VCS LJLA 'Stopping PCN' - got to small claims court before seeing this forum

Umkomaas

You've used the term 'Complainant' frequently in your Supp WS.  Did you really mean to use that?

mcan541908

probably not - it should be claimant, shouldnt it? Doh, don't know where that came from.

Thanks anyway - too late now.

Router66

Good Luck on Wednesday @mcan541908. Your witness statement has really helped me so if you lose I will be going down with you!   

uptonbubbles

Best of luck today and thanks for sharing your journey so far!

mcan541908

Thanks for best wishes and for all the assistance provided here.

Basically, case dismissed, minimal costs

Judge Goodwin said, basically, you have 10 minutes to present your case (despite 51 pages of detailed witness statement which I was looking forward to presenting) as her last case had overrun and she needed her lunch! 'Hangry'?
Alternative was to come back at another time when more time could be provided. I think she knew I wouldn't go for that.

Basically won on basis of poor directional signage leading to where I stopped because I had to stop.

More later, off to the pub 😀👍

Thanks again to all.

Coupon-mad

Very good news, do tell us more later!

mcan541908

mcan541908 said:

Basically, case dismissed, minimal costs

Judge Goodwin said, basically, you have 10 minutes to present your case (despite 51 pages of detailed witness statement which I was looking forward to presenting) as her last case had overrun and she needed her lunch! 'Hangry'?
Alternative was to come back at another time when more time could be provided. I think she knew I wouldn't go for that.

Basically won on basis of poor directional signage leading to where I stopped because I had to stop.

To provide a bit more detail (bear in mind, here I'm going from memory and a few notes I made, so these are not necessarily people's exact words quoted below):

The hearing was due to start at 11.30 but we didnt go in until 12.45, because earlier cases had overrun.

Much to my surprise, the hearing was held in a courtroom rather than around a table in a judges office.

Judge Goodwin briefly explained what the process would be, for my benefit, she said.  She highlighted that Ambreen Arshad was unable to attend but was represented by Mr Wilkie, a legal agent.  This meant that Mr Arshad's WS wouldn't be presented and that I wouldn't be able to question Mr Arshad but that Mr Wilkie would try to answer any questions we had.

The Judge noted, I'm fairly sure, that she had not had time to read any of the witness statements or documents before hand; and that she could see she had a 36 page WS and Exhibits and 15 page Supplementary WS and Exhibit from me.   The Judge then said that she needed to stop to have lunch before 2-o-clock and that we would have to keep things short and simple if we were to get through.  She said that if I thought the time available was not sufficient then she could arrange for us to come back another day when more time could be provided.  I didnt fancy having to put it off and suffer another period of uncertainty over the claim - and was worried about 'costs' increasing if I made VCS come back and did not win.. This, along with being in a real courtroom, had me flustered to be honest.  I said I would prefer to continue now and would try to get through my WS as quickly as possible.

The Judge asked Mr Wilkie to summarise the claim, which he did.  Basically, (with lots of 'Ma'am this' and Ma'am that' !) he described VCS's role at the site, noted that there were many signs clearly indicating that stopping was prohibited and that there was a £100 charge for stopping. He then said that my vehicle was observed stopped in a place where stopping was prohibited.  Hence, a PCN was issued, it was not paid thus VCS have a valid claim.

At some point he mentioned that my Defence referred to LJLA rather than VCS (which is true, my defence was written before I'd seen this forum and was naive in the extreme, I didn't have a clue who VCS were.), therefore had no merit, or something like that.

The Judge then asked me to try to give a brief outline of my defence.  I think it was at this point the Judge said that she could give me 10 minutes or so to present my defence!

I referred the Judge to paras 30 - 44 of my WS, under the sub-heading of 'Summary of reasons why claim is denied' , which she started to read, but after a few minutes stopped (I think saying or implying even this was too much and we need to focus more).

I tried again! I indicated that basically I acknowledge stopping but that I stopped because I had to stop when I got to the place which was indicated by their directional signage as being the free Drop off zone which I intended to use. The Judge seemed to pick up on those two points - that I intended to use a free Drop off zone and that their directional signage led me to it.  At this point we moved to look at the directional signage in place as shown in my exhibits 02 - 07.  She seemed content with this.  She said something like: 'summarising then, it could be said that you were 'misled' to this point by the signage and had no option but to stop?'  I said that was correct.

The Judge asked Mr Wilkie if he had any questions at this point.  He said 'Yes Ma'am, thank you Ma'am'.  He referred to an exhibit on page 36 of the VCS WS which was a blown up (x 10) section of one of the PCN photos.  It shows a very blurred, definitely unreadable,  sign on a fence on the other side of the dual carriageway from where my vehicle was stopped.  He then displayed to the Judge the VCS exhibit on page 27 of the VCS WS, which is a picture, not a photo, of a sign.  He said this is the sign shown in the photo, (explaining, you can see in the photo the outline of a circle at the top and some dark bars across the bottom, like this sign!) and said the sign clearly says 'No Stopping', '£100 Charge' etc.  He then asked me directly if I had seen this sign.  I didn't recall seeing it and said 'No, I didn't see it and in any case it didn't matter as I had no choice but to stop at that point'.  Mr Wilkie then said something about the directional signage being the responsibility of LJLA not VCS and that it was not VCS's problem and did not affect their entitlement to claim.

I tried to continue with other key points in my WS: i.e that VCS have no contract with LJLA, VCS have no contract with me, no breach by me, Byelaws in force, red lines are not legal, double recovery and abuse of court process etc. but the Judge did not seem interested in hearing any of this and cut me short; not allowing me to pursue any of those points in detail.  I'm fairly sure she said at some point that she thought they did have a contract but when I tried to press her on this and explore 'evidence' she dismissed the topic and insisted we move on.

The Judge then asked Mr Wilkie to summarise the claim, which he did. 

The Judge then asked me to summarise my defence, which I did but was again stopped by the Judge when I tried to include any of the other further points of defence.

The Judge then gave her judgement, which was basically that I had gone to the airport intending to use the free drop off zone ('Drop off 2', 40 minutes free), which she had seen displayed on the signage, that I had followed the directional signage some of which was partly obscured by trees, going all the way around the rounabout taking a right turn, as directed, to the point where I was forced to stop where I did, not finding the free drop off zone I expected.  The Judge also noted that I did not appear to be someone who was deliberately trying to do something wrong.  And, in light of all of this, she dismissed the claim.

Expenses of £7.50 for travel to train station and train fare were awarded.

The Judge then said I could go but asked Mr Wilkie to remain behind. She noted that this was nothing to do with my case but to discuss other cases where he was respresenting later that day.

Whilst I am obviously relieved to have won and not have to pay VCS anything, I found the court process very frustrating.  This was due to not being able to explore all of the issues, in particular those that would expose VCS's predatory behaviour and abuse of the court process.  This was put down by the Judge to a lack of time and the need for lunch (fair enough?) but the Judge did not seem to want to stray into those areas even in the time available - the whole thing finished at 13.25, taking only 35 minutes).  As a consequence VCS have not suffered any sanction for their heinous behaviour and are free to continue harassing and extorting money from other motorists - very disappointing - it seems that the Judge did not consider this broader picture.

On reflection, it's possible the Judge may have sneaked a look at the documents beforehand, decided the poor directional signage was a strong enough point upon which to dismiss the case and, not wanting to go through all the rest of it, just directed us away from it.

For the benefit of those facing a similar case to mine, with regard to the photo of the sign by my vehicle that VCS presented - on reflection, I should have countered with the additional facts that:

- it is barely visible and not readable, even in daylight, from a vehicle approaching the exit from the roundabout, as can be seen in my exhibit 06;

- even at a x 10 enlargement it is not possible to read the sign in the dark;

- the sign is on a fence on the other side of a dual carriageway  it is not facing oncoming traffic, it is on a fence which I would take to mean it refers to the land behind the fence not to a road which it is some distance from, if anything it would refer to the other carriageway not the one on which I was stopped;

Again, on reflection, there is a need when presenting your defence in court:

- to make sure you have a concise but complete summary of the main points of your defence (and of VCS's misbehaviour) with reference to evidence or lack of evidence, in case the Judge presses you on time, as I was here;

- to take the judge baby step by baby step through a topic (which is tricky when they are pressing you on time!) as they appear to start from a point of knowing absolutely nothing about the circumstances, i.e. no pre-reading;

- not to open a topic with statements like 'VCS do not have a contract with LJLA' but to focus first on asking 'on what authority do VCS enter into contracts with motorists on this land or issue PCNs for this type of contravention'; and then asking VCS to present proof  / evidence that they do have a valid contract; then to shoot holes in the expired contract they do present by asking further questions about the clauses in that to highlight the lack of evidence of valid authority and then conclude with the implications of that.

- to make sure you don't interrupt the claimant when they are talking even when what they say is clearly false or unproven - wait until they finish - I found this very difficult! But it does upset the Judge if you forget and interrupt.

Happy to discuss further with anyone who needs more help.

Looking forward to receipt of my cheque for £7.50

Umkomaas

Very well done and thank you for a comprehensive report that paints the picture well. 

This was due to not being able to explore all of the issues, in particular those that would expose VCS's predatory behaviour and abuse of the court process.  This was put down by the Judge to a lack of time and the need for lunch (fair enough?) but the Judge did not seem to want to stray into those areas even in the time available - the whole thing finished at 13.25, taking only 35 minutes).  As a consequence VCS have not suffered any sanction for this heinous behavious and are free to continue harassing and extorting money from other motorists - disappointing - it seems that the Judge did not consider this broader picture.

I'm afraid that the small claims court is not the place for this to happen. It's designed to be a simple process of determining whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed from the Defendant, or not. That's the task in front of the Judge. 

But you've beaten VCS (the task in hand); spend that £7.50 wisely! 🙂

Jenni_D

Well done - another one bites the dust.

As this was an in-person hearing, and it spanned both morning and afternoon, then you should have also been awarded £95 hearing attendance costs.

Router66

It sounds like that was a close shave...I recall a Mr Wilkie being featured in some of the Parking Prankster court cases, only then he was batting for the motorist. I wonder if it is the same Rep?