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

KeithP

Leviathan747 wrote: »

Registered post to the Claimant?

Never use Registered Post - whatever that is.

Do not use any service that requires a signature. That allows the recipient to refuse to sign, and thus refuse delivery. Not quite what you want.

Standard first class post obtaining a free Certificate of Posting from the Post Office counter is what you want.

Leviathan747

Cheers Coupon-mad & Keith

PS Registered Post = Royal Mail Signed For
PPS Decided 1 Witness, not 2

Coupon-mad

PS Registered Post = Royal Mail Signed For

No it isn't, and you won't be using it anyway. My parents both worked for post offices at one time in the seventies and the term dates back to then!

KeithP

Registered Post = Special Delivery.

Recorded Delivery = Signed For.

Leviathan747

Thanks Keith! OK, DQ sent to Claimant and proof of post acquired. Scanned copy also emailed to CCBC and acknowledgement received.

Guess we now wait for 6 months for a court date! :coffee:

nosferatu1001

...while writing your WS, getting exhibits ready, so when the hearing letter drop sthrough the door youre all done

Leviathan747

UPDATE: Just got a 'General Form of Judgement or Order' in the post, saying that the DQ hadn't been received and we have 7 days to file it. Phoned CCBC in a panic, saying that we'd sent it in *1 month* ago and they explained that this was a letter to the CLAIMANT lol!! And that we both get a copy of it.

Simon Renshaw has until Jan 20th to file his DQ or the claim will be 'struck out without further order of the court'.

Fruitcake

You have to assume the case is going ahead until the court tells you in writing that the contrary is true.

Have you received a copy of the alleged contract between the scammers and the landowner? If so, please show it to us. We have seen at least one where the contract was between Excel and VCS, not with the landowner.
We have seen others where the contract is with a management company. In that instance there must also be a contract between the management company and the landowner.
Signatures must comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 (two authorised persons from each party, or a director and witness from each party).

Leviathan747

Fruitcake wrote: »

You have to assume the case is going ahead until the court tells you in writing that the contrary is true.

Have you received a copy of the alleged contract between the scammers and the landowner? If so, please show it to us. We have seen at least one where the contract was between Excel and VCS, not with the landowner.
We have seen others where the contract is with a management company. In that instance there must also be a contract between the management company and the landowner.
Signatures must comply with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006 (two authorised persons from each party, or a director and witness from each party).

Thanks Fruitcake. No, we haven't received any contract. When would we have got it?

Fruitcake

Leviathan747 wrote: »

Thanks Fruitcake. No, we haven't received any contract. When would we have got it?

At the exhibits stage. The bargepole guide to court tells you when that should happen.
If you didn't mention landowner authority in your defence then you will have to mention it in your WS.
Do you know who the landowner is, and have you complained to them?

Have you checked with the council planning department to see what the original planning approval said, and if it has been amended since? It is not unknown for a council to stipulate, say, a free two hour period and allow people to leave site to support other businesses, but a PPC to then reduce the time and impose other restrictions in breach of planning approval.

Check also to see if planning approval for scameras exist, and advertising consent for signs has been granted. Not having the latter is a criminal offence.

Everything helps at the court stage, and complaints can be made to the council as well as trading standards if the original approvals are not being adhered to.

Have you complained to your MP yet about this unregulated scam?