COURT CASE LOST !!!! Followed the process but no win for me vs VCS...

KC1974

Thought you might like to know that I lost my court case against VCS and have to pay £100 parking fine plus court and hearing costs of £50
Gutted as followed the advise and process very clearly and used the template defence... The case was allocated to paper only and judge refused to have a court hearing in person due to covid. I received the paperwork today, any thoughts?

Upon the hearing being on paper pursuant to orders of  June 2020,  

And upon the Court file being considered as was the evidence and statements of both parties

It is recorded that the Defendant accepts that she was the registered owner (keeper) of the vehicle in question in

December 2016 and that she lived at 

The following findings of fact are made on the balance of probabilities:

1. The parking charge notice was placed on the Defendant's vehicle on  December 2016.

2. The parking charge notice was received at the Defendant's then address in the normal course of posting after

19 January 2017, well before the Defendant moved address in February 2018.

The following decisions are also made:

3. The Claimant was entitled to claim the sum of £100.00 as set out in the parking charge notice for the reasons

set out in their evidence and can rely on Parking-Eye Ltd -v- Beavis.

4. The Defendant's case with regard to the cause of action, abuse of process, non compliance with Court rules

fails for the reasons set out in paragraphs 66-71 in the Claimant's witness statement.

5. Given that the Defendant was the registered keeper at the relevant time and given the finding of fact that the

Defendant received the parking charge notice and failed to advise the Claimant that she was not the driver at the

relevant time (if that were the case) then a defence based upon her not being the driver fails. (Failure to act and

schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012).

6. I have considered competing submissions as to the additional £60.00 claimed. I consider the case of Chaplair

Limited -v- Kuman [2015] is not of assistance being based upon a lease costs recovery clause. I consider the

case of Britannia Parking Group Ltd -v- Crosby 2019 is not binding on the judicial precedent but is of assistance.

I decline to strike out the Claimant's case but consider that the additional sum of £60.00 does not comply with

Vehicle Control Services Limited

2 Europa Court

Sheffield Business Park

Sheffield

S9 1XE

the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulation 2013, since the amount

payable is not displayed on the Claimant's signs.

7. I decline to award interest. The sum includes compensation for late payment owing to the available discount

for early settlement.

8. I award the Claimant:

£100.00

£25.00 Court fee

£25.00 Hearing fee.

9. Judgment for the Claimant in the sum of £150.00. The Defendant do pay that sum by 29 September 2020.

Dated 2 September 2020

Umkomaas

The vital bit of advice you might have missed was never to agree to a hearing 'on the papers'. While I recognise the Judge wouldn't allow a face to face hearing, there are very viable alternatives - video hearing or telephone hearing. Either would have given you the opportunity to address the Judge directly and respond to some of the points on which he found against you. 

4. The Defendant's case with regard to the cause of action, abuse of process, non compliance with Court rules

fails for the reasons set out in paragraphs 66-71 in the Claimant's witness statement.

What was this that was so compelling?

Le_Kirk

Yep, hard luck and have to agree with @Umkomaas's point about hearing on papers.  At least you escaped the spurious £60 debt control/admin costs.

beamerguy

Sorry you lost but once again we must strongly advise everyone never to accept "heard on papers"
YOU LOSE YOUR VOICE and it is your right to have a fair hearing.

VCS was not the winner as by the time they prepare everything and they again lost the £60 fake, 

Heard on papers is nothing VCS can boast about

Coupon-mad

Gutted as followed the advise and process very clearly and used the template defence...
The case was allocated to paper only

You didn't follow our advice then and were bound to lose.   Of course a hearing on the papers was lost, as they always are.

You had your chance to disagree, when you got that Order. Had your chance to come and ask us, you'd have had a resounding ''NO!' within 10 minutes flat from us and how to argue it. 

Yet another cautionary tale not to step away from our advice from start to finish.  So frustrating!

PLEASE EDIT YOUR HEADING BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE THAT YOU FOLLOWED OUR ADVICE.

Now, please read this:

Please now make a real difference - A TASK FOR SEPTEMBER.

The Government is (this month only) consulting about a new statutory code of practice (CoP) and framework to rein in the rogue parking firms.  Read and comment on the draft CoP proposal and the enforcement framework consultation, and get everyone you know to do the same.

You will need to register to comment on the CoP and enter an occupation even if you are retired or a homemaker, but otherwise it is easy to navigate, and comment upon each section/subsection individually. You can save comments to edit later and or submit comments once you are happy with them.

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2020-00193#/section

You do not need to register to comment on the enforcement framework which can be found here. It has a link on page 5 to make comments.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/913272/Code_Enforcement_Framework_consultation.pdf

At the very least, we say the parking charge level should be £50/£25 or higher level £70/£35, as per Council PCNs in E&W.  

And we say the added fake 'debt recovery' costs are just double counting the cost of letters, and MUST GO because that is unfair and illegal.

Please be heard.  You can bet the hundreds of PPCs will be commenting.

No apologies for repeating this vital 'call for action' to consumers, on every thread this month!

Coupon-mad

This was wrong and Excel v Smith would have cleared this up. 

This is the only point of law you could have an issue with but you were meant to attend the hearing not let it be heard on the papers due to COvid.  This is Clearly covered everywhere and at all stages.  You needed to insist on a Telephone Hearing to give you a voice, like everyone else does and you could have used Excel v Smith as an exhibit:

5. Given that the Defendant was the registered keeper at the relevant time and given the finding of fact that the

Defendant received the parking charge notice and failed to advise the Claimant that she was not the driver at the

relevant time (if that were the case) then a defence based upon her not being the driver fails. (Failure to act and

schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012).

You can't 'fail to name the driver'. 

This is an error in law, but only worth arguing at appeal if you want to throw £100 at it and if you were not the driver...AND if you understand why their NTK wasn't a POFA one (and what the POFA actually says) and can argue that confidently.

At least the points about adding £60 saved you that money.  You really missed a trick though.

Johnersh

It's an unfortunate outcome.
1. This is litigation. No one can ever guarantee a win in any court - hearing or not. 
2. I'd probably agree it's a greater risk on the papers only as you lose the chance to explain or respond to any questions that arise
3. I'd agree that the claimant has been put to some difficulty and been denied their enhancement. You're out of pocket, but most of the costs are reimbursing court fees already paid - it's not lining their coffers. 
4. This is of course a case that can be referred to in relation to every case where VCS uses the same form of wording on their signs - the £60 liquidated damages are impermissible, not on the signs and amount to a 60% enhancement of what the contract permits. 

Snakes_Belly

Sorry that you lost. I don't remember seeing any details of your case posted on here. The regulars do have more input at the defence and WS stages and would have critiqued these. 

photome

Its the Ops first post so how did they ask on here, and will they return to edit the heading?

Umkomaas

photome said:

Its the Ops first post so how did they ask on here, and will they return to edit the heading?

A bit odd if you look at their profile as they've been a member for over 6 years, yet this was their only post in that time. They have however been bestowed an honour badge as a 'Combo Breaker', (whoopy doo) whatever that is. I don't have one of those, where can I get one?  😢 😆

Snakes_Belly

H'mm. VCS and Excel have been losing a number of cases recently. Could be trying to discredit the forum.