PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

VCS LBC Albert Street
suggii
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 12:34
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



Hi, my husband received a Letter before claim from VCS.
His a private hire taxi driver and dropped a passenger in a VCS Albert Street car park. However his car started to give problems while trying to drive off. So he stopped to check his car bonnet. He even cancelled the next job he received to try and see if he can fix the problem. It took him a short while (29minutes according to VCS ANPR)while he was there.
He received a NTK and made the mistake of calling and explaining the situation. My husband even asked to check CCTV footage to see him trying to fix his car, to which they replied we don’t have CCTV at the car park.
We realised later this mistake after checking Online forums and knew we shouldn’t have called them.

My husband appealed and it was unsuccessful, to which he called them and they demanded the payment. He was told to email them and ask for the appeal result and demand the reason for the decision. Which he got no reply at all.
They sent letters increasing from £100 to £160, then debt collector letter from companies like zenith. We ignored all that from online advice.
We now have received the dreaded letter before claim, which they are claiming money and estimated amounts around £200 including court fees and interest.
They just demand a response to pay them the £160 within 30days of the letter. They sent a reply form to fill In details and a standard financial statement (which i wont be filling in, from forum advice.)

i am at the stage of writing a Rebuttal (from Daniel sans letter) and a SAR letter.

i will appreciate if anyone can give feedback to my letters i will post below. i have until sunday 28th to respond by.



Ref: XXX

Dear Sirs,

I am in receipt of your Letter Before Claim of DD MM 2018.

Your letter contains insufficient detail of the claim and fails to provide copies of evidence you place reliance upon.

You must know that on 01 October 2017 a new protocol is applicable to debt claims. Since proceedings have not yet been issued, the new protocol clearly applies and must be complied with.

Your letter lacks specificity and breaches both the requirements of the previously applicable Practice Direction - Pre-Action Conduct (paragraphs 6(a) and 6©) and the new Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (paragraphs 3.1(a)-(d), 5.1 and 5.2. Please treat this letter as a formal request for all of the documents / information that the protocol now requires you to provide. You must not issue proceedings without complying with that protocol. I reserve the right to draw any failure of the Claimant to comply with the protocol to the attention of the court and to ask the court to stay the claim and order you to comply with its pre-action obligations, and when costs come to be considered.

As litigation department you must surely be familiar with the requirements of both the Practice Direction applicable pre-1 October and the Protocol which applies thereafter (and you, as a serial litigator of small claims, should likewise be aware of them). As you must know, the Practice Direction and Protocol bind all potential litigants, whatever the size or type of the claim. Its express purpose is to assist parties in understanding the claim and their respective positions in relation to it, to enable parties to take stock of their positions and to negotiate a settlement, or at least narrow the issues, without incurring the costs of court proceedings or using up valuable court time. It is astounding that a firm of Solicitors are sending a consumer a vague and unevidenced 'Letter before Claim' in complete ignorance of the pre-existing Practice Direction and the new Protocol.

Nobody is immune from the requirements and obligations of the Practice Direction and now the Protocol.

I require you to comply with its obligations by sending me the following information/documents:

1. an explanation of the cause of action

2. whether they are pursuing me as driver or keeper

3. whether they are relying on the provisions of Schedule 4 of POFA 2012

4. what the details of the claim are; where it is claimed the vehicle was parked, for how long, how the monies being claimed arose and have been calculated

5. Is the claim for a contractual breach? If so, what is the date of the agreement? The names of the parties to it and provide to me a copy of that contract.

6. Is the claim for trespass? If so, provide details.

7. Provide me a copy of the contract with the landowner under which they assert authority to bring the claim, as required by the IPC code of practice section B, clause 1.1 establishing yourself as the creditor

8. a plan showing where any signs were displayed

9. details of the signs displayed (size of sign, size of font, height at which displayed)

10. Provide details of the original charge, and detail any interest and administrative or other charges added

11. Provide a copy of the Information Sheet and the Reply Form

If you do not provide me with this information then I put you on notice that I will be relying on the cases of Webb Resolutions Ltd v Waller Needham & Green [2012] EWHC 3529 (Ch), Daejan Investments Limited v The Park West Club Limited (Part 20) Buxton Associates [2003] EWHC 2872, Charles Church Developments Ltd v Stent Foundations Limited & Peter Dann Limited [2007] EWHC 855 in asking the court to impose sanctions on you and to order a stay of the proceedings, pursuant to paragraphs 13 ,15(b) and © and 16 of the Practice Direction, as referred to in paragraph 7.2 of the Protocol.

Until you have complied with your obligations and provided this information, I am unable to respond properly to the alleged claim and to consider my position in relation to it, and it is entirely premature (and a waste of costs and court time) for you to issue proceedings. Should you do so, then I will seek an immediate stay pursuant to paragraph 15(b) of the Practice Direction and an order that this information is provided.



Yours faithfully


-------------------------


SAR Letter

Dear Sir

Ref: PCN ref xxxxxxxxxx

I am writing in reference to the recent letter before claim sent (Date) demanding for payment of the parking charge. I have explained previously through phone calls explaining the incident (date) at Albert Street car Park.

I am a private hire taxi driver, car registration (xxx xxx). On the day of the incident I was working and driving on the request of my passenger, whom wanted to be dropped off at the Albert Street Car Park, as it was easier for them to walk towards New Street Station. I have attached a journey route of the journey I had made to prove I was on duty at the said time.
However, upon leaving the car park my car broke down as it had an intermittent fault, due to this I couldn’t leave the car park as desired, the fault resolved after a short while and I left the car park.

This letter is not an appeal, it must be considered as a Subject Access Request. I would like to request for all data held and processed which is;
- All the photos taken on the day;
- All human intervention notes;
- All electronic data including automated decisions to generate letters;
- A close up of the sign on the day with the car parked/empty in the same view;
- All photos relating to this case, without holding none at all,
- Copies of the PCN and all letters sent.

This is a Subject Access Request but also an Objection to Processing and a formal request to Restrict Data Processing. As such, any litigation MUST be on hold and I will be making an Information Commissioners Office complaint for the mishandling of the Subject Access Request and Restricted Data request and misuse of my personal data evolving from; intrusive, unjustified, predatory and disproportionate collecting of photographic data of a car with a driver in it not parking at all and certainly nothing can be described as ‘reasonable cause’ to get DVLA data and demand money.

Kind regards
---------



Would this be ok to send as a SAR? or should i omitt the section on what happened on the day of the incident?
i would greatly appreciate any feedback on both the rebuttal and SAR letter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Start new topic
Replies (100 - 112)
Advertisement
post Tue, 23 Oct 2018 - 12:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 09:58
Post #101


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Thats why I asked - from memory they dont, and the CivPRs say you MUST confirm that theyre OK with email before you can presume it is ok to use it - here they are explicitly telling you they do NOT.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 12:08
Post #102


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



I just posted the WS to VCS today, as they dont accept services documents via email. I might just about make the 14 day deadline one day less I think.

Would it affect the case anyway?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 12:12
Post #103


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



IF they raise it as an objection to your WS being heard in court ,then you would respond that your WS doesnt raise anything your defence didnt already cover, and so theyre not disadvantaged - its just your proof of what you put in your defence.

I doubt theyll bother, esp. as it might jsut be a hired Rep who only gets teh file the night before...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 13:12
Post #104


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



Ok thanx nosferatu1001
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Sun, 29 Sep 2019 - 15:22
Post #105


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



below is the skellie for critiqiue. i know its long but i would be grateful if anyone can help condense it in anyway. and if anything needs omitting please advise.

p.s. i am planning to have this posted and hand delivered by this Tuesday, as hearing is on 8th Oct.

SKELETON ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT (NAME)

1.The Defendant asks the court to dismiss the claim due to the below grounds:

A Factual Basis
2.If a contract exists, which is denied, then it was impossible to complete due to a breakdown, making it difficult to leave the car park within the 10minute grace period.

a. In Para 42 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, a 10 minute grace period is mentioned. However, the maximum time allowed in the car park is left blank in the Notice to Keeper (Exhibit xx), the 10 minute grace period is not applied to the time the vehicle had been on site.
b.The signage at the site is in the name of Excel Parking LTD, only one sign in the claimants CT1 tariff board mentions VCS in small print, when the remaining are Excel Parking. If a contract existed it would have been with Excel and not the claimant.

3. In any case, the time taken in coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as a breakdown is unreasonable to bring a claim for.

Lack of Contract

4. It is for the claimant to prove that a contract had been entered into.

Claimants Witness Statement.
5. Claimant's witness statement is from a Paralegal, Charlotte Trayers, representing the Claimant, has been employed by the company since July 2019. As the alleged contravention took place in February 2018, none of the statements provided in her witness statement can be of her own knowledge. She is not aware of the alleged offence, the location, the signage or the facts in this case.
6. Furthermore, this is proven in the Claimants witness statement Paragraph 50 that refers to the parking overstay of 30 minutes, when the PCN notice to keeper, it mentions the duration of stay is 29minutes.

.
7. The Claimant wishes to rely on Thornton vs Shoe Lane Parking [1971] 2 QB 163 to attempt to try and prove individuals may enter into contracts with a sign. That case is fully distinguished from this case in question as that relates to a car park with a barrier on entry. The sign is clearly visible to motorists entering the car park and they are able to read the sign and decide whether they want to enter the car park while they take a ticket and wait for the barrier to open. In this case, there is no barrier. The case above has no relevance on this case.


8. In Paragraph 35 of the Claimants witness statement, the Claimant refers to ‘Vine v Waltham Forest’. The Court of Appeal on this case ruled in favour of the Defendant on the basis that a person cannot be presumed bound by terms and conditions on signage that they haven’t seen. It would appear that the Claimant is attempting to wrongfully persuade the court by mis-quoting Roch L.J. The full quote is this;

“the question whether a person voluntarily assumes a risk or consents to trespass to his or her property is to be judged objectively and not subjectively. Once it is established that sufficient and adequate warning notices were in place, a car driver cannot be heard to say that he or she did not see the notice. Were that to be the law, it would be too easy for car drivers who trespass with their cars to evade the only method landowners have of stopping the unauthorised parking of cars in parking spaces or parking areas on their property.”


9. As you can see, Lord Justice Roch was simply reading one side of the argument. Roch L.J. found in favour of the motorist in this case. Therefore, this case can be immediately dismissed as it has no bearing on this case in question. In ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67, the sign is much clearer and found to be sufficient.


10. Paragraph 36 states the Claimant is intending to rely on the ParkingEye v Beavis case. This case can be fully distinguished from my case due to the following facts;

a. There was neither contractual offer made giving a licence to park nor any promise made, or contract agreed based on any prominent signs or properly marked lines.
b. There is no comparable legitimate interest or commercial justification for charging more than the landowner could claim by way of restitutionary damages.
c. The Beavis case was a free car park.

d. The Beavis case, which was dependent upon Mr Beavis being the driver who accepted a clear contract, formed by unusually prominent signage. Strict compliance with the BPA Code of Practice and the clear, prominent terms on brief signs was held to be paramount. None of this applies in this material case. Exhibit XX the Beavis case sign, next to an Excel sign.
f. The sign at the entrance to the car park is impossible to read while driving. When compared to the sign in ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67. The claimants sign is too wordy, with too much information crammed into text boxes. The £100 fine is hidden with PCN in larger letters, overpowering the actual fine amount, it is not as clear as the Beavis £85 fine.

11. Further and in the alternative, it is denied that the claimant's signage sets out the terms in a sufficiently clear manner which would be capable of binding any reasonable person reading them. The Department for Transport "Know Your Traffic Signs" publication states that "drivers may stop to pick up or set down passengers" (Exhibit in skellie) where waiting restrictions are in force, yet the Claimant avers that the Defendant is in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited - this is not the case, the claimant has not provided proof of the “No Waiting/stopping" signs that had been breached. In addition, there are no markings on the carriageway to indicate that restrictions are in force, eg. yellow or red lines.

12. The terms on the Claimant's signage are also displayed in a font which is too small to be read from a passing vehicle, is in such a position that anyone attempting to read the tiny font would be unable to do so easily. It is, therefore, denied that the Claimant's signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract.
13.There has been no "grace period" applied to allow the Defendant to read the Claimant's signage. For these reasons, the case of VCS v Ward, on appeal in the County Court before His Honour Judge Saffman, should not have a bearing in this instance. This is because with respect to VCS v Ward, HHJ Saffman accepted that the signage (being the entrance and 66 repeater signs) represented an offer of a contractual licence, which was accepted when the user drove onto the private land. In this instance, the text is too small to alert the user to the fact that they are entering private land, and is therefore, not capable of creating a legally binding contract.
a. Furthermore the VCS v Ward case can be distinguished as the defendant failed to attend the appeal hearing, resulting in the case leaning in favour of the claimant.
14.The defendant can only rely on an images from Google Maps of the entrance sign that was in the name of Excel, and does not mention anything regarding the stopping of vehicles. From the defendants witness statement exhibit XX, although it is a picture in daylight, you can see the sign is behind a gate and driving, around 5pm in the evening, meant visibility will be less, and the driver would have to stop to read the sign. Which from the claimants bundle CT1 of entrance sign, it doesn’t mention any terms or conditions, and rather they are inside the car park, which have to be read by getting outside of the vehicle. The driver cannot agree to a contract that the terms have not been read inside the car park.
15. The visibility at the time is further proven from the claimants Exhibit CT2 that shows the ANPR images of the vehicle in transit, the visibility of the images is poor as it was 5pm in the evening, you can only just make out the VRN, and headlights of the car. This only proves further as it would have been difficult to see signage in poor lighting, whilst driving.
16. In CT1 of the claimant’s signs, there is only one main tariff board with the terms and conditions that name VCS in small print, which is unreadable and can only form a contract by getting out of the vehicle and reading them, which would mean you have to stop. The defendant didn’t have any time to read any terms as there was no intention to use the car park for parking, however, the defendant wanted to sort out the mechanical fault so that he can move the car out of the car park.
a. The rest of signage in the Claimants CT1 all mention Excel Parking LTD manage and control the car park, including the entrance sign, there is no mention of VCS, unless you are making payment and read the Tariff board. This is misleading information for drivers entering the car park.
b.Consumer Rights Act 2015 requires that information given is unambiguous; the signs mention Excel in bold and only one says VCS in small print. An average consumer is therefore expecting to form any contract with Excel and no one else.

c. The Claimant’s Evidence CT1 shows a number of pictures of signage around the car park. None of these pictures are legible, as they are taken a year before the alleged contravention. The claimant is presenting a false representation of the car park at the time.
d. The sign artwork provided by the claimant in CT1, there are two sign boards that have contradictory wording to each other and questions to whether they are false evidence to what the actual sign on site may have been. The large sign with tariffs mentions in small font about the £100 fine “discounted to £60 if payment is received within 14 days of the PCN”. However, the info board 660 x 1252mm, Design 2 mentions about £100 fine “discounted to £40 if payment is received within 14 days of the notice issue date”, where there is no mention of VCS.

e. The design of the large tariff sign with terms is intentionally hard to read making the less important parts larger than they need to be and making text smaller in favour of unused space. A driver can only read that on foot.


Procedural Basis

17. The claim made via Money Claims Online (MCOL) is broad and unspecific. It does not utilise the 1080 character limit. MCOL explicitly allows claimants to submit further particulars outside the platform.

18. The Charge Notice (Claimant’s Evidence CT2, Defendant’s Evidence SA2) clearly states the value of £100. There is no explanation in the particulars for the additional £60.

a. These sums have been held to be unrecoverable (ParkingEye v Beavis [2015] UKSC 67). It is an abuse of process for the Claimant to issue knowingly inflated claims. The Claimant should know their claim is inflated due to their case history.
Abuse of process
19. Costs on the claim - disproportionate and disingenuous
- CPR 44.3 (2) states: ''Where the amount of costs is to be assessed on the standard basis, the court will –
(a) only allow costs which are proportionate to the matters in issue. Costs which are disproportionate in amount may be disallowed or reduced even if they were reasonably or necessarily incurred; and
(b) resolve any doubt which it may have as to whether costs were reasonably and proportionately incurred or were reasonable and proportionate in amount in favour of the paying party.

20. Whilst quantified costs can be considered on a standard basis, this Claimant's purported costs are wholly disproportionate and do not stand up to scrutiny. In fact it is averred that the Claimant has not paid or incurred such damages/costs or 'legal fees' at all. Any debt collection letters were a standard feature of a low cost business model and are already counted within the parking charge itself.
21. Further to support the above point, the Debt Recovery Plus (DRP) website, states that they work on a ‘no collection, no fee basis’. Therefore there was no £60 paid, as the amount was not collected, and is basically an extra add on the original £100. Exhibit XX

22. The Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85 in Beavis) was held to already incorporate the minor costs of an automated private parking business model. There are no losses or damages caused by this business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that the alleged 'parking charge' itself is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover the cost of all letters.

23. Any purported 'legal costs' are also made up out of thin air. Given the fact that robo-claim solicitors and parking firms process tens of thousands of claims handled by an admin team or paralegals, the Defendant avers that no solicitor is likely to have supervised this current batch of cut & paste claims. The court is invited to note that no named Solicitor has signed the Particulars, in breach of Practice Direction 22, and rendering the statement of truth a nullity.

24.The Claimant is a serial offender on this regard and must be well aware that CPR 27.14 does not permit such charges to be recovered in the Small Claims track. According to Ladak v DRC LocumsUKEAT/0488/13/LA the Claimant can only recover the direct and provable costs of the time spent on preparing the claim in a legal capacity, not any administration cost allegedly incurred by already remunerated administrative staff.

25. Furthermore, and addition to the point above, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 (POFA) makes it clear that the will of Parliament regarding parking on private land is that the only sum potentially able to be recovered is the sum in any compliant 'Notice to Keeper' (and the ceiling for a 'parking charge', as set by the Trade Bodies and the DVLA, is £100). This also depends upon the Claimant fully complying with the statute, including 'adequate notice' of the parking charge and prescribed documents served in time/with mandatory wording. It is submitted the claimant has failed on all counts and the Claimant is well aware their artificially inflated claim, as pleaded, constitutes double recovery.

26. Judges have disallowed all added parking firm 'costs' in County courts up and down the Country. In Claim number F0DP201T on 10th June 2019, District Judge Taylor sitting at the County Court at Southampton, echoed an earlier General Judgment or Order of DJ Grand, who on 21st February 2019 sitting at the Newport (IOW) County Court, had struck out a parking firm claim. One was a BPA member serial Claimant (Britannia, using BW Legal's robo-claim model) and one an IPC member serial Claimant (UKCPM, using Gladstones' robo-claim model) yet the Order was identical in striking out both claims without a hearing (Exhibit XX):

''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''
27.That is not an isolated judgment striking a parking claim out for repeatedly adding sums they are not entitled to recover. In the Caernarfon Court in Case number FTQZ4W28 (Vehicle Control Services Ltd v Davies) on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated:

''Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.'' Exhibit XX


28. The Claimant’s Witness Statement is inconsistent. Para 36 and 37 contradicts the facts on liability, when the defendant had called the claimant regarding the Notice to Keeper and accepted they were the driver. Therefore, there use of Schedule 4 Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 is not relevant in the keeper liability matter when the driver is known.

29. The claimant fails to distinguish whether the defendant’s vehicle was parked or stopped.
30. Although the case is not similar to the defendants, In Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd 9GF0A9E (Exhibit XX in skellie) his Honour Judge Harris QC found that:
“The purported prohibition was upon “parking”, and it is possible to draw a real and sensible distinction between pausing for a few moments or minutes to enable passengers to alight or for awkward or heavy items to be unloaded, and parking in the sense of leaving a car for some significant duration of time. The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a puncture. Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree”
With reliance to the above quote the defendant was coping with some vicissitude of short duration, due to the breakdown of the vehicle.
31. In the Claimants bundle CT1 the site map does not mention any ‘no stopping’, or ‘no waiting signs’. There is no mention in the claimant’s evidence of any warning sign that was breached.
32.The claimant at Paragraph 52 cites Vehicle Control Services Limited V Alfred Charles Crutchley (2017), which can be dismissed as it was a case based on “stopping on a roadway where stopping is prohibited”. There is no relevance to this case.
33. The claimant is intending to rely on Chaplair v Kumari to attempt to justify an unknown £60 “debt recovery charge”. This case is distinguished from the case above by the following facts; the Beavis case established that a parking firm cannot seek or plead a sum in 'damages'. Chaplair v Kumari is also distinguished. Far from supporting this attempt at double recovery, Chaplair was a decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, whereas parking charges are capped by the POFA/the will of Parliament at the sum on any Notice to Keeper, and not higher, and the Beavis case confirmed this by only allowing £85 and no bolt on 'damages' or imaginary debt collector costs.
34. The claimant also relies on Davies Contractors V Fareham Urban DC (1956) A.C.696. This case can be distinguished as there was no agreed contract, as the defendant was caught up in trying to fix the breakdown problem with the vehicle, rather than reading the tariff board and agreeing to a contract before the breakdown.
a. However, years of precedent regarding the legal principle of frustration, shows this case was an aberration.
b. The claimant refers in paragraph 71, that the defendant was not prevented from fulfilling his contractual obligations i.e. to make a payment. However, this would have still been impossible as going over the 10 minute grace period already there would have been a breach and making a new payment would mean forming a new contract, which is out with the concept of frustration and outside of what the case above reveals.

35. In summary, the Claimant's particulars disclose no legal basis for the sum claimed and it is the Defendant's position that the poorly pleaded claim discloses no cause of action and no liability in law for any sum at all. The Claimant's vexatious conduct from the outset has been intimidating, misleading and indeed mendacious in terms of the added costs alleged.

36. The Court is invited to make an Order of its own initiative, dismissing this claim in its entirety and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14 on the indemnity basis, taking judicial note of the wholly unreasonable conduct of this Claimant, not least due to the abuse of process in repeatedly attempting to claim fanciful costs which they are not entitled to recover.

I believe that the facts stated in this skeleton argument are true.




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Mon, 30 Sep 2019 - 09:33
Post #106


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



Can anyone please advise if the skellie above is good to go. I am planning to post this tomorrow, so any feedback would be really helpful.

Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 30 Sep 2019 - 11:12
Post #107


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



You posted on a sunday early in the PM
So you cant expect too much

You oculd email to the court and claimant, as this is not a requirement in small claims, then there is no need to formally serve. Youre essentially creating a short cut for yourself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Mon, 30 Sep 2019 - 13:52
Post #108


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



Thank you for that info on emailing. Would it work for VCS as they dont accept any service docs via email?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nosferatu1001
post Mon, 30 Sep 2019 - 13:55
Post #109


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,687
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Member No.: 15,642



Again, a skellie is optional so service is not a requirement. You can emai lthem of course, and if they object - so what? its a skellie only. Its not a defence, ws or exhibits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Mon, 30 Sep 2019 - 14:04
Post #110


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



Oh ok thats brilliant then. Thanx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Tue, 8 Oct 2019 - 14:26
Post #111


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



I lost today at court.

Judge was District Judge Dhaliwal
And the claimant rep was a Mr Ian.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 8 Oct 2019 - 14:31
Post #112


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Bad news, its always a gamble, you can only stack the odds so much.

Any reason in particular that you lost?


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
suggii
post Tue, 8 Oct 2019 - 14:49
Post #113


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 55
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,542



That a breakdown wasnt a strong defence point.
The defence was a generic defence.
Also the judge seemed to find the signs were legible and a contract was entered. To which the defendant should have made a payment regardless.
The claimant rep wanted his costs added but the judge didnt allow it.
Also the judge still allowed the fake added £60.



Thank you to everyone who had helped me, during this daunting process.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:54
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here