VCS/DCBL Defence help required

nfsu26

So as part of the info I received from the judge including dates etc, there is a 'Response to Witness Statement' which is due tomorrow. There are some aspects of their WS which I feel like I can poke holes in to further help my case. Would I submit this as a Supplementary Witness Statement; some other document; or would this be something I need to take to the court day itself?

Coupon-mad

You do whatever the Judge said to do and by the deadline set. If the Judge wants a document headed 'Response to Witness Statement' by tomorrow then that has to be in BEFORE 4pm (email to court and the C's solicitor at the same time).

Head it up 'Response to Witness Statement' and add the usual other headings seen in a WS and the usual statement of truth, and your signature and date.

Fill your boots and pick holes in their WS!  A Judge gave you the chance, so seize it!

You take everything to court in a nice organised binder with tabs and notes to help you focus (if it's an in-person hearing).

nfsu26

So I submitted my Response to WS to the Court on time and sent it to the DCBL at the same time. 

This morning DCBL have served an SWS on me, two days late. Should I contact the court about this?

Coupon-mad

Nope. Raise it as a preliminary matter at the hearing and kindly ask the Judge to disallow the 'tit for tat' late extra WS because there are court deadlines for a reason. A line has to be drawn after which submissions are too late and indeed, intimidating because this is the Claimant trying to get the last word.

nfsu26

Little update - hearing was due for tomorrow. After phoning up, they still thought that the hearing was due for the papers alone. I mentioned that I had sent the N159 response (with email receipts!) - They are now going to allocate a new date for the hearing.

Coupon-mad

Well done for checking. 

nfsu26

Update - Following on from phoning up the court, a new date was allocated with a new letter confirming that I would be required to attend this time. The court date is in a couple of weeks time.

Following on from this, DCBL have been in touch as they are required to put together a court bundle. They've given me a deadline of today to send them any documents I want included even though the court letter states the bundle can be submitted until the day before the case.

They have now sent me a third WS detailing a recent case in 2021 whereby they think they don't need to prove the landowners authority!

It's a bit odd that they missed the original deadline for their second WS and they've decided to submit a third now.

Coupon-mad

They have now sent me a third WS detailing a recent case in 2021 whereby they think they don't need to prove the landowners authority!

OPS v Wilshaw?

The Template Defence already explains where that Circuit Judge went wrong in his assumptions.  He didn't know about the DVLA KADOE mandatory rules requiring landowner authority before data can be released. It's also in the BPA CoP - which was in evidence in its entirety - but he ignored it.

Totally unpersuasive 'fudgement' sadly.

I know about that case and I was the lay rep who won it hands down, at the first hearing.  The Circuit Judge (who had NO civil case experience in his background as a Recorder) was then led up the garden path IMHO by OPS' barrister. In my absence, I hasten to add.

Or is it another case we know about?

Also, if they are not appending the case transcripts (which they usually don't)  then just referring to an unreported case is totally irrelevant!

You just need to forward your defence and your WS bundle to DCBLegal today. Don't try to add supplementaries.

nfsu26

It is indeed OPS v Wilshaw!

Thanks for the info. They didn't use case transcripts!

nfsu26

So, had my hearing today.

I arrived early and once getting through the airport style security, signed in with the Usher. They told me that VCS were already here and I decided to sit near them!

Then when the usher called us both, the solicitor was for VCS but not for my case! 

So I was told to sit back down and eventually went through to the judge by myself. They were going to hear the case regardless of VCS not sending someone. 5 mins in and their solicitor turns up and is very apologetic.

The judge didn't seem too pleased about the particulars of the case and asked VCS to go through them. Starting with the 3 residential invoices. VCS said that they were wanting me to pay because I hadn't bought a ticket/displayed a permit. The judge went through the writing on the sign which did state 'If a permit is required it must be displayed'. The judge asked what made a permit a requirement. VCS stated that when I signed my tenancy, I would have received permits which I should have displayed. 

The judge asked me if I received any permits when I signed my tenancy - I replied no. The judge also asked how access to the car park was gained. VCS said they didn't know and I said that a key fob was a requirement. I told the judge that I received a key fob upon signing my tenancy agreement.

The judge then said that because I had a key fob and a tenancy agreement but not given any permits - I had a legal right to park there and it was impossible for me to comply with the signs. Therefore the 3 residential tickets were dismissed on that basis.

Then we rolled on to the Berkeley Precinct. (I was trying to hide my smile here)

The judge straight away queried the Excel company number and VCS company number. After some companies house searching, the judge ruled that the two companies were separate legal entities and VCS couldn't try and sue me based on that. Claim struck out

So, 3 dismissed and 1 struck out!

Thank you all so much for assisting.