Success in court today! VCS / DCB Legal case Private parking retail park

Wittowoo

Hi, just wanted to let this forum know about a victory for the little people!  In court today, I successfully defended a claim for over £270 plus costs.  It was dismissed on what I guess is a technicality, basically they were not compliant with the POFA which states that every point * must * be complied with in order to be compliant.

I was assisted by a very helpful Andy T who I contacted via forums.  Many many thanks to him.  

Coupon-mad

Oooh let's here more, @kryten3000

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

  

Ribbonsinthesky

Wow that's great to hear - I've followed the newbies info completed the AOS on MCOL and preparing the draft not entirely sure what to say to make it my own having a think. 

kryten3000

Here's my court report: 

It was a somewhat unusual hybrid hearing because the Defendant and I were remote but judge and claimant's rep were in the court.

DDJ Bates/Dawson according to Courtserve, not sure which.
Claimant's rep in court - Mr Secretary.

I was mostly acting as a Mackenzie Friend due to a miscommunication with the Defendant informing the court I was their "litigation friend". I explained that although I had expected to lay rep I was content to act as a Mackenzie Friend and to communicate with the defendant via instant message.  The DDJ was satisfied with this arrangement so we proceeded.

The defendant had not responded to any correspondence due to a serious illness which included a prolonged hospital stay and this had been considered at a case management hearing.

This hearing started out on recovery fees - which were almost immediately withdrawn by Mr Secretary so would not have been awarded regardless of the outcome, which the DDJ made clear.

The DDJ then moved on to areas of agreement and disagreement:

Whether the car had been parked - agreed,
How long it was parked for - not agreed (NTK only has entry/exit times).
Was signage was sufficient to form a contract - not agreed but it was eventually conceded that signs were clear enough.

The signage evidence images were dated 2019 and made no reference to £70 recovery fees.

Next the DDJ looked in detail at the question of service of the notice, eventually it was conceded that on the balance of probabilities the notice had been served in time but the Defendant hadn't read it.  This was actually what was stated in the Defendant's Witness Statement so no point in contesting that anyway.

The Defendant dropped off the call briefly a couple of times and I was able to use the opportunity point the judge at the relevant paragraphs in the WS which mentioned the wrong POFA wording - the usual "28 days from issue" instead of "28 days from date given" and VCS v Edward to back that up.  Mr Secretary tried to object to my speaking but was slapped down pretty quickly with a polite "my court, my discretion" response, bearing in mind the overriding objective!

There was then a 10-15 minute adjournment while the DDJ considered their decision, Mr Secretary was asked to leave the court, we were asked to put ourselves on mute and the DDJ made it clear he would not speak to us without Mr Secretary in the room, which was exactly what happened.

Case dismissed on the grounds that the POFA says that notices must state the correct period of 28 days from date given, DDJ's hands were tied and they had no option but to find that the NTK was deficient and claimant was unable to transfer liability from driver to keeper.

No costs due to the remote hearing, we were thanked for our professional and respectful conduct.  

Really pleased with this one as Liverpool isn't generally motorist friendly.

ThorOdinson

No costs? You must have wasted a lot of time on this. No time off work?

The sad thing is that even when you win, it costs you at least your time and stress.

Wittowoo

kryten3000 said:

Here's my court report: 

It was a somewhat unusual hybrid hearing because the Defendant and I were remote but judge and claimant's rep were in the court.

DDJ Bates/Dawson according to Courtserve, not sure which.
Claimant's rep in court - Mr Secretary.

I was mostly acting as a Mackenzie Friend due to a miscommunication with the Defendant informing the court I was their "litigation friend". I explained that although I had expected to lay rep I was content to act as a Mackenzie Friend and to communicate with the defendant via instant message.  The DDJ was satisfied with this arrangement so we proceeded.

The defendant had not responded to any correspondence due to a serious illness which included a prolonged hospital stay and this had been considered at a case management hearing.

This hearing started out on recovery fees - which were almost immediately withdrawn by Mr Secretary so would not have been awarded regardless of the outcome, which the DDJ made clear.

The DDJ then moved on to areas of agreement and disagreement:

Whether the car had been parked - agreed,
How long it was parked for - not agreed (NTK only has entry/exit times).
Was signage was sufficient to form a contract - not agreed but it was eventually conceded that signs were clear enough.

The signage evidence images were dated 2019 and made no reference to £70 recovery fees.

Next the DDJ looked in detail at the question of service of the notice, eventually it was conceded that on the balance of probabilities the notice had been served in time but the Defendant hadn't read it.  This was actually what was stated in the Defendant's Witness Statement so no point in contesting that anyway.

The Defendant dropped off the call briefly a couple of times and I was able to use the opportunity point the judge at the relevant paragraphs in the WS which mentioned the wrong POFA wording - the usual "28 days from issue" instead of "28 days from date given" and VCS v Edward to back that up.  Mr Secretary tried to object to my speaking but was slapped down pretty quickly with a polite "my court, my discretion" response, bearing in mind the overriding objective!

There was then a 10-15 minute adjournment while the DDJ considered their decision, Mr Secretary was asked to leave the court, we were asked to put ourselves on mute and the DDJ made it clear he would not speak to us without Mr Secretary in the room, which was exactly what happened.

Case dismissed on the grounds that the POFA says that notices must state the correct period of 28 days from date given, DDJ's hands were tied and they had no option but to find that the NTK was deficient and claimant was unable to transfer liability from driver to keeper.

No costs due to the remote hearing, we were thanked for our professional and respectful conduct.  

Really pleased with this one as Liverpool isn't generally motorist friendly.

I have to say that I couldn't have successfully defended this without the support you gave me in WS prep and defence and in the court hearing.  Really very appreciative of your help!

It was very stressful and I did actually feel 'harassed' by repeated telephone calls from DCB Legal over the whole period, I feel they behaved in a way to try and intimidate me, especially knowing I was experiencing ill health and the associated stress with that.  But I felt it was pushing my luck to ask for any costs!

ChirpyChicken

a good win there @kryten3000
Remember one day your the pigeon sitting on the statue.  Next day your the statue...

LDast

In Liverpool... I wish you'd have told me, I could have attended!

One small observation:

...mentioned the wrong POFA wording - the usual "28 days from issue" instead of "28 days from date given..."

It is actually "28 days from the day after the date given..."

kryten3000

LDast said:

In Liverpool... I wish you'd have told me, I could have attended!

One small observation:

...mentioned the wrong POFA wording - the usual "28 days from issue" instead of "28 days from date given..."

It is actually "28 days from the day after the date given..."

Indeed it is.