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

Johnersh

This is almost certainly for the hearing of their application. This was inevitable once an application was made.

this is procedural yes. But have ready to go the argument that there is nothing to see and that it is fanciful to suggest it can or would be decided differently 

Given that you can’t enforce something subject to an application it is right to be refunded. The reality is that you’ve lost nothing, since if they had applied you’d not have got a warrant. it’s all come about just because C has dcked about not making an application cause they didn’t fancy paying the fee. Their margin is shot if they go down on costs.

This is their error, so be prepared to argue strongly that they should bear their costs in any event (ie irrespective of who wins the application or any later hearing)

lyndonp59

My son has received a late email tonight with the set aside order having been made yesterday 29th - the N244 was only submitted on 28th. Seems very quick. Our email today was totally irrelevant.

So the actual re-hearing is on the 27th May. This doesn't seem fair or right at all. Totally unfair. VCS get two bites of the cherry and know what they lost on last time.

I'm attaching the order for you to see.

So apart from having to send contact details again, I suppose we just use the same WS and Supplementary. Will VCS be able to add any further information?

Will they get their N244 costs refunded? Bloody scandal if they do. Just hope we can d*ck them again at the new hearing.

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

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.

So if I understand that correctly the max charge for such an alleged overstay is £50 outside London. About time. Love the way they are having a right strop on their website and are trying to get it overturned!

It is strange how the courts have rushed through the set aside yesterday within 24 hours of VCS submitting their application, and re-arranged the re-hearing so soon (one month), plus got the email and document out by tonight.

beamerguy

As Johnersh says

The error is with them.  

In money terms you have lost nothing as such  The first case was struck out for a good reason and unless VCS can prove otherwise there is no reason to assume they will win.


This situation must be reported to your MP. Of course it depends on your MP.
Does he/she have the interests of voters at heart or ...... is a £70k + salary more important


I wonder how the courts view VCS ,,,,, a complete non starter or a instigator of a scam
  

Fruitcake

Quote from the Excel website whinge.

"We are especially disappointed that the Ministry has rejected the widespread public support (80%) for a three-tiered parking charge system in favour of the local authority model."

What they failed to mention was of the 3000 or so responses to the consultation, only 1/3 were considered to be genuine. The rest were from the scammers who, on mass, each copied and pasted hundreds of identical responses. 
Luckily the powers that be spotted this and disregarded the obvious ringers.

Umkomaas

I think Judge Heppell is a bit of a handful for PPCs. Put the surname into the forum search engine and read some of the previous threads involving this Judge.  Be as best prepared as you can. 

lyndonp59

beamerguy said:

As Johnersh says

The error is with them.  

In money terms you have lost nothing as such  The first case was struck out for a good reason and unless VCS can prove otherwise there is no reason to assume they will win.


This situation must be reported to your MP. Of course it depends on your MP.
Does he/she have the interests of voters at heart or ...... is a £70k + salary more important


I wonder how the courts view VCS ,,,,, a complete non starter or a instigator of a scam
  

You are correct the we have lost nothing but my son had to take time off work for the first one and will have to do so again. 

Even if we win again I guess the VCS rep will be pushing that we get no costs. 

lyndonp59

Umkomaas said:

I think Judge Heppell is a bit of a handful for PPCs. Put the surname into the forum search engine and read some of the previous threads involving this Judge.  Be as best prepared as you can. 

He did the first hearing and seemed ok. It would be nice to think he will be sympathetic towards us but that may be wishful thinking!

Coupon-mad

It is strange how the courts have rushed through the set aside yesterday within 24 hours of VCS submitting their application, and re-arranged the re-hearing so soon (one month), plus got the email and document out by tonight.

I've never seen a court move that quickly, ever.  It also mentions any claims for compensation must go to a court manager.

One wonders exactly what was said in the complaint that accompanied the application.

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

It is strange how the courts have rushed through the set aside yesterday within 24 hours of VCS submitting their application, and re-arranged the re-hearing so soon (one month), plus got the email and document out by tonight.

I've never seen a court move that quickly, ever.  It also mentions any claims for compensation must go to a court manager.

One wonders exactly what was said in the complaint that accompanied the application.

Yes I’d noticed that. Whole thing stinks. it feels like the court has sided with them. 

Aren’t we entitled to any compensation for having to go through it all again?!!

Just hope my trump card wins it again. At least I know what I’ll be doing and what to say. 

My fear is they will have prepped their rep on what won it last time to present some other counter argument.