Update Judgement - Both struck out (29th Feb) - Victoria Quays - Sheffield, S2 5SY

Anto_28

Coupon-mad said:

2.      The Claimant would now like to respond to points raised in the Defendants defence.

It's not the defendant's defence though, is it?! Shouldn't that be:

2.      The Claimant will respond to points raised in the 'defence' signed by the wrong company (Excel Parking Services Ltd). The following is intended to assist the court and will stand as the Claimant's Reply to Defence, only in the event that the court does not strike out that 'defence':

You also have some unnumbered paragraphs.  Put that right.  Use 1.15 line spacing, especially if filing and serving a printed version (VCS may well have said they don't accept service by email, so do everything right).

BTW what does your Defence To Counterclaim look like?

Updated the draft point 2, thanks for that. I've also sorted the paragraph numbering. VCS don't accept service by email so I'm having to post even tho I literally live a 3 minute drive from their office 🤦🏼‍♂️

I've added this as point 15a, do you think its needed or should I get rid?

a.     The Claimant emphasises that given he had used the car park for 5 years and having not previously received any PCNs from the Defendant in that time, that the Claimant was well aware of the requirement to display a valid permit (which since bringing forth this case and understanding the judgement made in Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd [1970] EWCA Civ 2 renders this requirement void ab initio) it is therefore the more likely the Claimant’s version of events are true.

I'll post the defence shortly, just working on the updated version.

Anto_28

Just noticed this amongst the other docs I received in the pack that contained the defence.

I'm guessing this is irrelevant as the SOT amounts to just the facts on the form itself, and not to the defence (they refer to as "please see attached") having been signed and verified by a SOT?

Coupon-mad

That doesn't help an undated defence from the wrong company, IMHO.  Bet he hated filling in a reply form by hand, haha!

I think remove 15a.  Makes no sense really and it's restating their position which isn't your aim.

KeithP

Mark Robinson is still having trouble with dates...

Looks like he really was born yesterday - ok, less than two months ago. 

Anto_28

Coupon-mad said:

BTW what does your Defence To Counterclaim look like?

@Coupon-mad - here is the Defence. I may of had some DM'd pointers 👀

REMOVED AS PER BELOW

Coupon-mad

That's great! You may want to delete it now so as not to give VCS a heads up until they get it in the post.

Suffice it to say it is a good defence and you had help from a valued legally qualified forum poster.

Fascinating thread with you as the Claimant.

Anto_28

Hypothetical question re: the wrong signing of the defence.

Let's say the court agrees, doesn't strike them out and instead requests that the defendant submits a properly signed defence within a specified time frame. Could VCS not take the Reply+Defence I'm sending and completely rewrite their defence off the back of what I send in?

Johnersh

More likely is that:

1. Judge makes an unless order for them to re-serve with the correct formalities within 14 days. If the PPC fails to do so the claim be struck out.

2. If required to serve evidence that authorised to issue the c/c, the ppc relies on the claim form and argues that their man has a dual role for both companies and it's a minor clerical error of job title.

Anto_28

Reply to Defence, Defence to Counter Claim, Directions Questionnaire and N215 form all filed with the court!

Copies of all posted to VCS also (bar the N215)

Let's see what happens next


Big thanks to everybody who has assisted so far, your input has been invaluable and really is appreciated.

Coupon-mad

Proof of posting retained in your file?