Hi, I was wondering if anyone can assist. I've had advice from the facebook Fight Your Private Parking Invoice Page but now I've received a Letter of Claim from BW Legal threatening to take me to the County Court for an alleged 'parking offence' stopping in a prohibited zone at JLA.
I've responded to all VCS letters, this has now been passed to BW Legal who are saying pay £160 to avoid us taking you to Court. Advice all the way has been no way will this get to Court, but here I am being threatened with County Court.
Any advice/assistance would be greatly appreciated. As you can imagine I'm worried about this and thinking should payment have been made when the first letter came through the door with the £60 fine.
Thanking you in advance!

So you sent the WS to an email address supplied to you by VCS which they had typoed?

I do hope that was made clear. I'm sure it was.

Indeed, PLEASE make that VERY clear!
Otherwise you could be on the hook.

So you sent the WS to an email address supplied to you by VCS which they had typoed?

I do hope that was made clear. I'm sure it was.
[/quote]

Yes! I informed the judge and the rep from VCS showing the mistake in the email

Phew! Good.

Post deleted as I obviously asked something that I shouldn't have.

This post has been edited by Richy_m_99: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 13:04

No

This post has been edited by webster1: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 12:57

EDITed.

This post has been edited by cabbyman: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 13:19

So you should ask for yuor Wasted Costs at the actual hearing
THEIR mistake meant the WS was not served.

Have they indicated a date for the adjournment?

Odd. Very odd but you can try a "drop hands" offer to both walk away without costs or another hearing. Would do no harm and may be useful if they say no.

Anything from the other cases you could use?

I've no idea about the other cases sorry. I didn't stick around.
I will consider what you've just said too, thanks!

I think that Webster 1 should stay with this to the end, There is a lot of interest to see what the outcome will be


Well done for not giving in to these bottom feeders

Is it normal for the claimant to be given so much leeway?
If I understand it, VCS provided the wrong email. Aren't any consequences that flow from that rather for them to account for? They have had two days - three if we count Saturday 29 August.

Was it necessary in the interests of justice to allow VCS more than two days to read the WS? Could another judge have said,
'Tough VCS, you screwed up, you've had two days to review, I'm going to continue with this'?

Is it possible, and if so is there any merit in webster asking for the hearing now to be at her local court?
If I remember correctly the only reason Sheffield was used was because St. Helens was too close to Merseyside and the Crutchley circuit.

Seems odd, and to the claiment's advantage?

Have they screwed something up, or forgotten submit further legal argument?

Am I correct in assuming that although the outcome of the case is not binding, it is persuasive?

Am I also correct that there is a significant queue of cases from the same location, and thus large amounts of money involved?

A cynic might begin to think............

How DARE you! The very thought..............!

What happened today is very normal in a court at this level (and others). Procedural issues are a high proportion of cases despite there being clear rules on who should do what and when. For example, if the WS was posted and emailed, it would all be over - but it wasn't. Posting is covered by the Interpretations Act but email is not there yet.

A lot of Gladstones / BW / LPC wins are on the simple procedural rules e.g. default CCJ's. This is why a "drop hands" offer is useful at this time as the key procedural rule is to reduce the burden on the court by any means possible.

Think of it this way. The court does not actually want to see you and will encourage you to use alternative means. Employment cases now MUST go though ACAS. Personal Injury claims must go through the portal etc.

Rushing to court is just an invite to have a judge take a decision you don't like - but it will be fair, honest and within the rules.

If that is truly the case, then why are we paying for the courts system through taxation in the 1st place?
The State makes the rules - we pay for the state - the courts surely exist to ensure that justice is done, civil or crimimnal. Case law is made by judges, other laws are passed by statute/Acts of Parliament and we don't get a choice in the matter as a rule.

The judges/magistrates are handsomely paid and enjoy an expenses regime which surpasses that of our elected MPs, (although not that of MEPs!).
I enjoyed a very long train journey in the company of a Hight Court judge who was travelling in the same 1st class carriage as I was. We had a very interesting discussion whilst he enjoyed the 1st class catering facilities, no doubt on expenses. He was on is way to oversee a murder trial at the time and judge's sumptious lodgings awaited. I couldn't believe that things were still done this way. I thought it had all gone away years ago, but no, the public trough is still there for all those who are priveliged enough to sate themselves at the tax payer's expense.
It is high time that the whole system was overhauled and dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Rant mode off!

This post has been edited by whjohnson: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 - 20:31

It is being. Google "digital courts".

There have been a number of consultations with "Court User" groups on the issue but digital courts would sort the key issue which is people failing to read the Civil Procedure rules and following them.

You could argue too that failing to read parking signs falls into the same category though parking signs are not as comprehensive as the CPR and Practice Directions - yet.

.

This post has been edited by Videoman: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 - 17:46

Webster your inbox is full so I can't reply to your message