VCS in Salford

B789

Did you request a "hearing on papers"?

I think you can take from that order that the judge, when reviewing it was not happy with VCS and you can either expect them to re-issue the Claim with more detailed PoC and another bit, where they will hang themselves, the DETAILED breakdown of the £170.

Also, should you need to, you can resubmit an amended Defence and it feels like the Judge is advising you to do so with an expansion on the points they have critiqued VCS for.

Just note these points:

• No reasonable grounds to bring the claim
• No mention of the terms breached
• VCS must provide a copy of the contract
• Detailed breakdown of the £170

And just read this bit again: 

The Claimant shall send to the court and to the Defendant a further statement of case, verified by a statement of truth, by 4pm on 09 April 2023. This must set out a coherent statement of facts which, if true, disclose a legally recognisable claim against the Defendant, have attached to it a copy of the contract or documents constituting or evidencing any agreement on which the claim is based and contain a detailed breakdown of the sum of £170.00 which is claimed. 

Sounds like they didn't believe the original statement of truth.   

angry_vcs

B789 said:

Did you request a "hearing on papers"?

Sounds like they didn't believe the original statement of truth.   

Nope I asked for in person. I wouldnt trust on papers for the lay person such as myself.

I wasnt too impressed with their statements either

Coupon-mad

Love that Judge!

Le_Kirk

He/she might be a good judge of law but not of calendars/dates as 9th april is a) Sunday and b) Easter!  I am sure the court will open especially to receive the e-mail/post sent by the claimant!

B789

Le_Kirk said:

He/she might be a good judge of law but not of calendars/dates as 9th april is a) Sunday and b) Easter!  I am sure the court will open especially to receive the e-mail/post sent by the claimant!

The Judge may have a sadistic streak where they enjoy exposing these known scammers and making them squirm. I think we could forgive the Judge for the error with the date.

What are the odds of them discontinuing in some self-preservation act? It will be interesting to see how thick the PPCs litigators really are.

angry_vcs

I haddn't realised the Due date on the claimant was a Sunday . Interestingly enough the date on the order is the 26th March also a Sunday.

Anyhow that's now a mute point as I have recieved a "Particulars of Claim" via email from vcs today.

They also apended an image of one of thier signs - same as the one earlier in the thread.

Text is as follows

In the County Court at Preston Claim No: Jxxxxxx
Vehicle Control Services LtdClaimant
-y-
Mr xxxxxxxx Defendant
Particulars of Claim
1.The Claimant is a national car park operator that provides car park management onbehalf of its Clients at a number of car parks across Great Britain. This includesmonitoring compliance with the Terms and Conditions of parking outlined within thesignage present on each site and issuing Charges to motorists who breach these Termsand Conditions.
2.The Claimant manages a parking scheme and regularly inspects the development inaccordance with their appointment. The Claimant’s role is to erect signs within thedevelopment explaining the Terms and Conditions associated with parking in order toregulate parking. Any vehicles identified in breach of the Terms and Conditions will beissued with a Charge Notice.
3.The Defendant has been issued with a Charge Notice relating to a Nissan Leaf bearingthe vehicle registration number(s) of xxxxxxx , for failure to adhere to the advertisedTerms and Conditions at a development(s) known as X1 Media City ['The Development']on the 18 June 2022 i.e. parked in a restricted / prohibited area.
4.The offer advertised by way of the Terms and Conditions was accepted by conduct, Asreiterated a Charge Notice was issued by the Claimant which allowed the Defendant theopportunity to either pay, appeal or transfer liability.
5. The Claimant issued this claim against the Defendant for payment of unpaid Charges, inthe sum claimed of £100.00, arising from the above vehicle as to which the Defendant isresponsible for either as the driver and/or the registered keeper of the vehicle on thematerial date and time. For the avoidance of doubt, the sum claimed includes the £100.00Charge Notice plus a debt collection charge of £70.00.
6. The cause of action is a breach of contract for failing to adhere to the Terms andConditions of entering private land. The Terms and Conditions (copy enclosed) aredisplayed in prominent locations around the development and ought to have been knownby any motorists or to an objective observer who would consider that someone has hadthe opportunity to have read the prominent terms but have chosen not to read them.
7. The Claimant is also entitled to claim statutory interest at the rate of 8% pursuant to s69of the County Courts Act 1984 and Fixed Costs pursuant to CPR. 27.14, This includes thefixed costs payable under Part 45, namely the appropriate court fee or fees paid by theClaimant.
8. Despite demand having been made, the Defendant has failed to settle their outstandingliability. The Claimant had no alternative other than to bring an action against theDefendant and seek a final determination by bringing legal proceedings against theDefendant.
Statement of Truth
The Claimant believes the facts in these Particulars of Claim are true. I understand thatproceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to bemade, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honestbelief in its truth.
Mark RobinsonDebt & Litigation Manager
7 Europa ViewSheffield Business ParkSheffieldS9 1XH

Le_Kirk

If I was the judge I would be throwing those out as well.  It is no good them claiming you failled to adhere to the terms and conditions without specifying which one(s) you broke! 

B789

I think when the judge reads #5, the Claimant had better get out the Vaseline and bend over. I don't think that "...a detailed breakdown of the sum of £170.00 which is claimed" is going to wash unless Judge Dack is on this circuit.