Letter of claim over historic parking charge

Coupon-mad

Looks OK to me.  If you were a patron of one of the businesses then add that too.

KennyMc157

Ok, I have submitted my defence and received an acknowledgement from the court - I am just compliling my witness statement. I have 20 pictures which I have catalogued, one of them is the VCS warning sign itself. I have read up on the 'red hand rule' and am willing to quote this and other cases detailed in my defence, but my worry is when it comes to court. Beyond an understanding of the basic concept (the clauses should be written in red) I worry that I will look foolish if asked to expand on the various cases - I am no lawyer after all. My argument will be based on the truly awful signage - I feel the pictures I have are pretty damning. Am I not muddying the waters by including issues raised in ohter cases? I understand precedents are set, but feel ill equipped to argue that these cases apply to my case, if called to do so. Also, should I be including a copy of the sign (below), or am I doing their job by including it? Thanks again for the help.

Le_Kirk

KennyMc157 said:

I have read up on the 'red hand rule' and am willing to quote this and other cases detailed in my defence, but my worry is when it comes to court. Beyond an understanding of the basic concept (the clauses should be written in red) I worry that I will look foolish if asked to expand on the various cases - I am no lawyer after all.

Just look up "Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule" by asking Auntie Google.  The point he makes is that signs should be obvious and shouldn't need to be pointed out with a giant red hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Spurling_Ltd_v_Bradshaw

Coupon-mad

I think you are doing their job for them by providing that close up.  What point are you making...that sign looks clearer than most in that close up, sorry.  A few distance shots or a video in the same lighting conditions that shows the sign is unlit in the dark (if it was dark) or maybe obscured by a tree(?) or many metres away round a corner from where you parked, would be good evidence but not a close up of the contract, IMHO.

Clauses do not have to be written in red. In fact black on white is far clearer.

KennyMc157

Hi folks. As mentioned above I received an acknowledgement of my defence around 30/10, 01/11 (dated 25/10) - this just advised that the court will advise me of next steps if a settlement cannot be reached and did not include the N180 form. I have today received a letter from dcblegal advising of their intent to proceed (and an invitation to call them to discuss a settlement) along with their N180. I have downloaded and completed a N180 myself, following the instructions on the newbies thread - can I email this or does it have to be posted? Should I be waiting for the court to send me a form to send back? Sorry if this one is a bit basic, my thanks in advance for any advice proffered.

KeithP

Go back to that list you were following when you filed your Defence.

Items 8, 9 and 10 on that list should go some way towards answering you questions.

You really should wait at least until you have seen, in your MCOL Claim History, that the CCBC have sent you a DQ before filing and serving yours.

KennyMc157

Hi folks. An update on my case - I am pleased to advise that the case has been struck out by CBBC because the other party (DCB Legal, on behalf of Vehicle Control Services) did not return their Directions Questionaire.

I am obviously delighted with this and am not bothered why they did not file their DQ - whether it be incompetence, or (as I suspect) whether they were never going 'all the way' in the first place. I'm of the mind now that their aim was to scare me with the threat of court action into settling the claim and I am so happy that I happened across these pages, resisted the panicked urger to settle and followed the excellent advice contained here.

I would like to say a massive thank you for the advice that is contained within this site and for the time and effort the various volunteers have put into putting it all together. Also big individual thank yous to all who offered me case specific advice when I sought it - particular shout outs to Keith P. Redx and Coupon Mad.

To anyone finding themselves in the position I was in (forgotten 5 year old parking 'fine' dropping through the letter box) my advice is to challenge it as I did, with the help of the excellent advice and support available here. I was very nervous of having to go to court and am so happy that I don't have to, but I think my case does show that a lot of these firms are just trying it on in the hope people will be panicked into settling at the threat of court action. A little bit of push back was all it took for mine to be dropped, so go for it - you've nothing to lose.

KeithP

That's so good to hear. Thanks.


But a word of caution...

So often we see that the Claimant will object to this strike out on the grounds that they did in fact comply with the court order - in this case by returning the DQ in time - but it is the CCBC that has failed to record that returned DQ.

Don't throw all your paperwork away just yet. Keep it for six years.

I hope I am wrong.

Umkomaas

Excellent news, but we have seen cases just as @KeithP describes. And VCS are particularly wriggly. 

D_P_Dance

The ppc has wasted your time, now waste theirs, read this

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/legal-system/small-claims/making-a-small-claim/