the registered keeper; are in breach of procedures mandated by;

i. The Parking Trade Association for which it is affiliated.
ii. The Act for which the claimant relies on.

b. A contract was not in place with the driver or the defendant who is the registered keeper. Therefore, no breach of contract has ever occurred. They have the ability prescribed by law (POFA 2012) to transfer the liability for the parking charge to the keeper if they do not know the name of the driver. As VCS have chosen not to use that right under POFA the keeper cannot be held liable.

c. Inadequate and illegible signage.

d. The sum of the claim brought forward includes £100 of a Parking Charge and an additional £60 for ‘debt recovery costs’ as previously indicated by the Claimant. The additional £60 is an attempt of double recovery and is unreasonable and extravagant.

The judge dismissed a and b: because I had been served notice of the parking ticket within 14 days. He also dismissed an argument that- though a copy of the contract with the landowner provided by VCS in their Witness Statement was out of date -it was recognised to be a rolling contract.

Hi Gina,
Great to hear that you won it must feel great but wow four years to come to court that is a long time to wait if I understood correctly the incident was in 2015?

Please can you clarify for me the judge dismissing your points a) and b) as I'm in a contest with VCS but I'm expecting that both POFA and the IPC code of practice were breached by them in my case and so I'm wondering on what grounds did you expect POFA to support your case/argument and what rational did the judge give for not allowing that argument?

Were you simply quoting it?
Was it that there was some dispute over the number of days they took to alert you to their false claim?
Or was it something else?

Any information that you can recall on that would be very welcome.

goroaming

Coupon-mad

The judge dismissed a and b: because I had been served notice of the parking ticket within 14 days.

In one case where I lay repped at Brighton (and won on signage and the fact the Ntk was sent late) the Judge decided that a NTK that said they would 'pursue the keeper on the assumption he was the driver' was POFA compliant.

I was speechless. Made a mental note to argue that better next time!

So what happens is, Judges will only look at the 14 day thing re POFA and to make that Judge ALSO understand that the wording itself is non compliant, is an uphill struggle. I knew and said (fairly clearly IMHO) that the wording was the opposite of what the law intends and allows, yet the Judge didn't get it.

Then again he had to count the 14 days on his fingers and deliberated for ages about the really really obvious 'late NTK' point, so he was hard work. Some Judges are!

The_Deep

If judges get the law wrong complain to the JCIO.

https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/making-a-complaint/

Clearly in the case CM has cited the judge has misunderstood POFA.

gumgirl

Hi Goroaming,


To be honest I was just quoting it as I had seen it in other witness statements and given I did not understand all the technicalities VCS might fall foul of I thought it worth a shot. Coupon -Mad says above in reply to you:

'So what happens is, Judges will only look at the 14 day thing re POFA ‘


And that is what the judge focussed on. But I was, as I say in my court report in my earlier posts, pinning my best shot to get their claim dismissed on signage. As the judge said I only needed one win out of the list of defence arguments I put up.

VCs initially pursued me quite vigorously in 2015, but after about a year and me getting debt collection letter threats, they seemed to forget about me, only to instigate court proceedings in 2019. I suspect because of the new parking bill which may curb their worst excesses so they are trying to get as many claims settled in their favour as they can.

Also, and this may just be coincidence, but on principle I refused to use that car park again since 2015, then happened to go there once in 2019 then soon after they started court proceedings.

Gina

Redx

The statute for small claims is 6 years so nothing unusual in 4 years , especially with VCS and Excel and others

A case of the clock is ticking so they look through old unpaid PCN,s and try their luck