Help, got until 24th November to submit Defence for VCS

Leviathan747

Question: How do I refer to additional material in my bundle, that has not been referred to in the WS?  Eg the April judgment against VCS (Caernarfon).  Should I just have a section labelled 'Additional material' in contents and put it all in there, then save all as a PDF?  It would rely on the Judge reading right to the end, without prompting or context.  Or should I just extend my WS and add EXHBITS -  as the Claimant will be CCd into this email anyway, so has access to this new and updated WS?

Le_Kirk

This has already occurred in multiple parking claims in recent months, with duplicate reasons used by Judges sitting at courts are as widely spread as Southampton, Warwick, IOW, Luton, Caernarfon and Skipton.

When the Judge takes on the unenviable task of reviewing the vast amounts of template cut and paste paperwork and undated 'stock' photographs this Claimant is known to file, I need a hearing to give me a fair opportunity to respond. 

Couple of tweaks for you.

nosferatu1001

Fruitcake - neither, its a DRAFT order the D is providing to the court
Its really comon, especially in set asides. 

Coupon-mad

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/77080685#Comment_77080685

I've made some suggestions above to @Janetx about her Draft Order. 

These can all be generic and there is no risk, nothing to lose and all to gain by it. 

You will either get a strike-out Order off the back of this, or you won't, but at least it makes a Judge read it and get their lightbulb moment re their court's duty under s71 of the CRA 2015, which no Judge was doing, pre- the DJ Grand Southampton judgment.  All Judges were failing consumers and we need to continue the push to educate them all.

Two of the best 'strike out' Judgments to include in VCS cases at this stage are the VCS v Moran Caernarfon (the new April one) where DJ Jones-Evans has clearly lost his rag with VCS. 

And the Skipton one v Excel, because Excel are VCS' sister firm owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith and they tried an N244 form, to object against that order and their barrister failed v lamilad at a contested application hearing in Feb 2020.

So the 'forum shopping' by VCS and Excel is not a mistake, it's deliberate now.

Snakes_Belly

https://www.thestar.co.uk/news/transport/judge-throws-out-fines-issued-notorious-sheffield-car-park-1378720

Not so Oldie won on this car park . Gum Girl's and Banana's Parking's cases may have also been on this car park. I think that it's a hot spot. 

Snakes_Belly

Looks like there is an issue with landowner authority. Landowner authority states two hours free according to newspaper article,

Snakes_Belly

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/76704225#Comment_76704225
bananasparking won on signage. Not So Oldie won on privacy of contract. Gum Girl also won. There were others as well all in this hot spot.

Snakes_Belly

I wonder if any of the other forum members that have fought cases against VCS with regard to the car park have seen the landowner authority?

To vary the contract with the landowner seems a bit dodgy, unless a new contract has been signed.

Snakes_Belly

Not sure what privacy (privity) of contract means? in the context of Not So Oldie's case. Sounds like issues with the landowner contract. 

Le_Kirk

Snakes_Belly said:

Not sure what privacy (privity) of contract means? in the context of Not So Oldie's case. Sounds like issues with the landowner contract. 

Primacy of Contract perhaps.