Almost Imminent Court Case pending with VCS

Fruitcake

Redact your VRN!

Fruitcake

If you haven't already, you could comment that to prove their original claim about leaving and returning, there should either be four sets of timed photos or four comments written in an attendant's log/tablet/notebook with times.

Also emphasise they have said their statements are true when they obviously are not.

In order to claim costs in excess of the norm, capped at £95, you have to show they scammers were unreasonable during the court process.
This is not the same as acting unreasonably in general; you need to quote specific breaches of the court practice/directions/process.
Knowingly making an untrue statement on a court document would hopefully meet those requirements, but you would need to show they knew or should have known their statement was untrue.

Loum5

Fruitcake wrote: »

Also emphasise they have said their statements are true when they obviously are not.

In order to claim costs in excess of the norm, capped at £95, you have to show they scammers were unreasonable during the court process.
This is not the same as acting unreasonably in general; you need to quote specific breaches of the court practice/directions/process.
Knowingly making an untrue statement on a court document would hopefully meet those requirements, but you would need to show they knew or should have known their statement was untrue.

On top of that there is the whole section about how they've lied about still having a contract with the landowners when they clearly don't, and the disclosure of someone else's details within their WS - surely that's enough for them to be considered unreasonable?? Or Not??

Thank you for the redaction point - totally slipped there!!

Loum5

Fruitcake wrote: »

If you haven't already, you could comment that to prove their original claim about leaving and returning, there should either be four sets of timed photos or four comments written in an attendant's log/tablet/notebook with times.

Also emphasise they have said their statements are true when they obviously are not.

How about this:

13. It is a fact that I did NOT leave the car park then return within the no return period/time. Thus, the Claimant's Claim is doomed to fail because the alleged conduct did not happen and their own ANPR evidence photos are at odds with their claim particulars, because they haven't provided all the images they stated in the Particulars of Claim and Statement of Truth. To prove their original claim there should either be four sets of timed photos or four logs in the attendant’s logbook/notes. The claim is fundamentally flawed because it is pleaded on the following premise:

Fruitcake

If their original reason for obtaining keeper details is now proved by fact or their admission to be no longer valid, then that is yet another KADOE contract breach.
This could therefore be the subject of a separate complaint to the DVLA.
I can't remember, did you explain at some point what KADOE means?

Loum5

Fruitcake wrote: »

If their original reason for obtaining keeper details is now proved by fact or their admission to be no longer valid, then that is yet another KADOE contract breach.
This could therefore be the subject of a separate complaint to the DVLA.
I can't remember, did you explain at some point what KADOE means?

Interesting! But I want to get my WS in the post before I delve into all this!

I have just added the meaning of KADOE (Keeper of a Vehicle at the Date of an Event) to the point I mentioned it in.

Loum5

For clarity, can I please ask what I should put in my defendants schedule of costs? Just basic, or additional for my time (10 hours @ £19) and postage/stationary etc?

Many Thanks

Le_Kirk

There are a few cost examples in the NEWBIE sticky post # 2. However, it seems that most judges stick at £95 unless you can prove (the high bar) of a level of unreasonableness by the claimant.

beamerguy

Loum5 wrote: »

For clarity, can I please ask what I should put in my defendants schedule of costs? Just basic, or additional for my time (10 hours @ £19) and postage/stationary etc?

Many Thanks

You open yourself to a judge asking you to prove 10 hours

A win is a win and £95 is the bonus

Fruitcake

To reiterate, unreasonableness applies only to the court process, not bombarding you with debt crawlers, or inadequate signs, or 'phoning you up etcetera.
I doubt sending you someone else's data would count either, but it won't hurt to show the judge how ill disciplined and slap-dash the scammers are.
As Le-Kirk says, it is a very high bar and therefore very difficult to prove.
So, aim for ordinary costs of around £100 and hope for that or £95 at worst. If you have grounds to show breach of CPR then you can ask for additional costs for unreasonable behaviour, but not otherwise.

Make sure you include a few extra "unknowns" such as parking and a packed lunch to claim on the day of the court appearance.

Have you told the scammers about the data breach and asked for proof/an assurance that they have not sent your data to someone else?