VCS Letter Before Claim - EDIT - I WON!!

beamerguy

They’re also making reference to a number of other court cases.

Which cases ...... ?

Coupon-mad

Oh yawn, let me guess:

ParkingEye v Beavis
Vine v Waltham Forest
HMRC v VCS
VCS v Crutchley
VCS v Ward
Chaplair v Kumari
Elliot v Loake.

Please DON'T post about them.  PLEASE SPARE US. 

Just search the forum, that's what it's here for.  Your thread is a tiny grain of exact same sand as all the other VCS threads so please spare us treading that same path again and again and again.

beamerguy

ParkingEye v Beavis
Vine v Waltham Forest
HMRC v VCS
VCS v Crutchley
VCS v Ward
Chaplair v Kumari
Elliot v Loake.

Just want to see if they have come up with more rubbish

nosferatu1001

Youre not out of your depth!
We beat these incompetent professionals all the time.
I bet that WS has been ripped to shreds multiple times, if you do ao search. Its only VCS! Theyre TERRIBLE at this!
The core part is
parking
was
paid for

They should have cancelled once this was shown. ENd of. 
I bet - bet - every case they reference is already on this forum a dozen times - did you search? By any chance do they talk about Elliot v Loake?

JACK24

My court case is on Friday and I'm getting a bit worried. Help/advice please?
I've prepared my own personal crib sheet with my main points/arguments.

The main points the claimant (VCS) are claiming are : 
- ticket not displayed correctly - signage states that a valid permit should be displayed on the front windscreen at all times. If you fail to do so you agree to pay the parking charge of £100
- I didn't initially appeal - claiming I was slow responding to things and allowed a CCJ to be given
- The claimant issued a a claim which wasn't acknowledged or a defence submitted (see thread, various reasons including Covid19 - CCJ was issued and has since been set aside)
- They've also stated "The Claimant respectfully requests that the Defendants Application to set aside Judgment pursuant to CPR part 13.3 be dismissed and that cost be awarded in favour of the Claimant, to be summarily assessed."
What does this mean??? The CCJ was previously set aside and they agreed to it. Are they attempting to reversse the decision to set aside? Surely they can't now?

They have made reference to other cases(these appear different to the usual ones?)
Does the judge research these (as well as mine) or is it up to me to scrutinise these and highllight things to the judge? I will /have read them the best I can, but they are rather lengthy/confusing
- Hart Investments v Fidler(2006) - this appears to be about my slow responses regarding the CCJ
- The Big Yellow Van v Rayner(2014) - thsi appears to be about the length of time between judgement and set aside?
- Khan v Edgbaston Holdings(2007)  - again about timescales?

KeithP

You need to be able to point out to the judge why those cases they refer to have no relevance - if indeed that is the case. Do not rely on the Judge to do your research.

Have a look at this short video: 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93eoaxhzpU

Le_Kirk

What is the point of your hearing on Friday?  Is it defence of the actual original claim or (most unlikely) a set-aside given that you've said you already had the judgment set aside!

nosferatu1001

Assuming this hearing is the substantive claim then it suggests their WS for the hearing is defective. 

Maybe theyve gotten confused. But I wouldnt pay too much attention to it. Maybe in the last month you could have shown us so we have some more idea. It sounds like theyre again complaining about the set aside, but tough - theyre far past the ability to argue the set aside now. 

JACK24

Le_Kirk said:

What is the point of your hearing on Friday?  Is it defence of the actual original claim or (most unlikely) a set-aside given that you've said you already had the judgment set aside!

It's in the small claims court for the actual defence of my case. The set aside case was back in May.

JACK24

nosferatu1001 said:

Maybe theyve gotten confused. ..... It sounds like theyre again complaining about the set aside, but tough - theyre far past the ability to argue the set aside now. 

Good & I agree!

Do you think they have a case with regards to me not displaying the ticket correctly?