Court report, VCS v B, claim dismissed

MrJenkinsEsq

Observed this at Sheffield County Court this afternoon, Hearing Room 3, before DJ Preston. Claim N6QZ845X, Vehicle Control Services Ltd v B.

The site was East Midlands Airport. B had admitted being the driver in earlier correspondence. The signs prohibited stopping to pick up or drop off. With wording similar to "no stopping to pick up or drop off". It might have been a "no stopping" header with "no pick up or drop off underneath". I didn't see.

B's case was that the barrier failed to open, and with several car parks to choose from B assumed it was the wrong one. B reversed so as not to block anyone else, then stopped to check an email for directions. It turned out to be the right car park and the barrier opened on the second attempt. VCS had no evidence of B picking up or dropping off and didn't even allege it. B noted the photo with the car was conveniently cut so as not to show the barrier.

VCS's advocate tried to use a video. B objected as B hadn't seen it, and the judge said he didn't have it either, so it wasn't allowed. The advocate was told a couple of times that he couldn't give evidence, including once when he later tried to describe the video.

The judge asked VCS's advocate a lot of basic yes or no questions on the evidence. The answers were fumbling and full of errs and ums, falling back each time on repeats of there being lots of signs, a contract term and a breach. The judge audibly sighed at one point but was incredibly patient throughout.

He found VCS's evidence untrustworthy. The witness statement used pictograms of the signs with nothing to show they were actually up on site. Only one sign was photographed in situ, on a pole in the middle of the car park, with no cars in shot and nowhere near where B stopped. The site plan used one symbol for every sign despite there being several different pictogram signs. Nothing on the plan showed where the car was supposed to have stopped. The photo of the car showed no sign, and no red lines because the kerb hid the view. B said there were no red lines where the car stopped.

The only contract point discussed was the term itself. The judge said a no stopping term can't be absolute because it would fail the fairness test (Consumer Rights Act 2015 s62), and gave the examples of barriers, pedestrians crossing and a baby choking on the back seat. So the term was held as, "no stopping to pick up or drop off".

VCS's advocate raised VCS v Ward (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Ward, County Court at Leeds, HHJ Saffman, 18 September 2019). The judge said it didn't bind him and commented on the number of AI-hallucinated judgments going around.

At one point the advocate commented on how thin B's defence was. The judge reminded him how thin VCS's own particulars were and advised him against being hoist by his own petard.

During the hearing, not in the judgment, the judge said unprompted that the charge may have a legitimate commercial interest but that he didn't need to find on it.

Claim dismissed as on the balance of probabilities there was insufficient evidence to support it.

On costs B asked for ten hours of litigant in person time, which the judge refused. B volunteered that the hearing happened to fall on a day B doesn't work. B also asked for £6 parking, which was awarded.

VCS asked for permission to appeal. The judgment was essentially one of fact and the advocate offered no grounds of appeal in law or procedural irregularity, so permission was refused.

Coupon-mad

Great to hear. Jake B failed again!

ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST!

"B volunteered that the hearing happened to fall on a day B doesn't work."

But the CPRs allow for 'loss of leave'. Interested in your take on this: do you think the rule doesn't apply if it's their day off?

• The Rule: CPR 27.14(2)(e) states that the court may order a party to pay a sum not exceeding the amount specified in Practice Direction 27A for "any loss of earnings or loss of leave by a party or witness due to attending a hearing or to staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing". [1]
• The Daily Cap: Paragraph 7.3(1) of Practice Direction 27A sets the maximum reimbursable amount for loss of earnings or loss of leave at £95 per person per day.

MrJenkinsEsq

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82151626#Comment_82151626

I've not looked into it but on its face to me it reads as a distinction between the likes of self employed and salaried. The evidence required for each is different.

patient_dream

Another Renshaw-smith FAILURE

BikingBud

Here comes the karma bus👉️

The judge reminded him how thin VCS's own particulars were and advised him against being hoist by his own petard.

Wonderful👏

StewedApple

At one point the advocate commented on how thin B's defence was. The judge reminded him how thin VCS's own particulars were and advised him against being hoist by his own petard.

At this point, any barrister worth their salt would conclude their case was lost, but they would have to continue in any event.

Coupon-mad

Just like that poor barrister had to, in VCS v Carr where the Court of Appeal judges pretty much laughed at him and didn't need to hear from Jackson Yamba for Mr Carr!

Galloglass

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82151756#Comment_82151756

Barristers doing parking cases?

Have only come across barristers in the lower courts where there is some form of legal insurance involved. Are VCS and others paying Legal Insurance now for contested cases. Or have I misunderstood things like this

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/bpa-business-insurance

MrJenkinsEsq

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152088#Comment_82152088

This one certainly wasn't a barrister. I think I heard him sign in as solicitor's agent.

StewedApple

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82152088#Comment_82152088

I'm sure you're more up to speed on me than these things but the judge's comments were telling - they tend to understate things but you could see which way the wind was blowing at this point.