WIN - Claim Stage

matt_matt51

My Fiance is the named defendant. Court papers issued to her, and who submitted the defence (with my/this forums help)

Coupon-mad said:

If it was an in-person hearing, you just go with her, no permission needed, and when signing in tell the Usher you are her lay representative (not McKenzie friend) and if they look confused, hand over the Lay Representatives (Right of Audience) Order 1999 

Thanks Coupon-mad. I did some scouting on the forum to find we (she) needed to request i'm Lay Rep. I also read i do not want to be McKenzie Friend, as that would be pointless if i cannot speak or advise. We understand she will have to be present (in person/on the call) as the claim is against her. The main thing i'm able to speak/support her in the process.  

The claim against 'us' is pretty flawed. So much so i'm hoping judgement (in our favour) is met without the need for a hearing. There is absolutely no evidence to support their claim, and everything they have has more holes than a kitchen colander. All of these points are in the defence, along with challenging added 'costs' (used the forum template). However, i'm fully prepared for a hearing. Including what to do if the claimant tries to submit evidence on the day.

Just to add, this forum is a wealth of information. Thanks everyone who has put it together.

D_P_Dance

 I also read i do not want to be McKenzie Friend, as that would be pointless if i cannot speak or advise. 

You can advise, either on paper,or whisper in her ear.  Have she complained to her MP?

Redx

There will be a hearing if you want a judgment , because one delivers the other

However , the claimant can discontinue at any time , in which case there won't be a judgment !!

matt_matt51

Thanks everyone. The court process can get a little confusing for someone who hasn't done it before. Not to mention being overcautious as I don't want to mess up (miss a deadline, fail to complete a process) resulting in a default win for the claimant. The guide on here however, has been a godsend.

In an interesting turn of events, we were notified this weekend that VCS are representing themselves, and no longer using their legal representative ELMS (N434 served to us). My initial suspicion was they have sacked them off, as they did with BW Legal. However, another opinion is that ELMS have identified they will not win the claim, based on the submitted defence. It would be interesting to know if anyone else has had a similar outcome recently.

VCS have kindly offered a 'reduced' balance to settle the claim. If its not paid in 14 days, they will continue with the claim against us. We will be declining this offer on a number of grounds, outlined in every letter sent to them, and our defence. We're more than happy to continue with court, in fact we encourage it. We would much prefer an impartial decision. I just feel guilty for [VCS] wasting a judge's time.

matt_matt51

D_P_Dance said:

You can advise, either on paper,or whisper in her ear.  Have she complained to her MP?

We did complain to both our local MP, and to the MP where the car park is situated. There was an offer to intervene, but personally I felt they had better things to do. Especially as this was April last year when COVID was causing initial havoc. 
The claim is bizarre, so much so, I've had two legal representatives express their disbelief VCS are pursuing. Which is why I've not gone back to either MP, and we're happy to go to court. We may be overconfident but worst case scenario we lose in course and we then pay the claim. We're defending under principle, and the fact that there are no grounds whatsoever for the claim (or evidence for that matter).
Just to add we're defending ourselves, the legal advice was from friends. We've not instructed a solicitor as there is no need (as advised on here). 

Umkomaas

The Elms legal scenario has been playing out over the past month. It's not known why, possibly costs, possibly lack of confidence in them, possibly, as you suggest, they don't want to be linked with a case offering a strong defence. The offer of a reduced 'price' is common, sometimes, but not always, followed by a discontinuation. But the bottom line is that you must carry on jumping the hurdles until you reach the finish line (a hearing), unless VCS tells you that their race is prematurely over.

matt_matt51

Being that VCS aren't using ELMS to represent them with the claim. Where do I stand that they are claiming £50 specifically for 'Legal Representative's Costs'?
Presumably this should be removed from their claim, is that even possible? 

Redx

£50 legal costs can still be claimed , only a judge can decide , no point worrying about it , it deflects you from your tasks

We have seen many threads where VCS have taken back control , it's irrelevant as to why , they definitely won't tell you why

Just follow the process , worry about completing your own homework , not about second guessing the claimant

matt_matt51

Redx said:

£50 legal costs can still be claimed , only a judge can decide , no point worrying about it , it deflects you from your tasks

We have seen many threads where VCS have taken back control , it's irrelevant as to why , they definitely won't tell you why

Just follow the process , worry about completing your own homework , not about second guessing the claimant

Thanks. It only dawned on me this morning. I wasn't sure if it was something to raise to persuade VCS to discontinue (more work than its worth), or in court as further unfair costs (being there are other legal costs in their claim).
Appreciate everyone's time responding. 👍

Umkomaas

Like ParkingEye, Excel/VCS have an in-house legal team (how big, how qualified, how good is anyone's guess), and PE have never failed to claim £50, and I've never seen it turned down by a Judge. 

You could in your Witness Statement put VCS to strict proof (invoices and receipts) of paying, and see how they respond. The more that tricky questions are loaded at them, the more trouble they have to go to to deal with them. Obviously they have to be sensible questions.