County Court (VCS) Residential PCN

Redx

Well done

Another one bites the dust !!

beamerguy

THX-1-1-3-8 wrote: »

And it's another win for the MSE team.

Judge not happy about their conduct either but wouldn't quite go to unreasonable costs.

After action report to follow when I'm not limited by an old phone

Well done, will teach DCBL not to dabble in a scam and not to add scam amounts.

By now, Elms Legal should know better as well.

I wonder which legal VCS will use next ??

THX-1-1-3-8

Elms had a mess of a day.

Reps turning up and being hammered left and right. Spoke with another defendant who had just given them a reaming.

beamerguy

THX-1-1-3-8 wrote: »

Elms had a mess of a day.

Reps turning up and being hammered left and right. Spoke with another defendant who had just given them a reaming.

Not surprised, Elms should not believe all that they read ?
Especially if they are instructed by a dodgy legal who does not read ?

The problem Elms Legal has is when they represent in court on a non parking claim, will the judge give them credibility ???
The county court system is a small community.

Coupon-mad

THX-1-1-3-8 wrote: »

Elms had a mess of a day.

Reps turning up and being hammered left and right. Spoke with another defendant who had just given them a reaming.

Glad to hear it. The sad thing is, most victims pay and never get this far.

Umkomaas

Nice bit of news. Waiting in anticipation for the 'blood'.

nosferatu1001

Nice one! Glad you got this through as it shoudl have been
Elms must be OK with having their name dragged through by association...

THX-1-1-3-8

Just to re-iterate a big thank you to everyone who has helped me win this, much respect to all for your help and advice. :money:

THX-1-1-3-8

Well where to start. Heres all the details – ive put quotes as I remember them. I need to know how to ask for the recording?

If youre interested, grab a coffee and enjoy.:beer:

The Day:

Sheffield CC, 2pm, Judge Heppell, IIRC. Mr Pickles? Pickup? Honestly not sure was representing ELMS, representing DCB, representing VCS.

I arrived at the court an hour early. Very much worth my time to do so, it put me at ease.

Excel (Also VCS) had sent an ELMS rep to fight a construction firm and the court usher commented that shed been there that morning and had some admin problems with a case. Someone from ELMS called her to make sure she was there – I could overhear the conversation and someone somewhere was panicking that the case would have no representation from their side.

I spoke with a Defendant who claimed to have read this thread (Hi) and that he had won a previous fight against VCS but was there against another firm that day…

Anyway, their Rep arrived about 10 mins before the scheduled start time, introduced himself and asked if I had any questions or wanted to talk. I replied with no thank you, a hand shake and then that was it. He then went to the other side of the room and read the case files – I’m not sure he’d seen them beforehand.

I was surprised that three reps sat around me were all busy reviewing the documents for the cases and hurriedly making notes. Didn’t feel like any of them knew what the hell they were doing until hours before hand.

In we go – 90 mins after the initial start time. It was a “mini” court room. One long desk with microphones in the middle, with the judge sat opposite. Not an intimidating place at all.

The hearing:

The judge explained proceedings and paid attention to the fact I was self-represented. She went over the court etiquette and explained the format clearly. She mentioned she would look at me more often and ask questions clearly as I was not familiar with the court- this did put me at ease.

Their agent focused purely on the fact that “a ticket was issued and the defendant has never appealed it so must be the driver, POFA etc. etc. We have signs, you can see the signs in the picture etc.” He was quite brief and missed out half of the Defence of Claim in their WS. He did stress signs though and the judge said “Yes, I’m happy with the signage arguments we can move on from that”. I was very nervous now but I later realised why she did this.

The judge turned to me. I began by rejecting the notion I did not appeal. I stated I wrote to VCS at the time of getting the NTK – on the advice of my letting agent - and that I had no response. I stated that I appreciated that I no longer have this letter but it was sent and no response received and that given the time between the CC claim and the event this was entirely reasonable. The judge agreed. I also stated I was NOT the driver to my recollection and that both me and my former partner lived at the address and had access to the car, I expressed that it would be impossible to know who drove the car that day, four years ago especially given it was at home and not somewhere novel.

The judge said "I am responsible eitherway" which shocked me, that isnt in POFA. I now began to get a little nervous.

I continued summarising how I would defend the claim in areas and a brief note on each. The judge stopped me when I mentioned the invalid particulars (my first point) – the rep did squirm a bit but the judge accepted that it was an error due to the “American" default of their system. I was very, very annoyed by this. I challenged but she justified by stating that the NTK was “correct” and that the particulars had referenced the NTK document etc. She turned to the VCS rep and said “This is not acceptable” – but then accepted it. Again, her reasoning became clear. I then finished summing up my points, residency, signage (again judge said move on), lies and inconsistencies in their WS, CoP violations (told to move on by the judge) and the DPA issues (again told to move one).

I was very confused why the judge was essentially rejecting points without me making any real contribution or showing the evidence. She wasn’t interested and I feared the worst.

The claimant responded to my opening remarks – not relevant, without merit, no excuse etc, admits to owning the car and driving the vehicle ( I didn’t do the latter). He also mentioned much of my WS was not in my defence statement but the judge wasn’t having it.

I then moved onto my main argument – I was a resident of the site, was given a permit, held a tenancy and etc and have provided proof of all of this and referred the court to my WS. The judge again interrupted me and asked the Claimants rep what they thought about that. He argued it was irrelevant, that he couldn’t see where in my tenancy I was granted a dedicated parking space. (It doesn’t) The judge agreed but highlighted to him that there are no spaces at the site, its not a car park. She also said that the barrier is there and would only open for those with the correct device etc... So she either really read my statement OR she knew the site. Given its proximity to the court (3 MIN WALK) I suspect she knows the site.

The judge then referred the Claimant to my lease “check in” documents, without me prompting her. I got these last year as a request from my letting agent after they issued the claim – which confirmed I got a fob etc for the gate, keys and a permit. She rounded on VCS’ rep. He tried to say the document was “hard to read” which raised eyebrows from the judge. It was very clear on all copies! He started along the lines that it was proof I knew the scheme existed and that I had accepted the scheme and that using the classic “balance of probabilities” It was likely that I knew I had to display a permit and had not. He implied that by accepting the permit I was bound to the contract and knew I should display it. The way he said this sounded more confident and I must admit I did wonder if id shot myself in the foot by acknowledging using the permit.

I responded by reiterating that the permit was from my letting agent NOT the Claimant and that I’d never seen anything to indicate I was bound by VCS. I stated that the tenancy cannot reference a parking space because no dedicated spaces are provided and no bays are present at the site, instead it was defacto access I was trying to prove. I also pointed out that the management signs at the site said the same “arrangement only”. I clearly had an arrangement and that the arrangement was tied to the property and not the permit. I also stated that the reason I included the tenancy was not to show parking permission within it but to show that there was no head lease or mention of a head lease and thus I cannot be bound by terms related the property not within the contract. I stressed to the court that I had been very explicit in my WS that this was the reason it was included. I reiterated that the letting agent check in document and original advert (which I had) was proof that I had parking rights.

The VCS rep did respond but it was more of the same – Its not clear, etc. That lack of contract in the tenancy was no excuse etc. I offered them my original tenancy and check in document but the judge shut me down immediately saying it was not necessary.

We moved on…. It was clear VCS rep was out of material and he was happy for me to make my case. I don’t know if he knew hed lost or if he was confident he had won.

I decided at this point to play what I thought was my second strongest card.. “You can clearly see my permit on VCS’s own images and that its blue and yellow matching VCS branding and cannot be anything else”. Id used these in my WS too, as they were part of the SAR. Interesting, VCS’s WS versions were very, very low resolution compared to the digital versions sent to me and even the prints they had previously sent. Funny that! The judge looked at my WS images and raised both eyebrows. VCS rep tried to say it wasn’t clear – could be anything and that “blown up images” are often distorted in colours etc. I reiterated that it was their own digital image, provided to me via the data leak that VCS had made. I provided these documents to the court in my WS anyway, but also stated the original files were on a USB stick and the judge could view them at full detail. Not needed was the response.

Ill admit its not crystal clear and I myself deemed it a bit risky, but what the hell. Ill upload images soon as ive redacted them.

The judge was very interested in the third party release though – I don’t think shed seen it in my WS. She asked what happened, I told her about the leak and that id evidenced it. She said it was a matter for the ICO and rebuffed any point I tried to raise after that but she was NOT happy. The VCS rep was nodding along etc. whilst she again re-iterated it was beyond the remit of the hearing. He then added that “a patrol officer would not just issue a ticket, so there was clearly an issue and we cannot see that it’s a permit etc and that on the balance of probabilities it was not . As for the data protection, it’s a separate issue”. The judge fired back and essentially said that “well they aren’t here to give a statement either way and that tickets in error - it was known to happen”. She did not specifically mention VCS had been known to do it but this was obviously the notion.

The VCS ELMS rep also started to mention that I did not say in my defence that I had been displaying my permit and so if I was relying on it now, why wasn’t it raised before? I responded by stating that “Well, the claimant gave me nothing in the way of evidence until I submitted my SAR. The claim had already started and I had been required to submit my defence BEFORE I got the SAR pack. The SAR pack made it obvious that I was displaying a permit and that both parties had provided the images in their WS so its hardly new evidence. In addition, had VCS provided this evidence before issuing the claim as required by the PD we would have been able to have the conversation before the claim was issued and resolved the matter”.

The ELMS rep responded by repeating his statement, then the judge asked him if this was the only ticket issued to me whilst I was a resident and he confirmed that to be the case. In a silence between all parties I spoke up and stated that “That was my permit, it was clearly there and that no further tickets suggested that someone had made an error. VCS haven’t brought a permit example in their WS either to show that it isn’t my permit. On the balance of probabilities and as VCS has stated it’s the only ticket received within 6 months it has to be the permit”.

The judge asked me if there was anything else. I launched into the CoP violations and stated that whilst the judge has said she didn’t want to get into the remit of the DPA etc. that the claimants conduct and ability to bring a charge DID need to comply with their contractual obligations with the IPC and wider DVLA and POFA. She interrupted said this wasn’t needed in detail. I felt quite dejected at that point – half my WS was in the bin at that point clearly. It was not clear at that point, facial expressions aside, that she was buying what Id said.

I did argue that the signs at the site in 2016 and the signs used in evidence in the VCS WS were different and judge agreed they were different. VCS rep did try and claim this irrelevant – the judge said she knew there was a difference but was satisfied on the signage issue - she obviously didn’t care.

Summing up:

The judge went through the case and it was very balanced towards the core facts as I expected. The core facts of each argument stripped down to the basics and laid bare. Again I was quite nervous as she raised my other points and wrote them off without much thought – especially signage where I expected the battle to be.

Then came the victory. ;)

The judge began by stating that unfortunately in modern apartments its not uncommon for parking schemes like this one to be in place. She then stated that the issue is that they cannot interfere with residents without it being within the terms of a lease etc. She said that “this is well known”.

She went onto say that although there is no specific parking rights in my lease, there was nothing to actually bind me and its clearly I had the ability to park there from the check in documents and that I was granted access to the site for this reason. “The defendant has claimed that a valid parking permit is on display in the images taken by the claimant, whilst this is disputed by the Claimant who argues there is nothing to suggest that this is valid, there is no evidence either way and I think both parties accept that”. We did. “The defendant has demonstrated he received a permit and there are no other outstanding issues in relation to the location which suggests on the balance of probabilities and in the absence of any contradictory evidence that this is indeed a permit for this site”.

On that basis she found in my favour. I cant remember exactly what was said at that point – denied claim, struck out im not sure. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS PART BETTER AS IT HAS IMPLICATIONS FOR CHASING THEM FOR DPA BREACH.

Costs:

So here Is where I messed up a bit and missed an opportunity. I weight went off my mind and the judge went at quick pace that caught me off guard.

I pressed for costs for day off work and travel. I got this. The ELMS rep did say that “the hearing was at 2pm, I don’t see why a full day needs to be paid”. I provided the judge with a letter from my firm which stated a full day was needed due to the location of the court in relation to the site, working hours etc.” The judge said this was all she needed.

I then went for unreasonable conduct. I did have a LOC style document infront of me and the PD and CPR and POFA….. but didn’t use it as I should have done.

I hammered the particulars, lack of CPR conduct pre and post conduct, denial of disclosing documents that are relevant before issuing the claim… the judge said twice “the bar is quite high” for unreasonable conduct. I then showed the judge the misleading documents they had brought to court. Essentially, as youll see when I upload all the documents, they had brought a sign map and a copy of the land contract as evidence. Both stated 32 signs on the site. Yet in reality this isn’t a true depiction of the site and argued VCS WS evidence was in conflict with itself. The judge seemed to agree – the VCS rep simply went off on a tangent about “the bar being high”. I further iterated that all the images provided by VCS in their WS was poor quality compared to my own and there was no excuse. I also argued there was no excuse for their conduct as they were a serial litigant and that the Claimant had hid from questioning STILL by sending a Rep, of a rep.

The judge agreed with my points but stated “id need clearer evidence to go through unreasonable conduct – but this is very close to it”. I suspect this was her letting me know, she agreed but I should have argued differently – we’ll never know.

I did decide to go through the document step by step and clam down a bit….. But before I could do, the judge turned to me and said “ I understand the frustration you are feeling and its clear there is a lot of effort to defend this sort of claim, I understand that its your view the conduct is unreasonable but I cannot agree, though it is quite close.” I wanted to press more, but equally Id won and did not want to irritate the judge.

She then turned to the VCS rep and stated “Your client must get its house in order” – She looked pretty annoyed and angry at this point. She made two other brief comments I don’t recall – not positive ones.

So I got my £100 costs for travel and work and off we went. There was an off the cuff comment by the judge about DPA and separate claims too during proceeds.

On the way out the Elms rep asked what had happened with the DPA stuff as wed not gone into it and he implied he had not read that far. I told him about the third party breach, not responding to the SAR and then lying to the ICO. He mentioned something about it under his breath and said his goodbyes.

Looking back, I don’t regret anything – I won and they have lost money.

It also became clear that the judge had spotted the permit as once that was raised she seemed more interested in getting me to finish rather than listening other statements – the path of least resistance to denying the claim essentially. I think this was why shed brought attention to these documents immediately after the opening statements.

The rep too it appears had seen this and knew he was going home on the losing side before we started.

I’m now discussing my next steps with the solicitors involved. I am not leaving it here.

I am also thoroughly expecting VCS to NOT pay me in time and then argue they sent the cheque to the wrong address :rotfl:

Ill upload all documents once redacted for reference of those who may find this thread in the future. Also, for your own viewing pleasure.

Redx

Well done , excellent report , thank you

Contact a transcript company and pay them if you want a transcript of the recording

I don't think you will obtain the actual recording

Check the bargepole posts because he has mentioned it , I think lamilad may have too , as have others on here