Another one bites the dust... VCS lose again. But it may not be the end of the saga.

Captain_Starlet

I've just got back from Court after round two with VCS. The judge said he would take an application to strike out as a preliminary matter so I said yes please. The judge struck out the claim because it failed to comply with CPR 16.4 (1)(a). Among his reasons were that the particulars of claim do not include a cause of action. Then he went on to VCS using the witness statement to argue about our original invitation to the court to strike out the claim. We had used the template defence which includes the Chen appeal case. He said a witness statement is there to provide evidence to the court, not to plead your case. I had to stifle a laugh when he called Jake Burgess disingenuous for including in his witness statement, a section on our defence invitation to strike out their claim.

Their barrister immediately said he wanted to appeal and there was some argument about the money claim online limits and the option of filing a separate particulars of claim. Their initial appeal was refused.  The judge gave him his reasons, then their barrister said he wanted something which turned out to be an N460 giving the judge's reasoning in writing.

I got the impression Mr barrister didn't like losing because while we were waiting for the judge to write out his N460 VCS's rep was saying the judge is wrong and he would be appealing. I'm thinking Hmm... didn't the judge just refuse you leave to appeal? When I got our copy of the N460, among the reasons in writing was that a witness statement is not a statement of case. The claimant cannot fail to properly plead its case then rely on essential particulars contained in the witness statement and that any appeal had little prospect of success.

I have only one question. Can they go the circuit judge level and appeal? The N460 suggests they may have that option. If so, I'd better keep hold of the case papers and prepare for round three.

As always, thank you to all who post here with your expertise. Without this forum, defeating these meritless claims would have been considerably more difficult.

CS

ChirpyChicken

Vcs would appeal a dead cat if they could.

Gr1pr

It was interesting to recently watch their barrister squirm at the court of appeal in another VCS ( or Excel  ) case,  where JB didn't like the outcome,  they again sought leave to appeal 

So the dead cat response is definitely true  ( they do seem to take cases to hearings,  regardless of the hopelessness of the case, probably trying to get one in ten through  )

kryten3000

Was this Mr Cragg again?  

Coupon-mad

I have only one question. Can they go the circuit judge level and appeal?

Yes. Hold onto all your paperwork.

But for now, well done!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

Was this a claim filed by Elms Legal or by DCB Legal? What exactly did the POC say?

Captain_Starlet

This one is a DCB legal case and it was the usual cut and paste job. It was definitely less detailed than the particulars of claim in CEL v Chan.

1. It starts with the usual Defendant D is indebted to claimant C for a parking charge issued to vehicle reg number at location.

2. The PCN(s) were issued on date.

3. The defendant is pursued as the driver of the vehicle for breach of terms on the signs (the contract). Reason:81 parked in A restricted area / prohibited area.

4. In the alternative the defendant is pursued as the keeper pursuant to POFA 2012 Schedule 4.

And the claimant claims the usual £100 inflated to £170 interest etc etc.

It wasn't Mr Cragg. They had a chap who's name I didn't get mostly because my hearing's duff and I struggled with his accent.

Having had a read at CEL v Chan I don't think any appeal they might go with has got a chance but it won't as ChirpyChicken says they'd appeal a dead cat if they could.

Car1980

Could you elaborate on the particulars not showing a cause of action, if you can?

Coupon-mad

Those POC do state a reason and I wouldn't have relied on Chan in this case. Those POC are actually better than seen in Chan.

This could go pear shaped. Hope not.

Captain_Starlet

From memory the judge said the PoC failed to show a complete cause of action. The PoC is very sparse. They actually used about half of the 1080 characters allowed in MCOL. Less than 450 to state their case and the rest is the usual boilerplate text. The signs don't have any terms and conditions on them so I'm thinking that maybe the judge has read the defence and witness statements and thought what terms and conditions are they on about in the PoC..

Car1980

Ah, I wondered if the "prohibited areas" were a forbidding clause and therefore didn't amount to to a cause of action. As opposed to an overstay for example.

Captain_Starlet

I didn't mention Chan in court, it was just in the defence. I did wonder why the judge went down the strike out route. The signs say 'No Parking' so there's no contract on offer. It would have been easier to bin their claim that way.