VCS - Southend Airport No Stopping - RK - Not Driver - Costs Awarded - Another One Bites the Dust

stop_this_nonsense

Good evening ((in the UK) to all you wonderful people . Update on the hearing today. 

So VCS were successful (yah, boo, sucks!).

The Judge accepted that I didn't receive the Notice of Discontinuance but was of the opinion that VCS did properly serve it. Judge seemed happy to accept that I may have missed it. Hand on heart, forumites, it wasn't received. But hey.

The Judge was happy that I did properly serve on VCS the letter I sent to the court, and that VCS were on notice as to my intention to request costs. So the email was fine.

The Judge checked the White Book and seemed accepting that costs can be awarded on the basis of unreasonable behaviour but considered that it was a high bar to meet. Dammerman wasn't argued but I did get the opportunity to explain the unreasonable behaviour regarding late notification and that this lack of communication is a part of the Claimant's operating model of intimidation. The Judge accepted that this may be the case but, with the limited information available, could not make a decision based on my comments. What was interesting though, was the Judge's comments about this maybe being a different story if the Claimant showed a repeated pattern of this behaviour (my wording).  

Final judgment was that the Order for Costs be set aside. 

However, VCS did not get their costs. The Judge refused this on the basis that the original Judge made their decision on the information before them, i.e. the letter I sent to the Court. So VCS Lose £200 + the cost of representation. 

Maybe if I had requested costs in the region of £300 it may have been unchallenged. Oh well!

Seems that Southend may be a good CC to head to if you have to deal with VCS.

So, I sit here, beer in hand, toasting you all: @Coupon-mad @ChirpyChicken @Johnersh @Umkomaas @Gr1pr @Fruitcake ... to name but a few!

Obviously I can appeal but really, am done with this!

A minor spanking for VCS. A good outcome I think.

:-)

Coupon-mad

Interesting. They seem to like to throw good money after bad, just to make a point.  They are prolific at appeals.

I'm sorry that your costs were removed. Well done for turning up, rattling their rep (I'm sure!) and making sure they didn't walk away with costs awarded to them.

Could you also complete some answers to this Call for Evidence?

Deadline in LESS THAN two weeks:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81070874/#Comment_81070874

It's just been re-opened due to the change in Government.  We must go again with it and your case is important.

Could you recount your awful, intimidating litigation experience to the CJC and quote what the Judge said about 'if there was a pattern', mention that parking firm claims almost always involve unreasonable conduct so there IS a pattern, and VCS (your Claimant) have already had a reprimand from the Court of Appeal in 2024 in VCS v Carr where the Judge concluded (quote her and attach the below UNREPORTED transcript as evidence please):

See that bit at the bottom?

Draw it to the CJC's attention and say there is CERTAINLY a pattern because most litigious parking firms seem to treat the small claims track and MoneyClaimOnline as a dirt cheap and automated form of inflated 'debt collection by intimidation'.

There is what MPs and consumers have identified as 'double costs recovery' as standard (by inflating parking charges by what the MHCLG consider to be a false 'damages/fee' enhancement) and there are default CCJs (due to abusive use of known old/unreliable DVLA vehicle addresses) in up to 90% of cases, according to the MoJ Statistics.

And discontinuances galore, quite literally it looks to a reasonable person that the private parking mindset is:

'Let's rinse all the money we can get from default CCJs and from people who are so scared by an inflated £250 claim form that they just pay up, then use and abuse the new compulsory Mediation Service to enable us to lean on and scare other victims (all at zero cost except for a £35 filing fee) then bung in a very late discontinuance before we have to pay a hearing fee in those few cases where hardy defendants stand firm'.

The above appearing to be the deliberate MO of some of the 'top 10' most prolific parking case litigators.  Those top 10 (some parking firms, some 'legal' firms involved in churning bulk parking litigation in extreme numbers) were identified by the MoJ to the then DLUHC in 2023 and are believed to include VCS and/or Excel Parking, both owned by an ex-wheelclamper.

VCS v Carr is just the latest in a long line of cases where VCS and their sister firm Excel Parking appear to get away with murder, to coin a phrase.  Years ago, Excel Parking's owner reportedly said after losing in court against Martin Cutts of the Plain Language Commission, that the lady Judge DJ Lateef was "not fit to serve the civil courts":
https://clearest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DVLA-BPA-Cutts12June2012_v2_mf.pdf

(Give them that link too).

It shows a reported pattern across several years. One wonders what VCS' owner will say about the lady Judge featured in the Court of Appeal transcript.

Responses from people like you who have had years of their life and peace of mind wasted by parking firms could make all the difference, quite seriously.

Go for it, please, while you are still fired up and your case is fresh in your mind this weekend.