County Court Claim

mercuteio

p.s. In case anyone's interested, the story behind the patient caricature I depicted above was actually someone who one of my first consultants told me about when I was a junior doctor. So I was told, he used to turn up with chest pain to our hospital on a frequent basis. The nature of the chest pain he used to describe warranted certain blood tests 12 hours post-onset of pain, and an ECG, both of which were required to ensure he hadn't suffered a heart attack, and both of which were always negative. It took many, many months to eventually deduce that the real story was that he would come down to our city from much further north to visit his friends most weekends for a night out, but knew that if he presented with pain that allegedly started at 10pm then his blood test wouldn't be required until 10am, thus scoring him an automatic free bed and breakfast in the hospital! What an absolute . . . !

p.p.s. The Dog's Trust or a veterinary-related charity would also work just as well as healthcare-related charities for me.

DoaM

The reality is that (win or lose, punitive costs or not) VCS won't care and it won't change their approach. It's all a numbers game to them (and the other PPCs) ... once they file court proceedings the vast majority of defendants will pay up to avoid court - the people who defend and win are a minor ripple to the money stream.

That all said ... stick it as far up them as you can!

mercuteio

DoaM wrote: »

The reality is that (win or lose, punitive costs or not) VCS won't care and it won't change their approach. It's all a numbers game to them (and the other PPCs) ... once they file court proceedings the vast majority of defendants will pay up to avoid court - the people who defend and win are a minor ripple to the money stream.

That all said ... stick it as far up them as you can!

Yes, fair point. Nonetheless, if this strand of their business - that is, unreasonably filing court claims left, right and centre irrespective of their merit to bully people into simply paying up or alternatively attending court without a full grasp of the process and thus losing - is compromised by actually getting stung each time they lose, then perhaps they'll at least become a little more cautious and judicious before deciding to take people to court in the first place.

Too optimistic? Perhaps, but I still think it's worth it. Even if it's just to make the process worth it for the individuals who are being forced to put in this much work to fight off these bullying tactics.

mercuteio

Can I check something please? My WS and exhibits for Claim 2 are due in tomorrow (sort of - they're actually due in on the 6th, but I practically can't submit them any time after tomorrow).

Regarding the facts of the case, I need to add essentially nothing to my first witness statement and defence. Therefore, my witness statement reads as follows:

Witness Statement

I, *** [name], of *** [address], am the Defendant in this matter. As noted in my previous Witness Statement for Claim *** ('Claim 1'), which is being heard during a single consolidated hearing at the same time as the current claim (Claim ***, hereon referred to as 'Claim 2'), I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If the contents of either Witness Statement or the evidence and exhibits that accompany them are set out in a manner to which the Court is not accustomed, I trust that the Court will excuse my inexperience.


1. A hearing was scheduled to take place for Claim 1 on ** December 2019. At this time, *** [the Judge] noted Paragraphs 28-33 of my Witness Statement for Claim 1, highlighting the fact that the Claimant had filed two separate claims with substantially identical particulars, without any attempt at consolidating these or advancing them as a single claim, as an abuse of process. *** [The Judge] agreed that these should be consolidated and heard together, and thus adjourned the hearing until that given for Claim 2.

2. Given the substantial similarity between the two cases, many of the arguments presented in my Defence and Witness Statements for Claim 1 are the same as for Claim 2. I have chosen not to duplicate the arguments and evidence presented in the Witness Statement for Claim 1 here, although I will rely on these same arguments and evidence when discussing both Claims in court.

3. The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) relating to Claim 2, on *** [date], are described in detail in Paragraphs 28-33 of my Witness Statement for Claim 1.

4. I confirm that the essence of my defence to this claim, as for Claim 1, is that:

a. I did not breach the terms and conditions of parking and have never had a contract with the Claimant. Three separate private parking companies each have signs within the same car park, such that it is entirely unclear and ambiguous which company I could have made any purported contract with, and as such no contract can be construed under the doctrine of contra proferentem. There were no obvious changes in the signage between ** January 2019, when the first PCN leading to Claim 1 was issued, and ** May 2019, when the second PCN leading to Claim 2 was issued

b. The Claimant’s signage also forbids the action claimed, stating 'Staff Parking Only/No Parking on Access Roads at Anytime', yet on the other hand also seeks a contractual charge for the allegedly forbidden activity.

c. The claim furthermore includes a £60 charge in addition to the £100 contractual charge alleged to have been agreed to, which represents an abuse of process and a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

d. The Claimant has filed two separate, substantially identical claims, but made no attempt to consolidate these or advance them as a single claim until being made to do so by the Court at the hearing held on ** December 2019, instead attempting to pursue them as two separate claims, and thus representing a further abuse of process.

5. I invite the Court to dismiss this claim in its entirety, and to award my costs according to the costs schedule attached such as are permissable under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14


Statement of Truth:

I believe the facts contained in this Witness Statement are true


However . . .

I am planning to submit a costs schedule that I would like the Court to assess on an indemnity basis due to the Claimant's wholly unreasonable behaviour throughout this process, as discussed in the most recent posts. CM has indicated that this can be done through a skeleton argument that does not need to be submitted at this point.

My questions are:

1) Do I need to make any reference to the fact that I believe the Claimant's behaviour has been sufficiently unreasonable as to warrant assessment of my costs on an indemnity basis in the Witness Statement? Or can this be raised later, in the Costs Schedule and Skeleton Argument only? This would mean that there is no mention of indemnity-based costs in either the Defence or the Witness Statement, but only in the Skeleton Argument and the Costs Schedule itself.

2) It is highly likely that I will use case law to support my rationale for requesting indemnity-based costs, and I will therefore need to provide the relevant pages as evidence. Does this need to be submitted in the Exhibit pack with my Witness Statement tomorrow? Or can I submit this separately alongside the Skeleton Argument later?


These questions arise from, essentially, trying to work out what exactly I need to do tonight - i.e. right now! If I'm allowed to raise the issue of costs on an indemnity basis separately within the Skeleton Argument alone, and provide all examples of case law as a bundle of evidence at that time, that makes my Witness Statement above entirely adequate for this juncture.

However, by contrast, if I am not allowed to supply any further exhibits as evidence of case law to support my planned costs schedule following submission of the Witness Statement tomorrow, then I need to include these in a new Exhibit pack tonight, and will also therefore need to make reference to this in the Witness Statement now, such that the Exhibit pack enclosed with the Witness Statement is explained.

Any thoughts?

As always, many thanks all.

Coupon-mad

You can append case law to a (later filed) skeleton argument, so I'd say this is true:

If I'm allowed to raise the issue of costs on an indemnity basis separately within the Skeleton Argument alone, and provide all examples of case law as a bundle of evidence at that time, that makes my Witness Statement above entirely adequate for this juncture.

I will pm you later on, but your WS is fine as it is.

No need to print it all out again though, if you are adding nothing new, just say 'My WS and exhibits already filed for claim number xxxxxxxx are repeated for this claim number xxxxxxx' then add a statement of truth and signature and date.

Should be one page and could be emailed as it is so simple right now.

mercuteio

Coupon-mad wrote: »

You can append case law to a (later filed) skeleton argument, so I'd say this is true:I will pm you later on, but your WS is fine as it is.

No need to print it all out again though, if you are adding nothing new, just say 'My WS and exhibits already filed for claim xxxxxxxx are repeated for this claims xxxxxxx' then add a statement of truth and signature and date.

Should be one page and could be emailed as it is so simple right now.

Goodness me, this is a relief!

Ok, great - thank-you so much, and look forward to hearing from you

Coupon-mad

Mercuteio, have you got a date for this hearing yet as I have got really busy with emails and am aware I still need to write a skeleton argument and a 'summary costs schedule' to try to meet the high bar re unreasonableness on the part of the Claimant.

mercuteio

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Mercuteio, have you got a date for this hearing yet as I have got really busy with emails and am aware I still need to write a skeleton argument and a 'summary costs schedule' to try to meet the high bar re unreasonableness on the part of the Claimant.

Hi CM,

Thanks so much for keeping this in your mind, and please don’t worry at all - I’ve actually been planning to touch base with you by private message myself but took a break in the middle of January and have faced the inevitable super-busyness both before and after a holiday, so am still trying to get back up to speed.

Fortunately, I still haven’t received a court date, so there isn’t a known time pressure just yet. I’ll be in touch some time either this weekend or beginning of next week, as I’ve put aside some time to wade through my emails then.

Thanks again!

mercuteio

Hello everyone,

Just a quick note to say that my court hearing was today, and I won both cases - hurray!

It was quite a brutal hearing, lasting for about two and a half hours by telephone, after the last court hearing was adjourned and consolidated. VCS had once again not furnished their lawyer with my Witness Statements (he had the second one, but not the first, which is the one that contained all the detail), but the lawyer himself stated that he suspected the Judge would take a dim view of him requesting an adjournment again (to which the Judge agreed). He therefore stated that he was "flying blind", which the Judge confirmed, telling him he was "flying very blind indeed". 

The first hour was all focussed on VCS' lawyer, and the Judge appeared to be fair, but also fairly unimpressed with the fact that his presentation was somewhat all over the place. I think this was two-fold - to some degree he was caught off-guard by the fact that he didn't have my first Witness Statement (apparently he'd asked for it but had not been sent it by VCS), and I think he'd probably also not prepared much. I guess that he does these cases for VCS frequently, so was just prepared to give a routine bunch of arguments.

I was then questioned by the Judge, who allowed me to simply talk her through the evidence I'd provided, which allowed me ample room to discuss the car park in detail, including all of its ambiguities. 

What was perhaps more difficult was that the Judge then allowed me to be cross-examined by the Claimant's lawyer. I actually didn't expect this to get to me too much, but it was actually quite difficult to undergo. I got repeatedly asked about why I made no contact with them for all of the letters, to which I told them that I'd done a significant amount of research about the company immediately after receiving the charge and found that this mode of practice was a standard part of their business model, so deemed that there was no point in appealing. I also went on to say that I chose to avoid the International Parking Community appeals process as well as it is a self-serving organisation funded by private parking companies, and therefore acts as something of a kangaroo court. These didn't feel like solid arguments to me, and I wasn't sure how they were being received by the Judge. Throughout the rest of the hearing and the Judgment I found myself thinking that I wish I'd just said "in hindsight, I should have gone through the appeals process, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that it is an unreasonable process, but instead I chose to avoid it seeing as it would have simply meant an additional layer of work for no material gain". On that note, another thing I wish I'd laboured on more is the fact that VCS are serial litigants and have wasted an enormous amount of the Court's time and mine, but I didn't push this point enough.

Fortunately, after a fairly long (10-15 minute) summary of the case, the Judge deemed that the primary issue was the signage, and in her opinion it was not clear in this car park. She therefore dismissed the first claim, and went on to say that if there was no obvious contract or clarity in the first claim, it follows that there couldn't be a contract in the second claim either, and thus she dismissed both claims.

With regards to costs, I decided not to push for costs on an indemnity basis as I simply haven't had the time or mental space to consider the arguments towards that much further with the strain placed on my work and home life by the pandemic. I did, however, put forward a costs schedule for both the hearing in December and today (£204 total - £109 for December, for loss of earnings and mileage/parking, and £95 today for loss of earnings alone). Their lawyer didn't argue with the £95 for today but argued that the previous hearing's costs should have been considered at that time. Fortunately, the Judge at the last hearing wrote "Costs of todays hearing be reserved" in the General Judgement or Order following the December hearing. Less fortunately, however, today's Judge decided that despite this she was going to only consider costs for today's hearing, saying something along the lines of "I am mindful of being proportionate, and this is a small claim". So in total I was awarded £95. I sort of feel like if I'd laboured more on the fact that VCS had wasted so much of the Court's time and mine, that maybe she might have considered it. I also wish I'd pointed out, when being grilled about why I'd made no contact with them, that in response to a settlement offer before the last hearing I did in fact provide a counter-offer which offered settlement in return for them paying me £105 and would not have ended up wasting the Court's time. I wonder if I'd brought these points up whether the Judge may have been more inclined to recognise that it was VCS who wanted to waste Court time twice with separate hearings in the first place, and that they'd managed to waste both the Court's time and two separate days of work for me. 

Anyway, whichever way, I'm extremely thankful to this forum that I'm no longer £360 down, and in fact £95 up, with a triumphant feeling over an entirely vexatious company that should never have dragged me through this in the first place.

I seem to remember that there's some form of document that can be requested from the court for a fee that this forum feels would be valuable after successful hearings. I'm quite happy to obtain this document for others if it would help, as a means of saying thank-you to this forum for the help you've provided me. The only thing that will stop me doing this is if my name or details need to be revealed publicly in providing the document to you. And possibly if the cost is absolutely exorbitant (although I can't imagine it costing much more than the amount I've been awarded). Remind me - what is the document you need?

Also, on a separate note, does anyone know if Coupon-mad is ok? I emailed her a few times over the course of this year as the court date got shifted as, for a time, she was going to help me with an argument for recovering costs on an indemnity basis. However, I don't think I received replies for any of the emails I sent for roughly the last 6 months or so - I only heard from her in January, and at that point she was quite enthusiastic about having a crack at indemnity-based costs. I am extremely hopeful that she's simply been inundated with stuff and not been able to reply on that basis, rather than having more difficult troubles or illnesses to contend with. 

Can you tag people on this new forum? Let's give it a go - @Coupon-mad I really hope you and your family are ok. Thank-you so much for your help throughout this irritating duo of cases. I can't tell you how much I appreciated both your help, and the help of everyone else in this forum. I sincerely hope you and your family are keeping safe and well. 

With very best wishes everyone - thank-you so very, very much. Huge sigh of relief at this end!

Le_Kirk

Wow, an excellent court report and well done on the win(s).  Shame about costs but at least you got half.  What you are after is a transcription, which I believe can be quite pricey.  @Coupon-mad has been posting again lately after having been helping people as lay rep (and in fact has posted several times today).  Best contact her through the PM system on here.  It's the envelope symbol top right of the page.