Claim Form received - VCS - WON - For the second time!

Umkomaas

lyndonp59 said:

Johnersh said:

Can you post the order absent any personal details. 

Here is the order. There was also another page the N159 Response form which we sent back to say we didn't want it on papers.

I haven't trawled back over the 130 posts of this thread to check, but noticed in the order you've linked above that the court was looking to undertake the hearing 'on the papers'. Did you formally object to that to swing it towards a face-to-face/video/telephone hearing?

lyndonp59

Umkomaas said:

lyndonp59 said:

Johnersh said:

Can you post the order absent any personal details. 

Here is the order. There was also another page the N159 Response form which we sent back to say we didn't want it on papers.

I haven't trawled back over the 130 posts of this thread to check, but noticed in the order you've linked above that the court was looking to undertake the hearing 'on the papers'. Did you formally object to that to swing it towards a face-to-face/video/telephone hearing?

Yes we sent the N159 Response document back and received a letter from the court asking if we would agree to a telephone hearing which we accepted.

lyndonp59

Fruitcake said:

That's unusual. The important word though is, "may". The claimant didn't have to respond to the defendant's WS and vice versa. However, the defendant was not given that opportunity because the scammers failed to comply with the court order. The important word in that instance is, "must".

Please show us the scammer's WS anyway. Only redact YOUR personal data.
If I were you, I would respond to it anyway as advised by the court, adding a comment that since the scammers failed to comply with the court order you were put at a disadvantage and were prevented from responding within the court mandated timescales.

When I took all the defence statement and photos, evidence out there were only 19 actual pages (not 60!) of the WS so I have scanned these for you to have a look.

lyndonp59

In their WS they seem to be hanging their hats on the entrance sign board i.e.

================

46. The approach as set out in Beavis is the correct analysis of contractual formation.
The terms of the licence having being broken by the Driver at that point becomes
a trespasser and so liable to the Charge. Further, this was also the conclusion of
HHJ Wood in VCS ltd v Crutchley (Unreported 2017 County Court at
Liverpool) hence it is clear that the entrance board alone is sufficient for contract
formation or put correctly it is clear from the signs the terms of the contractual
licence the basis that a user is entitled to use the Site.

=====================

However in my WS I raised the issue with photos that this board cannot clearly be seen as it is low down on the passenger side of car so is obscured when driving in and cannot be read properly. That board clearly states the driver should "Please refer to the full T&Cs on the boards around the car park"

They also only have a stock image of the entrance board but none of the unreadable girafe high T&Cs signs, only ones taken from a distance I believe supporting my view they are unreadable! It's like they know those are not readable.

Any advice for my Supplementary WS response please?

Coupon-mad

Their numbering is all over the place!  And this is more in the nature of a skeleton argument (legal cases) than a WS.

It quotes wrongly from Vine by accrediting words to Roch LJ which were simply his summary of what the losing car parking company tried to say.  This is all over the forum and has been for years so I hope you were expecting that and have read about it already.

We also know from other threads that VCS have not had this contract since 2010, because the signage images show that Excel were running it in between, so I assume this is covered in your WS as well.

Were_Doomed

lyndonp59 said:

In their WS they seem to be hanging their hats on the entrance sign board i.e.

================

46. The approach as set out in Beavis is the correct analysis of contractual formation.
The terms of the licence having being broken by the Driver at that point becomes
a trespasser and so liable to the Charge. Further, this was also the conclusion of
HHJ Wood in VCS ltd v Crutchley (Unreported 2017 County Court at
Liverpool) hence it is clear that the entrance board alone is sufficient for contract
formation or put correctly it is clear from the signs the terms of the contractual
licence the basis that a user is entitled to use the Site.

=====================

Hoist by one's own petard?

You cannot contract to trespass. 🙄

lyndonp59

In response to C-M

Yes, I know I have had to say the likes of "Paragraph 42 page 38" when responding as there are duplicates!  I have got the Vine Roch LJ repsonse in already, plus Chaplair and I found something in about Shoe Lane by Lord Denning:-

“The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'”

I have photos of reference to Excel in the T&Cs signs although it says VCS at the bottom which went in my original WS.

I was thinking of replying to the Crutchley paragraph with:-

"Paragraph 46 'VCS Ltd v Crutchley' was a County Court Case and as such is not binding plus it has not been repeated anywhere else since."

Would that suffice? (Bit of a dig at VCS getting abuse of process repeated against them many times in county courts!)

Coupon-mad

IIRC Crutchley was on appeal = persuasive on he lower courts even though it is a pile of pants, as is VCS v Ward.

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

IIRC Crutchley was on appeal = persuasive on he lower courts even though it is a pile of pants, as is VCS v Ward.

that seems to be more about stopping in no stop zone where there are signs on the road if I understand it correctly. VCS are trying to claim their lowly placed entrace board at the car park entrance constitutes a contract and the T&Cs signs which it refers the motorist to read.I feel there is something in there to rebuff it but not sure exactly what and how

Any ideas how I should deal with that one please?

Coupon-mad

You have the right words already, look up the Red Hand Rule and Spurling v Bradshaw as well:

I have got the Vine Roch LJ response in already, plus Chaplair and I found something in about Shoe Lane by Lord Denning:-

“The customer is bound by those terms as long as they are sufficiently brought to his notice beforehand, but not otherwise. In {ticket cases of former times} the issue...was regarded as an offer by the company. That theory was, of course, a fiction. No customer in a thousand ever read the conditions. In order to give sufficient notice, it would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it - or something equally startling.'”