WIN - Claim Stage

matt_matt51

Morning All,
Sorry, but can I just clarify the DQ (N180) process:
I received, completed and submitted by the deadlines (confirmed on MCOL). A copy returned to CCBC (as advised) and a copy served to claimant (ELMS & VCS to be sure). However, I have never received the claimants DQ. I feel like I need to challenge this, not that i expect it to tell me much. But, i want to highlight VCS's failing to comply with the process. Just to add i can see on MCOL that the claimants DQ was filed near on 2 weeks ago.
I find the claim process rather frustrating. If I trip up I risk judgement against me. However, if they trip up, then nothing? 

Redx

You could complain to the judge about it in several months time , we agree the system has flaws , but it's the only one in force so live with it and move on. You won't be changing it anytime soon , but feel free to complain about it to your MP , bear in mind it was easy for somebody to abuse it to get Boris a CCJ too

So MP s change these things , it's not very robust or diligent at the moment , needs improving , so complain like d p dance tells everyone to do

You can always email a SAR to the DPO at VCS to get a copy

matt_matt51

Looks like I've fallen at the last hurdle. We've have the remote hearing next week, but I've missed the deadline to provide contact details. I can only call Monday to ask, but i suspect we'll be told we can't join, and will be classed as failing to attend.
I'm interested though, will the hearing still continue and judgment given on the details provided. The written documents and evidence alone was strong. However, the concern is, without the ability for the judge to ask us about what we have submitted, it would be overlooked?
Or, is it worse than that, and failure to attend means the judge will simply pass judgement in the claimants favour?
So annoyed that nearly 6 years of work down the pan because I misread the court documentation! Still, its my fault so not much i can do now.

KeithP

It could be even worse than that.

Flagrant disrespect for the court could easily be seen as unreasonable conduct and you could expect the Claimant to push for their full costs.

Your really must phone the court first thing on Monday and see if you can retrieve the situation.

Coupon-mad

I suspect they will be OK about this minor last oversight if you call the court.  Why not email your contact details to court TODAY then you can mention that in the call on Monday and ask if that is OK?

I don't think the Judge will care when the contact details were given and the claimant won't even know you were late, because you don't copy them into these details.

matt_matt51

Thanks both. I did e-mail immediately to apologies, and provide the required details. I also tried to call but being Saturday no answer. I wasn't particularly expecting anyone to answer, but thought it was worth a try.
I was going to call first thing Monday to see what can be done. Fingers crossed they allow us to attend.
Annoyed with myself as made sure I was on time with everything else. All I can do is see what they say Monday.

matt_matt51

Spoke to the court this morning, they were unconcerned about the deadline and simply issued the links to join the hearing call. Noted that the claimant's solicitor had also failed to supply details, and was at the time chasing them up.
Hearing went in our favor, so its another win for the small guys!

Judgement was based on the fact there was no evidence to support their claim, which was driver left the site. The Judge did give the Solicitor a very stern dressing down for their [diabolical] claim.

We didn't get much beyond the lack of evidence before the decision was made. But, there were a catalogue of issues for them, including: Abuse of power (unfairly adding costs to the debt), Inconsistent evidence (map of sign locations, and photos of their absence submitted in their case), Vague sign/contract (did not identify what the 'premises' is), No land owner permission (ordered to provide by Judge, but contract supplied had expired by date PNC issued), Witness statement and PNC dated differently (also no unique identifier between statement and PNC, no way to identify the officer who submitted statement and they were not present at hearing), Failure to mitigate loss. The list goes on. Most wasn't covered as it wasn't necessary.

Its been an interesting 6 year fight, and frustrating to see how they operate. Looks to me its a numbers game of getting as many in court to win a percentage. It also appeared that the Solicitor was unprepared for today, and I suspect was simply handed the case to fight. Poor guy was scraping a barrel to find an argument, which was uncomfortably clear. Noted argument that picture of car (parked in a marked bay) with no driver in, shows the driver left the site? Not sure how he conducts his shopping, but i generally go into the store to buy goods. Not drive into the parking space to look at the shop from my car, and drive back out. The Judge was quick to dismiss his point.
Anyway, appreciation to everyone who gave support and advice. If there is anything i can share which others would find useful, by all means let me know.

Le_Kirk

Excellent outcome for you.

95Rollers

matt_matt51 said:

Judgement was based on the fact there was no evidence to support their claim, which was driver left the site. The Judge did give the Solicitor a very stern dressing down for their [diabolical] claim.

AND RIGHTFULLY SO!

Abuse of power (unfairly adding costs to the debt),
Inconsistent evidence (map of sign locations, and photos of their absence submitted in their case),
Vague sign/contract (did not identify what the 'premises' is),

 An absolute shambles that should of been struck out before even reaching the vicinity of a courtroom (albeit a virtual one, but still!). 

Accused of leaving the premises - yet cannot prove it because there is no CCTV (which wouldn't likely be lawful or HRA compliant as watching somebody in case they leave a carpark on foot (shock horror) isn't in the interest of lawful crime prevention/ investigation or counter-terrorism so there is no justification even if they did have this type of evidence!). 

Its an absolute travesty - there needs to be a way of punishing these wasters for the amount of time they waste of the public and courts alike with these cases they fully well know are an abuse of process and pure chancery based on the countless similar ones them and their "industry" peers have struck out and been condemned by Judges for!!!

They sure like to !!!!!! and use big threats in order to part you with your money through coercion and fear!  Much like they did in their clamping days!  I hope you got awarded costs and VCS were made to pay you for wasting your time (and penalisation for abusing the court system with their embarassing spurious tosh!)  Well done Matt.

patient_dream

Well done, is this not the typical rubbish claim we see from VCS