VCSL Successfully Appeal the Strike Out Orders

JB111

VCS has been successful in their Appeal against an order made by District Judge Taylor in whereby he dismissed our entire claim as it contained an additional charge of £60.00. The Circuit Judge concluded that the Judge should not have dismissed the entire claim simply because it contained an element to which the Judge regarded as inflated. It was further concluded that there was no evidence on which that Judge could have reached such a conclusion and therefore his argument surrounding an abuse of process was rejected.

VCS are seeing less claims being struck out upon the basis of the above arguments which echoes the case of Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien. There is a mix reaction as to whether the additional sums claimed are allowed as there is evidence of Judges granting/refusing such costs across the country. The reality of the matter is that there will never be a definite answer until the new Parking Code of Practice is released. 

Umkomaas

I guess you'll need to see if VCS re-submit the claim against you. Will be interesting to see if they try another  £60 add-on!

Redx

JB , call me suspicious or what !!!!!!!!!

VCS and Excel have lost several cases on here in the last week alone

beamerguy

JB111 said:

VCS are seeing less claims being struck out upon the basis of the above arguments which echoes the case of Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien. There is a mix reaction as to whether the additional sums claimed are allowed as there is evidence of Judges granting/refusing such costs across the country. The reality of the matter is that there will never be a definite answer until the new Parking Code of Practice is released. 

NO, infact they are losing more now and will continue to do so
The Britannia Parking v Semark-Jullien.appeal was very much a damp squib and has probably done more damage to the fakers than anything else.

The area judge simply said that cases should not be struck out simply because of the fake £60

Anyone would be a fool if they thought it just ended there.  That case would have been discussed around the country in chambers. Remember this was a complaint against the Judiciary and if you like, it is a gentleman's club with of course lady judges.

So, what we are now seeing are cases being dismissed for a host of reasons such as signage etc.
Sometimes a judge will say the signs are OK (As in your second post on here) but will not allow the fake £60

Therefore where the fake £60 is added, the D must bring to the attention of the judge and even if the judge does not call it abuse of process, he/she can then make the right decision in favour of the D. That's what is happening right now.   The Semark-Jullien appeal was meaningless and is NOT a winning hand and certainly no precedence in a county court

This probably was also done to stop timewasting appeals

D_P_Dance

Look on the bright side, they may have had to fork out £££ for this decision.   Every time this happens they will have to cough up.  

nosferatu1001

So which ppc do you work for,OP? You know you're supposed to declare ...

Curlyben

JB111 said:

VCS has been successful in their Appeal against an order made by District Judge Taylor in whereby he dismissed our entire claim as it contained an additional charge of £60.00. 

@nosferatu1001 I wonder

bargepole

JB111 said:

 The reality of the matter is that there will never be a definite answer until the new Parking Code of Practice is released. 

JB, that's one thing we can all agree upon.

But by the time that happens, I wonder how many operators will still be in business after taking an 80%+ hit in revenues due to the lockdowns / tier restrictions. 

Lamilad

It's not necessarily a bad thing that more of these cases may now progress to full trial rather than being struck out as it's clear there are numerous judges up and down the country who DO believe the additional charge is unenforceable. 

And, whilst they may now be more reluctant to strike out, it's obvious they don't like the charge and this allows Ds to make a more persuasive argument for unreasonable behaviour costs after the Claim is dismissed - which is usually the case in properly defended claims, especially against Excel/ VCS.

On top of that, it's far more costly for the PPCs to lose at trial rather than have their claim struck out.

The case I will be Lay Rep for later today is against Excel (though judging by the Cs evidence you'd be forgiven for thinking it's against VCS) and includes the additional charge. I am very much looking forward to advancing the argument that the charge IS an abuse of process and the Britannia v SJ appeal does nothing to change that fact

Come back here tomorrow night, JB111, for the court report. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. 

Coupon-mad

The reality of the matter is that there will never be a definite answer until the new Parking Code of Practice is released. 

True.  Interesting times, Jake. 

BTW you have to ask for permission to post on behalf of your company.

fisherjim

Interesting that this OP creates an account on here with one intention to brag about two court wins by the same PPC with no explanation or discussion I smell rotten fish!