VCS Claim & Defence

emilycharlotte

Hi All
VCS have kindly sent through their bundle less than 24 hours to the hearing. It seems to be the 'correct' bundle this time. They have sent it to the email address I specifically explained that I no longer use and have before explained that I will not accept service to the email address.
The Judge responded to my email and said it would be considered at the hearing and asked me to copy it to VCS, which I did. VCS responded saying "we would like to make the point that the Defendant had not queried why a bundle for the incorrect Defendant was emailed to her". 
A few points to raise at the hearing tomorrow I think are: 
NTK has never been received from the Claimant, despite them stating this was sent on 3/10/19. The NTK is not included in the bundle (is that normal)? So the first correspondence I received from them on 1.11.19 was not compliant with NTK rules set out in the POFA.
VCS's failure to comply with the Court Order in relation to the filing of witness statement AND the failure of them filing a bundle 2 days in advance of the hearing. I had no idea what their evidence was until less than 24 hours before the hearing. 
The fact that I broke down in the carpark run by them which is why the maximum 2 hour stay was overran. The Claimant does not set out in their 'contract' what to do in the event of a breakdown. When I tried to call the number advertised it sent me through to a mailbox that was full.  
Anything else?

emilycharlotte

Sorry- now attached!

KeithP

emilycharlotte said:

VCS responded saying "we would like to make the point that the Defendant had not queried why a bundle for the incorrect Defendant was emailed to her".

As C-M said on 11th November:

Coupon-mad said:

You do not have to alert VCS to their error...

 And @Johnersh confirmed this two days later:

Johnersh said:

They will say that you should have told them, but the onus is on them to check attachments and, strictly speaking they should liaise with you in advance regarding attachments (see the CPR for service by electronic means). 

KeithP

I am sure I have seen some precedent somewhere stating that one party is not obliged to point out the mistakes of another, but I cannot find it at the moment.

Coupon-mad

Jeez, I'd ask at the start for the court to strike that WS out on 4 counts:

- it is unacceptably late and an ambush of prolix (look it up)

- the 'witness' joined VCS 3 or 4 weeks ago.  He isn't a witness to any facts or the signs that were up at the time

- it is so littered with errors, repetition of entire paragraphs (too numerous to list) and issues like an incorrect citation of Vine v Waltham Forest in #39 and misleading information in #69, #70 and #79 that as a WS it is of no assistance to the court.  And what on earth is para #64 on about, given this is a claim for ONE PCN not 'every ticket' - and surely you didn't deny driving (or is this your FiL's defence, I can't recall)?

- that is a badly-drafted skeleton argument and VCS, doing their own in-house court claims regularly, know this is not a WS.

- at p66 they have appended their 'WITHOUT PREJUDICE, SAVE AS TO COSTS' offer letter that can't be appended as an exhibit.

Other quick observations:
- the landowner contract talks about Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 but fails to append those. This is vital because that defines the parking policy which could be 3 hours free parking, and/or might not be relaxed after core hours, in the evening, or exempt broken down cars...who knows?

- looks like they've sent pics of half a sign? 

- no evidence at all, of what the signs look like in darkness.  Headlights would never light up signs on poles.

- there is a NTD which says the rk named you as the driver so I'd stop playing games about that and don't describe yourself as 'hirer'.  They do not need a NTK if they have your name as driver from the rk.

KeithP

Here you go...

Lady Justice Asplin, ruling in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd, said [...] that the defendant solicitors were not under a duty to warn the other side that [it had done anything wrong].

Court of Appeal, no less.

emilycharlotte

Ok great thanks all. I am hoping that it will be a short hearing given all their evidence has been late but it'll be good to go in with some arguments I can run with if it does go ahead 😁

emilycharlotte

Hi All
The matter went to final hearing today. 
The Judge dismissed the matter within 5 minutes because of VCS's failure to comply with the Order and she expressed concern over the data breach and told me to deal with that how I wish because there wasn't any more she could do on that front. She didn't really let the Legal Rep (I think a Barrister) for VCS (Mr Cross?) or myself speak even though I was pretty fired up with all the points! 
She asked if anyone wanted to make an application at the end and I asked for costs as per the schedule but she said they couldn't be awarded because it was small claims. 
The guy in Blackpool also got in touch to explain that the Judge in that dismissed his matter too on account of the data breach and also upheld his defence so good news all round 👏 
Many thanks for all your help and the time that you put into this forum. Over the years I have probably dealt with around 10-15 parking invoices (for myself and other people) and I have won every single one at the various different stages with various companies. This has been the first that has gone to Court. I would never have won any of these cases against the parking cowboys if it weren't for all the time and effort that you all put into the forum, so thank you 😊 

Redx

Well done to you and the man in Blackpool , 2 losses for VCS !!

Another one bites the dust !!

Coupon-mad

Hooray, I was waiting to hear what happened in your case, and with the guy in Blackpool!  

ANOTHER TWO VCS ONE BITE THE DUST!

Now report them to the ICO.