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

beamerguy

I think Johnersh has given perfect advice.  

This whole thing beggars belief, VCS are losing money on this plus they are in debt to you for £95 plus the cost of raising the warrant

And all over a parking ticket ...... stupidity

Coupon-mad

I prefer @Johnersh's succinct summary and his additional words about the Claimant being disingenuous.  Use his words.

Don't leave the bit in bold that I put in bold (I only did that because I get fed up with advising people what to write and then they don't use it!).

Johnersh

The letter to the court is *far* too long. It just needs to say the application is contested. C has not complied with an order and made no application promptly before there was an obligation to pay. 

brianposter

Your first sentence should not start "In reply to". "With reference to" might be better.

lyndonp59

Thanks for all your comments and help. I have done a much more succinct version using the comments from @Johnersh and C-M

lyndonp59

beamerguy said:

I think Johnersh has given perfect advice.  

This whole thing beggars belief, VCS are losing money on this plus they are in debt to you for £95 plus the cost of raising the warrant

And all over a parking ticket ...... stupidity

Exactly. They never raised an appeal only the complaint. We have never been informed by the court or VCS that the complaint was dismissed, however in their N244 WS they say:-

"The claim was referred back to a District Judge who concluded an Application must be made. Although the Claimant is somewhat surprised by this given it was clear and obvious error made by the Court, the Claimant nonetheless has made an Application to set aside the Order."

So I would love to know when they were told that. I am guessing it was before I submitted the application for the Warrant back 26th March as the person dealing with the complaint never contacted us, and by the time the Warrant was executed last Thursday 22nd it was 3 months from submitting their complaint anyway.

I am sure they knew a while back and were hoping my threat of the Warrant was just bluff, and hence didn't raise the N244. Or maybe it was a tactic waiting for it and then trying to argue we were being unreasonable. I wouldn't put it past them.

This was never about the money right back 6 years ago (May 2015!!!). It was about grace periods and the fact they never acknowleged there were any on the " over 2 hours" they always quote on their correspondence.I proved there were in fact 10 minutes before and 10 after according to IPC code and their own signage (if you can call it that) and 19 minutes was under 20 minutes, and if they had argued otherwise it was “Contra proferentem” against their signage. This was all in our original WS.

It was unfortunate about their legal rep but that's life! It's become a can of worms. Just hope the judge doesn't agree with their set aside.

Jenni_D

They raised a claim within 6 years and failed ... if a set aside is processed after the 6 years are up is the debt time-barred?

Johnersh

If

1. C sent details in time
2. Applied on tim
3. Generally complied with cpr 39.8 and copied the defendant in to the correspondence with the court

They'd not be in this mess.

D does not have to await a complaint response. Only an application can pause enforcement and that's why C should've taken that step. 

It's not clear the court was obviously wrong to press on without C if everyone else had supplied details in time. Further, ought to be establishing why a different judgment would have been reached on the facts had they attended. It's not like they planned to bring any factual witnesses along. The court had their evidence bundle, presumably. I mean it's ironic that in applying they have now lodged an application wanting this dealt with on the papers! 

This is no longer about the merits of the case, but procedure. 

@Jenni_D The claim was issued in time, so were the judgment overturned, it will go back to a hearing. 

lyndonp59

Johnersh said:

Further, ought to be establishing why a different judgment would have been reached on the facts had they attended. It's not like they planned to bring any factual witnesses along. The court had their evidence bundle, presumably.

Well the court has phoned my son this afternoon, presumably after receiving his email this morning. They have cancelled the Warrant and given him his £110 back (nice of them) and set a date for a hearing on 27th May. I am absolutely flabbergasted and very annoyed by the way this has dealt with. My son was confused and asked if they would speak to me but she wouldn't. I have tried to ring back but if was after 4pm so presumably they have gone home. Apparently she'll be sending him an email about it.

I assume this will be the set aside hearing and not a re-hearing of the original case? Could they have done a set aside on papers already and ordered a re-hearing?

They are saying VCS sent their details in on time however it is in black and white not complying with the order so that will be one argument. What's the point of having an order saying "MUST respond within 48 hours" and then ignoring it?

@Johnersh - that has been my line of thinking, that a different judgment would not have been reached even if their rep was present. I was doing some research on set asides yesterday from your original link 9/3/21 about Tibbles and found this:-

"the Applicant must either show some material change of circumstances or that the judge who made the earlier order was misled in some way, whether innocently or otherwise, as to the correct factual position before him."

also

"But it is a wrong exercise of this power to vary or revoke an order where there has been no material change of circumstances since the earlier order was made and/or no material is brought to the attention of the second court which was not brought to the attention of the first."

Not sure if it applies to us or not, was in this doc https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/518.html 

So I would appreciate any help for this next stage. No idea what the the procedure is or what we will have to provide or do.

BTW, Our local MP had put up a web site form asking for people who had had PPC penalties issued to respond with details, taken to court etc. I did fill that in it a few weeks back. This needs stopping. I don't want to take this thread off track, but why are PPC allowed to pursue these case up to 6 years. I know that is the law but it should be changed for maybe 12 or 24 months. If they can't sort it out in that time it should be null and void. This is 6 years in a couple of weeks for christ sake. They only sent the court papers after over  5 years, and didn't respond to letters for 4 years including BWLegal)

Coupon-mad

Our local MP had put up a web site form asking for people who had had PPC penalties issued to respond with details, taken to court etc. I did fill that in it a few weeks back. This needs stopping.

The rogue practice of this industry is being curtailed but the matter of the 6 year statute of limitations relates to all moneyclaims and is nothing special for parking firms.  So unless the statute of limitations is amended for parking firms or the MHCLG takes some other steps as part of the new framework, we are stuck with the 6 years. 

However, the rogue practices are about to be properly regulated and stopped and we assume your MP knows this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/parking-code-enforcement-framework/outcome/parking-code-enforcement-framework-consultation-response

Excel (sister firm of VCS) are not best pleased, as per their website:

https://excelparkingservices.co.uk/latest-news/

No idea whether the new hearing is to consider setting aside the previous Order. I guess your son must wait for Directions from the Judge, by post in May.  There will be no email from court, this is not up to the clerks.