CNBC received preparing defence... Would welcome your feedback

AA00112233

1505grandad said:

"23.       As the signage is forbidding, it does not fulfil the basic requirement of a contract, which is that each party to the contract must offer valuable consideration to the other party, on clear terms capable of acceptance. In this case, neither the Claimant, nor their principal, the landowner, is offering anything to the Defendant."

Should that be "driver"?

Thank you, noted and changed

AA00112233

Coupon-mad said:

Did you pm @RRTechie re the contract?

I went through that entire thread. There is so much useful info on it. I am reaching out to RRTechie now but he has made all documents available to download

AA00112233

AA00112233 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Did you pm @RRTechie re the contract?

I went through that entire thread. There is so much useful info on it. I am reaching out to RRTechie now but he has made all documents available to download

I read on the forum that VCS do not have a contract at John Lennon airport and looking at the some of the documents uploaded by RRtechie any contract they had finished by july 2015? In the WS that I have received from VCS, they have scanned the same documents but have manually changed the date to 1st April 2022. The name, the signature and everything else is exactly the same. I know for a fact that no contract existed between them and JLA as per all the work done by @RRTechie. Can I highlight this as forgery in my WS? 

Coupon-mad

No.  Never ever use that word in a small claim.  What you can do is attach the 2015 one as an exhibit and 'invite' the Judge to ask the Claimant to explain why they appear to have unilaterally altered the date by hand, with no new signatures to corroborate the change?

But your main point is the legal fact that you cannot be held liable because this is not 'relevant land' (Sch4 definition) and VCS know you were not the driver. They also know from VCS v Edward and (their sister company) Excel v Smith, that it is wholly improper to suggest that there is any legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver.

Both those transcripts must be in your bundle, along with a link to this official Guidance to the POFA (drawing attention to point 4):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79d6be40f0b670a8025ccb/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

AA00112233

Coupon-mad said:

No.  Never ever use that word in a small claim.  What you can do is attach the 2015 one as an exhibit and 'invite' the Judge to ask the Claimant to explain why they appear to have unilaterally altered the date by hand, with no new signatures to corroborate the change?

But your main point is the legal fact that you cannot be held liable because this is not 'relevant land' (Sch4 definition) and VCS know you were not the driver. They also know from VCS v Edward and (their sister company) Excel v Smith, that it is wholly improper to suggest that there is any legal presumption that a registered keeper was the driver.

Both those transcripts must be in your bundle, along with a link to this official Guidance to the POFA (drawing attention to point 4):

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79d6be40f0b670a8025ccb/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf

Thank you so much. I will ensure that this point is addressed 

AA00112233

It's update time and I have been dying to say these words on my thread.

Another One Bites The Dust!!!

I won my case!! Thank you all so much for all the help and support —I really appreciate it and I can not thank you guys enough

Since the hearing just concluded a few hours ago, everything is still fresh in my mind, so I wanted to share some insights that might be helpful to you.

The case was a phone hearing, and VCS was represented by a lawyer named Mr. Ali, who had a strong Indian accent. The guy struggled to understand the judge at times and as he was quiet and with a thick accent, it was also very difficult to understand him at times.

This guy made several submission throughout the hearing, the first being that I was the driver. However, when the judge asked for evidence, they had none. He then shifted his argument, claiming that under POFA, liability could be transferred to the keeper. I pointed out that the location in question was not covered by airport byelaws and, more importantly, that the Notice to Keeper was issued after 33 days—well beyond the required 14-day period. At this point, Mr. Ali unintentionally shot himself in the foot by stating that VCS had 28 days to send the notice, as per airport signage. The judge responded with a simple but a comedy gold remark: "You do know that 33 is larger than 28, don’t you, Mr. Ali?"

Following this, Mr. Ali pivoted once again, arguing that since I had not identified the driver, it should be assumed—on the 'balance of probabilities'—that I was the driver. The judge asked him for evidence to support this claim, but none was provided.

Ultimately, the judge dismissed the case on the grounds that VCS failed to prove I was the driver, and because they had not issued a valid Notice to Keeper within 28 days, POFA did not apply. If anyone is under similar situation, then please focus on this point because it feels like VCS and Excel both rely on Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (POFA) to strong arm the court in transferring the liability to the court. I was lucky that the NIK was sent 33 days afterwards and the judge referenced VCS vs. Edwards and VCS vs. Smith in support of the ruling.

As a final positive note, the judge granted me costs. Big credit to the Newbie Forum and the advice to always ask for costs. Since this was a phone hearing, there were no travel expenses, but I mentioned that I had taken half a day off work. As a result, the judge awarded me the maximum allowable cost of £95, which VCS must now pay me.

As a final thank you to all you kind people here, I aim to extract every single penny of the £95 and I will donate it to CRUK in your name.

Thank you again for all your help guys.

Coupon-mad

Brilliant news. Great court report.

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Have a great weekend celebrating.