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

Coupon-mad

Very nice.

beamerguy

That is good.   The court order remains in force and 3 days gives enough time for them to pay.
You must however follow through with the action.

The problem is with VCS and the court .... they have to prove what they say ?

What this does do is question VCS/EXCEL and other court try-ons where CCJ's are issued by default where the defendant knew nothing about it.

I would question ..... do VCS actually have the money to pay ?

Fruitcake

Have you thought about adding interest of 8% to the amount.

Jenni_D

Interesting idea, but at most 6 weeks of interest would be 88p (8% of £95 is £7.60 per year, or 14.6p per week).

Elmer_BeFuddled

Jenni_D said:

Interesting idea, but at most 6 weeks of interest would be 88p (8% of £95 is £7.60 per year, or 14.6p per week).

But another 88p out of their coffers!!!!! 

D_P_Dance

Make them pay EVERY penny, they take people to court for less than that. 

Johnersh

Timely, this one.  
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2021/03/10/judge-refuses-to-vary-the-terms-of-original-order-defendants-application-for-reconsideration-did-not-fly/ 
A case which deals with letters to the court which in breach of the cpr were not copied to the other side and where the contents of which really required a court application.

If I've understood correctly, this is exactly what C has done and it should be given short shrift. 

Umkomaas

Two unserviceable Jumbo Jets (747s) stuck at the aerodrome and they're talking about lifting them using five helicopters. Wow!  I wouldn't want to be standing underneath that lot!

They should get one of our ex-clamping and towing fraternity to visit, they'd soon shift them with one of their Scania trucks! 😏

Johnersh

@Umkomaas only the best cases, even if the subject matter isn't necessarily analogous...

Failure to complete the step ordered (para 10)
Letter to the court (and response inviting formal applucation) 
(para 13)

Fruitcake

Johnersh said:

Timely, this one.  
https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2021/03/10/judge-refuses-to-vary-the-terms-of-original-order-defendants-application-for-reconsideration-did-not-fly/ 
A case which deals with letters to the court which in breach of the cpr were not copied to the other side and where the contents of which really required a court application.

If I've understood correctly, this is exactly what C has done and it should be given short shrift. 

From the quoted case, The law, Tibbles in action.

(v) Similarly, questions may arise as to whether the misstatement (or omission) is conscious or unconscious; and whether the facts (or arguments) were known or unknown, knowable or unknowable. These, as it seems to me, are also factors going to discretion: but where the facts or arguments are known or ought to have been known as at the time of the original order, it is unlikely that the order can be revisited, and that must be still more strongly the case where the decision not to mention them is conscious or deliberate.

With regards to the OP's case, my interpretation on the underlined section is that the facts of the case were known at the time of the original order, and the judgment is unlikely to change were it to be heard again.