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

Leviathan747

Latest front page  

CONTENTS

Pg 2       Defence

Pg 5       Witness Statement

Pg 14     Exhibits

Pg 29     Supplementary Witness Statement

Pg 38     April 2020 Judgment against VCS (Caernarfon)

Pg 39     Summary Costs Assessment

Leviathan747

Just seen there's been an edit to the telephone hearings email - will continue to chip away tomorrow!  And perhaps figure out how to number the pages on my PDF aswell....

Coupon-mad

I've just added a DRAFT ORDER as I found time to write one at last, having seen others draft a few. 

It's a new reply in the Telephone Hearings thread page 10.  Remember it has to be a Word doc for the Judge.

Leviathan747

Hi CM.  Have noticed that this bit has been left out of your draft order now:

"1.      The test in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 is met and pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g), the Claimant is to pay the Defendant's fully pleaded costs in the sum of £548 within 14 days of service of this order"

Could I ask why?

Leviathan747

OK...have tried to send email, but not received an acknowledgement from court, or received back the email I'd sent to myself.  Weird!  Could it be due to file size.  My bundle pdf is 2MB, the Britannia v Crosby pdf is 514KB, total email size 3MB.

Leviathan747

Everyone can calm down......my Mum got the email fine! 

MothballsWallet

nosferatu1001 said:

Indeed, YOu taking the lead is good, and make sure you makje it clear youve done your best on this. 
I imagine theyre ruing their 'bot claim model now that so many require their back office to do some actual manual work - coudl be an issue for them!

Especially if all their staff are furloughed or "working" from home (they may be watching box sets on Netflix et al)...

Le_Kirk

Leviathan747 said:

Everyone can calm down......my Mum got the email fine! 

Phew, thanks, I've now calmed down 

Coupon-mad

Leviathan747 said:

Hi CM.  Have noticed that this bit has been left out of your draft order now:

"1.      The test in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269 is met and pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g), the Claimant is to pay the Defendant's fully pleaded costs in the sum of £548 within 14 days of service of this order"

Could I ask why?

My reason for removing it was because on balance, I think more courts will be minded to strike out, if the Defendant is not pushing for their costs as well despite having no hearing.   

I feel more Judges will be comfortable with striking out, if they can sweep it all away with no order or costs (less likely to get an appeal from the parking firm).  I gave this some thought and I don't think most Ds will get costs in the event of a strike out, and almost no-one will get costs on the indemnity basis for a claim where the facts were not actually 'heard' and therefore the test in Dammerman has not been examined, let alone met.  

People might do at Skipton and Southampton and Caernarfon courts where the Judges are not amused at all by parking scam claims, and maybe at Worthing/Brighton/Lewes if they are lucky enough to get DDJ Harvey, like in the hearing featured in the success thread by @proudsonofduck where the Judge tore Gladstones and the PPC a new one.

And if people who are the more robust posters want to add their costs to it then they can, but not all posters are that robust and most will just want the chance to have the whole thing struck out.

Snakes_Belly

IMO it's a disadvantage having a paper or telephone hearing. If you are there in person it is much easier for the judge to get the measure of a person. That's why it may be best to go for a dismissal. Also unlikely that the Claimant will appeal against a dismissal.  Then you can just draw a line under it.

I have often said on this forum that "karma is a !!!!!!" and it will all come home to roost for these companies.  We will have the last laugh.

That said when I went to my rescheduled  oral hearing assumptions were made about me. Twice by the usher, once by the claimant's rep and twice by the judge.  

The usher must have thought that I looked a bit reptilian because he took me for the claimant's representative.