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

Anto_28

Initial update as leaving court, will post full write up later.

Both claims struck out.

Mine no breach
Then no right to recover, penalty 

pould

No breach?

Looking forward to hearing the Judge's argument!

Anto_28

So here is how my day went.

The judge started by saying she had read the PoC, Defence, Reply and Skeleton and that we should focus only on the main points of the case.

I started, laying out my case but was not allowed to ask the questions I had drafted as VCS had sent a solicitor (JB didnt attend).

VCS then laid out their case and I was questioned by the solicitor and I held up well to the questioning giving what I felt were good answers.

I outlined my concerns such as Excel Parking Services filing the Defence and Advancing the counterclaim who were not party to the claim, which she asked the solicitor why, and he said this was because they are all part of the same group to which the judge accepted.

I then went over the WS concerns and she dismissed the concern about the time JB had represented he'd been at the company, the incoherent part where it said not displayed switching to not clearly displayed and rejected and inference from no evidence being adduced by the PO as the email alone was enough.

After making closing statements the judge went onto her findings.

She decided to tackle to counter claim first, she said she was not convinced the any evidence showed that the details on the permit were clear as per the terms of the signage but did say the parking attendant should have done more to check then to look from one angle, especially one in which there was bad reflection hindering his view. She therefore rejected the primary defence on the basis the terms of the signage were breached.

However, she then went to the alternate defence. She agreed that PCNs can amount to being a penalty and said my case laws proved such was the case. The £170 was found to be disproportionate to the beach and found that the charge be an impermissible penalty and struck the claim out on this bases.

Turning to the my case, she said she was also not convinced any breach of the GDPR had occurred. She said the privacy notice had already been affixed to the car making me aware of their intention to request data regardless of what happened in discussions with the parking attendant. She said its accepted in the event of a parking violation that parking companies will get data from the DVLA to be able to contact the keeper, and where needed, such as non payment, this data would be passed onto a 3rd party law firm if required.

Therefore my claim was also struck out.


So it's a weird one, it's a win because the initial case and why I came here to begin with, the VCS PCN has been defeated. But also feels like a loss, as I've not been able to recover the court fees. At least i'm not paying VCS anything! and to me, the principle of that is the big win.

Basically, had I left them to sue me, i'd of come away having paid nothing.

Johnersh

Gotta love a reserve case.

AND looked at another way, it's yet another precedent that Beavis is not the panacea - a PCN can indeed be an unenforceable penalty. Useful. Remarkable how often PPCs look at the outcome of that case without studying the reasoning.

Ok, so the moment the DJ found the o/p in breach of contract that always meant it would be reasonable to request details. If they'd sought £10 not £100 then that would likely have been permitted. The defence win is on the issue of enforceability.

There was a decent argument that there was no *material* breach (there was a breach since it was not disputed the permit wasn't directly on display in the windscreen). She didn't like that point. So be it. The outcome is probably fair (you both go away with a degree of unhappiness).

The o/p has spent (your time excluded) £35 and saved £135 or thereabouts (assuming the usual uplifts and interest were claimed). Not too shabby. The PPC will have also incurred a modest brief fee for their advocate which they won't see again.

Castle

Anto_28 said:

Turning to the my case, she said she was also not convinced any breach of the GDPR had occurred. She said the privacy notice had already been affixed to the car making me aware of their intention to request data regardless of what happened in discussions with the parking attendant. She said its accepted in the event of a parking violation that parking companies will get data from the DVLA to be able to contact the keeper, and where needed, such as non payment, this data would be passed onto a 3rd party law firm if required.


Basically, had I left them to sue me, i'd of come away having paid nothing.

Did she consider this to be a NTD, if she did, then the request to DVLA was made too early.

You could have spent the next 5 years waiting for them to sue you!

Anto_28

Johnersh said:

Gotta love a reserve case.

- - -

The o/p has spent (your time excluded) £35 and saved £135 or thereabouts (assuming the usual uplifts and interest were claimed). Not too shabby. The PPC will have also incurred a modest brief fee for their advocate which they won't see again.

I agree. I think w/o the ‘alternate defence’ i’d of been toast. That was a master stroke from yourself.

I spent £70 issue fee and £85 hearing fee (£155) and they were wanting £170 + interest @ 8%, +£35 court fee, + £50 legal fee + £200 solicitor appearance fee.

So still a significant saving had I been struck out and VCS upheld.

We’ve achieved what we set out to do initially, to not have to pay VCS for their scandalous money grab, and i’m very greatful to all those that helped with all of the documents that needed to be filed and when, especially @Johnersh and @Coupon-mad

The silver lining I took from the case is this, for my £155 I gained alot of experience in how courts work, what docs to write and how to write them. VCS paid MR & JB to spend time writing their defence/ws and then paid for a solicitor to attend court, and paid a court fee themselves all of which is expense they wont get back which is probably more then the £60, £100 and possibly even the £170 so it makes me smile just thinking that 🙂

Not_A_Hope

I think they probably had to pay over £150 for their legal representation alone so VCS are well out of pocket on this one. It is unfortunate that PPCs are making so much money from their scams and people paying up / not defending they see the loss as the cost of doing business

Coupon-mad

Why did you pay the hearing fee, if their claim had not been discontinued?

Anto_28

Coupon-mad said:

Why did you pay the hearing fee, if their claim had not been discontinued?

I’m assuming I paid £85 (as per the hearing notice) and they paid £27 based on claimed amount ?

Johnersh

I think it would've been neater to wait for the claim then do a counterclaim, with no responsibility for a trial fee, but I acknowledge opinion is divided on that.

Given the op can't avoid this carpark, not having to pay the PPC is an important outcome and whatever anyone says on here, it still takes advocacy skills to present the claim, so chapeau to @Anto_28 for that. It's a result!

I hope @Not_A_Hope is correct as to the PPC outlay. They were disingenuous swine in this instance (it's a family forum). I'd certainly charge much more to prepare for and to do a hearing at my rate.