JLA "Stopping" Charge

Coupon-mad

Leave it in then, it does no harm!

Router66

Coupon-mad said:

Do you mean it looks like VCS painted red lines OUTSIDE their contracted enforcement area?  That's major.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/lvj07xt2t66z9q4/Updated WS Summary with contract addition.pdf?dl=0
I have just noticed that VCS have included an exhibit in their WS which they claim is part of their contract with LJLA. The exhibit is neither signed or dated, unlike all the other pages of the contract. The contract pages have all been photocopied from a binder as evidenced by the binder spine on the photocopies. The spurious page does not show the spine which would suggest the page was not included in the contract binder. Furthermore the spurious page shows the Lawful Site Boundaries have been extended to include the Wynne Aviation gateway which is outside of the Lawful Site Boundaries as specified in Schedule 3 of the contract.
At what point would you suggest the judge is made aware of this false instrument if indeed it is one?

Coupon-mad

Jeez! That is some allegation!

How about sending that document to the Airport owners and copying in your MP?

Router66

I have peppered LJLA with VCS breaches of the contract between them and also breaches of the IPC CoP but the commercial director was only interested in telling me what a great job VCS are doing. The court date is in 3 weeks time and I am hoping the judge with give this point ample consideration. If he/she agrees it is naughty then I will involve my MP.
Hopefully I will avoid the judge at the Chester hearing who found for VCS against Doddle1. 

mcan541908

What happened with this one then?

Router66

@mcan541908 you jumped the gun a bit...the court case was this morning, although it wasn't heard.
I attended with a family member who was the defendant.
Judge Blakeborough opened by pointing out to the VCS solicitor that their bundle arrived late and was not paginated; she also pointed out that the defendant had produced a bundle of epic proportions and, although the WS was properly paginated, there were a number of pages appended that weren't paginated (these were court transcripts and un-cropped exhibits from google street view showing the time stamp, which had been cropped out in the WS). Whilst the judge was willing to cut us some slack as litigants in person, there was no leeway given to VCS, who should have known better. The hearing was adjourned with VCS ordered to submit a correctly paginated WS within 7 days and pay the defendants costs for time off work and train fare. The judge pointed out that the defendants WS contained a number of well-made and detailed points that VCS would need to overcome to have any success; she mentioned the hidden signage, the lack of response to the LBC and the fact that there appeared to be no appeal opportunity offered. The judge also made it clear that VCS would not be able to claim the £60.00 for debt recovery as this was not mentioned on the signage. The maximum amount they would be able to claim was £100.00.
The judge advised that she worked at the court 4 days each week and that it was likely she would hear the re-scheduled hearing. The VCS appointed solicitor approached us after leaving the courtroom and said he would submit a full report to VCS and they would decide whether to progress their claim or discontinue. He mentioned that our WS had a number of points that were 'not terrible' which I guess was his way of saying we had a strong case.
To the poster who is in court tomorrow; we arrived at court this morning terrified of the consequences. Judge Blakeborough restored my faith in the judicial system after the Doddle1 case. Even though we didn't win it was a great feeling to have been treated fairly and we left confident that if Judge Blakeborough hears the re-listed case, we will prevail. I hope you are given the same consideration as we were. Good Luck...

Fruitcake

Thanks for the update. It sounds hopeful, and I think VCS might chicken out rather than have a loss registered against them with the specific points you raised. They might not want your points tested in court, especially considering the judge's comments (hints) and the fact it could very likely be the same judge next time.

Snakes_Belly

"she also pointed out that the defendant had produced a bundle of epic proportions" 

They have very little reading time for these cases (about 10 mins).

Excel and VCS's witness statements are like War and Peace and full of irrelevant twaddle. It is quite intimidating for a litigant in person to receive an eighty page witness statement.

Router66

The judge appeared to have read a good chunk of our main defence points but, in line with your point, the devil is in the detail and she would not have time to sift through it all in the time available to her. Fingers crossed that VCS will not risk a re-arranged hearing that might cost them another lost income fee + transport + solicitor + court fee in order to recover a £100.00 charge.

Fruitcake

I think VCS won't be as scared of losing money as they will be that they might lose on points that can be used against them again in the future.