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

lyndonp59

My son received this email from the court today. It was in reply to the first email when they hadn't filed their WS. (There's also a second email he sent later where he has emailed about it arriving 7 days late plus is dated 2 days after the WS deadline!)

Does it mean VCS can give some sob story due to Covid as to why it was late so does not get striked out? I am assuming they will get away with it by using Covid as the excuse.

Coupon-mad

No, it sounds positive to me.  The Judge is effectively confirming they were late.  VCS won't apply for 'relief from sanctions' and it is likely they will be sanctioned at the start of the hearing.  The D must raise it as a preliminary matter before the Claimants are given their chance to speak, and ask that the witness statement and evidence are struck out on the spot.

lyndonp59

Ok thanks for that C-M. 
I’m still composing the supplementary WS to send in. I would like to post it up on here when done. 

nosferatu1001

Of course. Same as ever. 

As above. You MUST ask about this at the start of the hearing. 

lyndonp59

nosferatu1001 said:

Of course. Same as ever. 

As above. You MUST ask about this at the start of the hearing. 

Ok understood. So it isn’t automatic for the judge to raise it. I wouldn’t have known that if C-M and yourself hadn’t mentioned  it. You’d think the judge would have it at the top of his papers!

Fruitcake

lyndonp59 said:

My son received this email from the court today. It was in reply to the first email when they hadn't filed their WS. (There's also a second email he sent later where he has emailed about it arriving 7 days late plus is dated 2 days after the WS deadline!)

Does it mean VCS can give some sob story due to Covid as to why it was late so does not get striked out? I am assuming they will get away with it by using Covid as the excuse.

The scammers issued the claim in July, in the middle of a world-wide pandemic, after courts had issued emergency practice directions, whilst the courts and many businesses, including their own, were short staffed due to the disease.
Knowing this, they wilfully issued proceedings. It would be unreasonable for them to claim they were unable to follow the CPR and submit court mandated documents on time due to covid, when the defendant managed to do so.
They waited over five years to bring the claim and could have started proceedings any time during that period, but chose to issue them knowing the problems and likely delays caused by the pandemic.

nosferatu1001

lyndonp59 said:

nosferatu1001 said:

Of course. Same as ever. 

As above. You MUST ask about this at the start of the hearing. 

Ok understood. So it isn’t automatic for the judge to raise it. I wouldn’t have known that if C-M and yourself hadn’t mentioned  it. You’d think the judge would have it at the top of his papers!

In our adversarial system, the judge is meant to be (mostly) neutral. It's why you have to file a defence, why you have to check their evidence, etc. 

lyndonp59

I have drafted the Supplemtary WS in response to the VCS WS. Does it look reasonable please?

Coupon-mad

Don't do an Index for a short Supplementary statement.

Change this to 'as soon as it was possible to do so' instead of 'late':

2. This statement is being submitted late 

Add a bit to #15 here:

''...to wrongfully persuade the court by misquoting Roch L.J out of context, where he was summing up the losing parking company's position, not the ratio of the case.  The full quote is this:-''

Why does this say 42?  And I would NOT say that Vine has no application to your case, quite the contrary, say it supports your case!

42. As can be clearly seen, Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question.

Add a bit here:

20. Page 41 shows the contract between the Claimant and Henderson (UK) for the parking contract which was for a period of 3 years from 1st December 2010. Excel Parking Services Ltd have also run this car park as the signage clearly shows in exhibit XXX-09.   and Therefore, there is no evidence to show this contract with the Claimant was in place at time of the alleged breach and it is patently untrue to aver that this Claimant has held the contract 'since 2010'. The truth is, they cannot possibly have done so during the unknown period of years when Excel Parking Services Ltd were (still are?) running it.

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

Don't do an Index for a short Supplementary statement.

Change this to 'as soon as it was possible to do so' instead of 'late':

2. This statement is being submitted late 

Add a bit to #15 here:

''...to wrongfully persuade the court by misquoting Roch L.J out of context, where he was summing up the losing parking company's position, not the ratio of the case.  The full quote is this:-''

Why does this say 42?  And I would NOT say that Vine has no application to your case, quite the contrary, say it supports your case!

42. As can be clearly seen, Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question.

Add a bit here:

20. Page 41 shows the contract between the Claimant and Henderson (UK) for the parking contract which was for a period of 3 years from 1st December 2010. Excel Parking Services Ltd have also run this car park as the signage clearly shows in exhibit XXX-09.   and Therefore, there is no evidence to show this contract with the Claimant was in place at time of the alleged breach and it is patently untrue to aver that this Claimant has held the contract 'since 2010'. The truth is, they cannot possibly have done so during the unknown period of years when Excel Parking Services Ltd were (still are?) running it.

Brilliant thanks C-M. Will do. Much appreciated.

When  we email this in, does it need marking "FAO of the Judge etc...." with a covering text saying something like

"..I was unable to submit this by the deadline of 4pm 9th November due to the Claimant submitting their WS late which I only received by post on 9th November, I am therefore submitting as soon as possible but within a week of receiving the C's WS therefore I request it is allowed to be submitted due to the unreasonable behaviour of the C.." ?

Or just send it to the court as per the original WS?