in court yesterday

dexion7

I was in court yesterday with V C S and their case was dismissed by the judge with no appeal allowed.

They had resurrected a parking charge notice from over 2 years ago which was affixed to my car whilst it was parked outside a shop at 9.45pm.

In response to their WS I had produced a supplemental WS which argued that the Beavis ruling was not relevant and that their contract with the landowner was invalid. It also included copies of the recent rulings posted on here about abuse of process and a screen shot of the Debt Recovery Plus (whom they had hired to chase the ‘debt’) site which states “no win-no fee”. In response to receiving this they also produced a supplemental WS disputing the points that my Supp WS contained.

I’d hoped for an emphatic win and had submitted a costs schedule hoping that the judge would agree that their case amounted to an abuse of process since they had inflated the claim. However, the court’s decision was ultimately down to only one of my points.

My points were:

No right of audience
Abuse of process
Particulars of claim
no valid contract between claimant and landowner
no contract created by the V C S sign
Non-compliant with POFA (and I wasn’t the driver)

The rep for the claimant from Elms Legal invited me into a side room to discuss the case in advance of the hearing. He offered to settle if I gave them £150 and I told him no chance and advised him that since he was a paralegal, I’d be questioning his right of audience.

First off I asked the judge to consider RoA but he said that paralegals were representing people in court up and down the land so RoA was not a problem.

Judge asked the claimant to state his case and then asked me which points I wished to contest. He then went through each point in detail with the hearing lasting over an hour.

Then we did Abuse of Process which went on for at least 10 minutes. I had presented in my WS copies of judgments which have been posted up on here as well as references to several others, screen shots of Debt Recovery Plus web site (whom they had hired to chase payment), details of Beavis and how it was / was not relevant here etc. Elms argued this point doggedly and eventually the judge commented that his initial view on the point was that since the claimant had mentioned the additional £60 cost as early on as the NTK, that there was no abuse of process but that he would keep an open mind as further evidence was presented. As it turned out I was too confident of a positive outcome on this point.

We then turned to the particulars of claim which of course were also related to abuse of process but judge decided that the minor errors on that were acceptable.

Then it was landowner authority. Their contract with the landowner stated the second party to the contract in terms of the store’s trading name and the address of the individual store but my printout from land registry showed the landowner to be the head office which was a limited company (same as the store name but with Ltd) in a different part of the country. Elms objected saying it was minor error, but judge wasn’t impressed with Elms’ argument and it looked like a winner.

The next point was about POFA which the judge was aware of but not in enough detail to know the precise terms. Both Elms and I gave the judge a copy with the relevant sections highlighted.

I was under the impression that if a windscreen ticket (notice to driver) had been issued (which was the case here) that for keeper liability the NTK must be received between day 28 and day 56 (para 8 section 5) of POFA. Elms was adamant that there were 2 routes that KL could be established and that he was relying on section 9 of POFA (that’s on page 6 of the official documentation). We discussed this for about 15 minutes and eventually the judge agreed with Elms, so KL was thus established. The issue of who was driving was therefore irrelevant and so not even considered.

** clarification about POFA please from someone more knowledgeable than me**

Next we moved onto the sign. There are 4 terms on the sign and below the terms it tries to state that if the driver fails to meet ALL of the terms they are agreeing to enter into a contract with V C S.However, clumsy use of English and the use of ANY rather than ALL means the signs actually states there would only be a contract if NONE of the terms were met.

Elms had no prior warning of this point but of course argued that the sign was clear and unambiguous & judge agreed with Elms saying that any reasonable person would understand that they were required to meet all the terms. Fortunately I’d prepared a truth table of eventualities (contract / no-contract) in respect of each those 2 words used in the sentence on the sign and when the judge had considered this for a while (and understood it) he said that contracts must be precise and, despite what a person might understand a sign to mean, the specific words used is the defining consideration and therefore if I could show that I had met 1 or more of the terms that no contract had been created. One of the conditions on the terms was that the vehicle must be parked clearly between the lines describing each parking position and the claimant’s photos showed that it was.

The other argument that I had about the sign was that the first term ‘a permit must be obtained in the store’ was also unacceptable since the store was closed at the time. Judge agreed on that point too.

We then got sent out for 15 mins whist the judge deliberated and when we were called back in for his summary he said that POFA had been met but confirmed that there was no contract in place so dismissed the case.

I’m very grateful for the assistance of those on this forum!

Malefidus

Congratulations.


I'm a new poster with my own woes but you seem to have become quite well versed in the necessary regulations.


Out of interest, do you get awarded anything for winning? I imagine this took you some considerable time to defend.

dexion7

its not a 'win' but just NOT a lose!

if you costed out your time to prepare then you might not go through with it but like anything in life, if you did it all again then it would be much better / quicker.

I'd submitted a cost schedule base upon my claim that they were guilty of abuse of process but the judge didn't agree on that point otherwise it's possible that he would have awarded me something but I couldn't even get my time of work.

Malefidus

See this is the part that I find astounding. These PPCs and their minions can harass people and cause them huge amounts of work to prove their innocence and the courts don't award you even a scrap for the luxury.


Well done though, looks like you really got into the nitty gritty regarding the signage!

RobinofLoxley

Well done on your win.

Even if the judge disallowed the costs you asked for re abuse of process, I can't see how he can't award your costs for loss of a days pay and others such as stationery, travel/parking on the day etc. He dismissed VCS's claim as it wasn't valid, therefore you should be awarded your costs.

Re the added on £60 and 'abuse of process'. I find it strange that the judge said in discussing the signs that 'the contracts must be precise' and 'the specific words used is the defining consideration'. Yet there is no mention of that another £60 will be added to the charge on the sign, so you can't possibly have agreed to that.
Then to state it is on the subsequent PCN so that's fine is ridiculous. It's similar to you buying something online at an advertised price then getting an invoice from the seller asking for another £60 on top of the advertised price, it's unenforceable.

I was under the impression that if a windscreen ticket (notice to driver) had been issued (which was the case here) that for keeper liability the NTK must be received between day 28 and day 56 (para 8 section 5) of POFA. Elms was adamant that there were 2 routes that KL could be established and that he was relying on section 9 of POFA (that’s on page 6 of the official documentation). We discussed this for about 15 minutes and eventually the judge agreed with Elms, so KL was thus established. The issue of who was driving was therefore irrelevant and so not even considered.

If they're relying on paragraph 9 of schedule 4 of POFA that means a NTD wasn't issued but a NTK was issued within 14 days. I presume they are saying that the notice placed on the vehicle wasn't a NTD at all. Was it one of their 'This is not a parking charge' red cards?

This is unusual though because VCS rarely use POFA to transfer the liability to the keeper.

The_Deep

IMO you should follow up on the costs, perhaps write to your MP.

When I was getting the run around from a court last year, I complained to my MP, he phoned the court manager, and I was given a refund and an extra £34 pounds for my trouble.

beamerguy

Right you won, in your post in the abuse of process thread it read that you lost, maybe you kindly make it clear to people that you won

The main thing, VCS lost, the judge wrapped up the VCS case, put it in his lunchbox and through it in the bin

dexion7

the sign states £100 "and any additional costs incurred"

unfortunately I had misplaced the thing they stuck on the windscreen but their WS explains what action the driver should have taken after seeing it and it sounds familiar. it was an envelope with a card inside that had a unique code on it and invited the driver to pay via their on-line portal within 5 days.

in their SAR response they produced a picture of the car with the thing on the windscreen (though its not possible to tell what's in the envelope from the picture) but curiously there were no pictures of anything affixed to the car in their WS

NTK was issued 7 days after the parking date and the NTK states 'up to the value of another £60'.

Fruitcake

dexion7 wrote: »

the sign states £100 "and any additional costs incurred"

unfortunately I had misplaced the thing they stuck on the windscreen but their WS explains what action the driver should have taken after seeing it and it sounds familiar. it was an envelope with a card inside that had a unique code on it and invited the driver to pay via their on-line portal within 5 days.

in their SAR response they produced a picture of the car with the thing on the windscreen (though its not possible to tell what's in the envelope from the picture) but curiously there were no pictures of anything affixed to the car in their WS

NTK was issued 7 days after the parking date and the NTK states 'up to the value of another £60'.

Unfortunately the DVLA have agreed that a notice left on the windscreen for the driver to find is not a notice to driver if it says, this is not a notice to driver.

Thus, sending the NTK by day 7 meets the timescales of para 9 of the PoFA so the judge was correct in that respect, but only because the DVLA have sided with the scammers.

However, I believe the judge was completely wrong about the fake add on £60 charge since the signs (allegedly) form the contract with the motorist, not the subsequent NTK.

fisherjim

dexion7 wrote: »

the sign states £100 "and any additional costs incurred"

But Debt Recovery Plus didn't collect the fee from you, and as they work for the PPC on a no win no fee basis their £60 add on was not billed to the PPC, who should not be claiming it.

RobinofLoxley

fisherjim wrote: »

But Debt Recovery Plus didn't collect the fee from you, and as they work for the PPC on a no win no fee basis their £60 add on was not billed to the PPC, who should not be claiming it.

As I have mentioned 0n the 'Abuse of Process' thread, DRP have changed their website and removed the 'no win no fee' statement from it. Even if they don't say it publicly you can guarantee if DRP and the likes don't recover the unpaid parking charge the PPC won't pay them a penny.

I suppose the onus is on the PPC to prove they have paid the £60 to the debt recovery company even though the alleged debt wasn't recovered. They would have to produce an invoice from DRP in court to that effect and show that it was paid and prove these extra costs have been incurred.