VCS Fluttering Ticket / Valid Permit - We won...

Lagroid

Received my N180 (DQ) form today after just over a week. Also received a letter from VCS telling me they're removing ELMS Legal and will be dealing with this themselves going forward.

Will fill in the DQ form as per advice in Newbies thread

They also made a reduced offer to settle outside court.

Of course I'm not interested but curious if this is typical behaviour? Why would they remove ELMS Legal?

Cheers

Grizebeck

its normal behaviour for them

Lagroid

Let me prefix with, sorry if I'm being a pain in the !!!!!! here...

Filling out the DQ form and answering a reason for why I'm saying saying NO to D1 (Suitability for determination without a hearing). Of course the NEWBIES thread doesn't mention this (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71763411#Comment_71763411) 

I've seen other threads where people refer to your thread in June @Grizebeck about these questions, and I think it's located here: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6364201/new-questions-on-the-n180-form/p1 

The question I have is, unless I'm completely missing it, I can't see a template reason to 'no'.

I've read it goes against you as your case isn't heard and it favours the claimant. Is that a good enough reason?

People keep mentioning threads within threads and I can't find the reason to use. Doesn't feel very intuitive. To say we should be able to answer this ourselves also doesn't work as I don't understand the disadvantage that saying 'yes' would bring fully. I get it's probably common knowledge for experts here, but just trying to understand. This will also help me answer these types of questions in future when I help out on the forum.

A bit of guidance from somebody on this would be much appreciated. Can you link me to the thread I should follow. Please don't tell me to 'search' for something. This forum has hundreds of threads with the words I'm searching so that isn't helping. 

would something like this be okay:

"I wish to have my case heard in person. I believe that a determination without the case being heard would unfairly advantage the Claimant. I also wish to expose the Claimants evidence in person"

Edit:

Found this: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79582091#Comment_79582091 - looks like a good reason.

B789

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/79267087/#Comment_79267087

I am not content for the case to be heard 'on the papers' because that seems to disproportionately give an advantage to a legally represented party.  I feel strongly after all these years of intimidating demands from this aggressive parking firm and their agents, that I need a voice at an attended hearing.
 
I wish to question the Claimant about their evidence at a hearing in person and to expose omissions and any misleading or incorrect evidence or assertions. 

Given the Claimant is a firm who complete cut & paste parking case paperwork for a living, having this case heard solely on papers would appear to put the Claimant at an unfair advantage, especially as they would no doubt prefer the Defendant not to have the opportunity to expose the issues in the Claimants template submissions or speak as the only true witness to events in question.

Lagroid

Should I expect to see an acknowledgement of my DQ form in the MCOL portal? Submitted on the 14th via the CCBCAQ email and got an auto reply. Still nothing on the portal.

I've tried emailing again to ask (23 attempts now) and not getting any auto reply back. Is it worth calling the CCBC before the 20th which is the date I had to return my DQ form by.

Thanks,

B789

The auto-reply is proof you emailed it. There is probably a backlog at the CCBC and they will eventually get around to updating it on the portal.

Lagroid

B789 said:

The auto-reply is proof you emailed it. There is probably a backlog at the CCBC and they will eventually get around to updating it on the portal.

Gotcha. Will stop chasing them up then. Thanks B789

Lagroid

Afternoon community. 

Just an update, today I received a hearing date for July. Sadly I'm out of the country on this date. Emailed the county court to have it moved. I stated on the DQ form I was unavailable between xx/xx/xxxx - xx/xx/xxxx. I did this for 3 sets of dates. I assume they've looked at the actual dates and disregarded the dash which indicates 'until'. Hopefully I don't have any issues moving the date.

Question: Are county courts usually okay with moving dates when they've made an error like this?

Next step, witness statement. This is also great news as I now have a date that the Claimant has to pay the court fees by. I suspect they won't as my case is pretty clear cut. 

All the best,

Grizebeck

They should vacate date as a clear. Chase and escalate it if they dont
And yes they will pay the fee

Lagroid

Grizebeck said:

They should vacate date as a clear. Chase and escalate it if they dont
And yes they will pay the fee

Thank you, got my auto reply from the county court so hopefully it’s a quick fix for them