Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 12:24
Post #1386984

I have been issued with CC claim from Simon Renshaw-Smith of VCS.
It is my intention to robustly defend this claim and countersue.
My case will be in court within the next few weeks.

My case:
125 yr Lease Purchased April 2015
Residential Parking Spaces x 2 demised through lease
35 PCN's to date - all ignored by me, no court action from VCS, apart from this one.
Landowner's Agent EM Estates instruct FirstPort to maintain apartment block and common /demised land within boundary - carpark.
FirstPort engages VCS to manage car park.
VCS claim breach of Contract by conduct
ie I ignored signage.
Contract law is clear on this - A Contract cannot be lawfully upheld by Performance, nor can it assumed nor implied.
No contract exisit between me & VCS
VCS Signage cannot overide my Lease.
This claim is therefore without merit.
I would make a request to have it 'Struck Out' but I intend to Countersue


No contract exists bewteen Lessor (me) and Landowner (Lessor) to allow a third party to unilaterally change the t&c’s of my lease.
No Deed of variation of said lease exists to allow same.


Therefore VCS have no legal authority to operate on land which I own by virtue of lease.
FirstPort have no legal authority to instruct VCS to act on behalf of Lessor
This is a complete breakdown in instruction
The PCN’s are unlawful and therefore unenforceable
In essence VCS has no legal authority or proprietary interest to operate on my demised land

This mean that VCS has ‘no right to an Audience’ and herein lies the rub!
A Judge will take a dim view of having his / her time and court resources wasted by people (VCS) who use the courts in this way whom have NO legal right to do so.
The courts do not exist as an additional debt collection agency for VCS nor do they exist to Wet Nurse the likes of Simon Renshaw Smith with their scurrilous activities.

I am Countersueing using Davey V UKPC as my guide - a good read.
(DVLA information being illegally gained - £750 claim met etc)

Many thanks to anyone reading this and able to offer additonal input


Best regards
Pearl

Posted by: Jlc Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:04
Post #1386991

Contracts can be formed by conduct but I agree it appears you have primacy.

But the judge may also take a dim view of you ignoring them.

Posted by: ostell Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 13:52
Post #1387006

It has been held that a notice on the wall can create a contract.

Agreed that your lease has primacy.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 16:08
Post #1387038

QUOTE (Jlc @ Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 14:04)

Posted by: ostell Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 16:45
Post #1387044

This is not a criminal court, if it ever gets to court so the option of taking into considertion is not an option. They could ask for all 35 to be heard in one case but have not done so. I suspect that they are trying one case and if they win will try for the rest.

VCS are required, by the IPC Code of Practise, to have the authority of the landholder to be able to operate. You are the landholder therefore no authority.

As VCS have been made aware that you are the owner then they should not be proceeding. I would say that it is reasonable to allow them to get your name and address from the DVLA but once they find that it is the landholder they are dealing with then they should quietly go away. That should be the basis of your counterclaim. Why are you displaying permits? Is this only as a convenience to their operatives to show that you have a right to be there? There was no intention at all to create a contract with VCS. Did you pay/sign for the permits?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 18:52
Post #1387062

I comprehend the distinction between Criminal Law and Civil and with, respect I apologies for the overuse of the word ‘ preside ’ and offer instead ‘officiate’.
However, taking into consideration the case of UKPC v Davey it was deemed that the PCN issued was unlawful and therefore followed that the procurement of data was also unlawful. UKPC had no legitimate business reason to obtain date from the DVLA
Mr Davey countersued and was awarded £750 accordingly.



I am encouraged that you offer the opinion that VCS should go away quietly.

I only ever displayed a permit as courteousness to other residents to show that the vehicle in question did not belong to some opportunist.

No payment was ever given for the parking permit

Posted by: Jlc Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:13
Post #1387067

From memory, Davey was freehold and he sought an injunction and was awarded damages. I don’t believe data protection was part of the claim.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:39
Post #1387070

Correct, Davey was a Freeholder.

The similarity is that carparking was/is allocated by purchase.
That is sacrosanct. No third party can intervene.

I'll look again, but I'm convinced I saw an award for £750 for wrongful data collection.


That said, I stand to be corrected at any point, hence my posting to gain knowledge.

Many thnaks
P

Posted by: Jlc Sat, 2 Jun 2018 - 19:56
Post #1387073

Just checked. He claimed damages for trespass and sought an injunction.

They continued to ticket him after telling them to cease and desist on his land.

It was 'just' £150 for the trespass and £1,280 costs.

Some MIL cases have seen large 'data protection' awards of around £750.

Posted by: Eljayjay Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 00:38
Post #1387107

Counterclaiming is a lottery. A few people have done nicely out of counterclaims, but judges often dismiss them, particularly those involving application for and receipt of data from DVLA.

In my residential case, the judge dismissed the claim against me and, in doing so, stated that "the entire scheme is invalid and they have got no legitimacy in issuing parking tickets for this land".

She did, however, also dismiss my counterclaim on the basis that, until I convinced her that the scheme was invalid, the parking company believed their scheme was valid and, as a result of holding that belief, they had "reasonable cause" to apply for and obtain my details from DVLA.

My purpose in making a counterclaim was to get the case heard. I succeeded in doing that. I succeeded in being awarded my costs (i.e. loss of pay, mileage and parking for the day in court). What must have hurt the parking company most, however, was that the parking company had to pay for Counsel who, having written a statement of legal arguments for them, then represented them in Court. I suspect that would have cost at least £2,000.

So, if you want matters to come to a head by having your day in court, do issue a counterclaim, but don't get over-optimistic about the counterclaim succeeding.

Posted by: publicenemyno1 Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 08:18
Post #1387121

That's interesting - so since then you have been able to park without a 'permit' and have had no further tickets?

Have they issued a specific instruction not to ticket your car and/or space, or just given up on your location generally (even if signs still exist and/or permits are still offered).

I wonder what a GDPR request would flush out regarding your address / location / registration?

Frankly that's also ******** logic by the judge, superficially it sounds reasonable, but is no better than the City police letting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorm#BT_trials off the hook for snooping on
peoples broadband traffic because 'they were trying to do something good and help people'. I imagine notwithstanding the DVLA there must have been a lot of stressful discourse
between you even after you had stated your ownership of the land / right to enjoyment right from their very first begging letter? No LiP claim for paperwork?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 08:44
Post #1387128

This isn’t about the money. This is about justice. This is about seeing Mr Simon Renshaw Smith across the table. This is about bringing SRS to Newcastle from Sheffield and the expenses he will incur therein.
This is about me wanting to see the whites of his eyes.

This case is another embarrassing one for the industry-funded British Parking Association (BPA), of which VCS is a member, because Mr Renshaw-Smith holds a senior position in the organisation.

BPA- statement ‘Our code of practice requires members to obtain authority from landowners to pursue parking charges from motorists on their behalf.

He of all people should be aware of the IPC code of Practise. To plead ignorance of compliance is not going to stand up to test.

QUOTE (publicenemyno1 @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 09:18)

Posted by: ostell Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 09:24
Post #1387130

You mean you are after vengeance not justice.

You are using both BPA and IAS as if they are interchangeable. VCS is an accredited operator under the IPC scheme, having moved from the BPA in 2014 so why is it an embarrassment for the BPA? They can be a member of both but the operate under the IPC Code of Practise.

Claim in court will be for loss of pay, limited to £95 per day plus travel at 45p (?) per mile plus parking

To claim LIP rates you will have to show that VCS has been totally unreasonable. I forget the actual legislation.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 10:00
Post #1387132

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 10:24)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:14
Post #1387296

Why would he actually travel there? You cannot compel his appearance.
CPR27.14(2)(G) is what you need to be reading up on. To even get £19 ph you will need to show how they have behaved unreasonably, so you will need to heavily lean oin the fact that they KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that they had free- or leaseholders to deal with, and thus would need to gain indivudlal permission. So you will likelyt need to drag in other cases where HIS firm has lost at SCC level in residential cases.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 07:32
Post #1387299

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:14)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:20
Post #1387312

Of course not. He just sends ahired goon who only gets the papers that morning. Costs them about £300 or so but better than travelling.
You need to read a LOT of court report, here and on MSE, to understand WHEN your costs can be claimed in excess of £95, the difficulty in getting this, and some of the grounds you will need to establish. I assume youve read CPR27.14... by now to see how this is arequirement, due to the rules of the small claims track.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 08:56
Post #1387324

Yes I have read CPR27:14 and now have a better understanding of the procedure.

Naïvely, I imagined SRS / VCS to be of substance and principle whereby they firmly believe they have entitlement and will justify their convictions by attendance.

How wrong can you be?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 09:00
Post #1387325

Why on earth would you, as a company, spend employee time on this when its cheaper and better (as they cannot be directly questioned on the no doubt shoddy "witness" statement theyll produce) to send a rep?

Posted by: Eljayjay Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 16:05
Post #1387459

Imagining a parking company "to be of substance and principle" was pretty naïve.

Your first priority is building your defence. Residential parking cases are often very easily defended, but you have to do your homework and do it thoroughly.

Your lease is almost certainly your greatest friend. If you can, get it scanned as a searchable pdf document - you need something better than the free version of Adobe for this. Then conduct a search for "park". Copy and paste every bit of the lease mentioning "park" into a new document.

Then go through it again to look for anything that makes provision for changes to the lease to be made or for rules and regulations to be added by the landlord and/or the management company. Copy and paste those bits to the new document.

Do the same again but, this time, looking for anything about "rights of third parties". Copy and paste again.

Search for "rent", "charge" and "permit". Copy and paste anything of relevance.

Do not just select extracts which suit your case, copy and paste everything of relevance. The reason for this is that, if the parking operator gets a copy of the lease, you need to figure out how to defend yourself from extracts that they throw at you.

On each search, go though the lease from beginning to end.

Post what you find.

Ask the freeholder whether it has ever signed a parking contract with the parking company or authorised anyone else to do so on its behalf. Often, parking contracts are made between the parking company and managing agents without the latter having sought and obtained authorisation from the owner or occupier of the land.

Even a scheme implemented under a parking contract signed by the freeholder is likely to be invalid. For example, if the lease grants you a right to park (and to authorise others to park) in an allocated parking space, any attempt by the freeholder to grant a share of that right to the parking company without your consent would be doomed as it would be contrary to the principle of non-derogation of grant implied in every lease.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 21:14
Post #1387551

Your lease is almost certainly your greatest friend. If you can, get it scanned as a searchable pdf document - you need something better than the free version of Adobe for this. Then conduct a search for "park". Copy and paste every bit of the lease mentioning "park" into a new document.


At the time of purchase my Solicitor completed a 'Lease Report'.
Once VCS started to issue the PCN's, I emailed her and asked for clarity as to my parking rights etc within the lease.

She confirmed that no contract exisits between Lessee (me) and Lessor to allow a third party to operate on/over the Demised land. etc.

Hence me ignoring 35 PCN's to date.

I thank you for taking the time to reply and I will do as you suggest and double check for the sake of sanity.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 21:30
Post #1387563

Did she also confirm the lease didn't contain provisions allowing the Ma to make regulations concerning common areas?
I assume you have checked for this.

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 06:24
Post #1387582

Your solicitor almost certainly has a copy of your lease in her files. Ask her to send you a copy.

If that fails, you can obtain a copy of your lease from the Land Registry by completing a form OC2. Although there will be a charge, if you live in a leasehold property, it is vital to have a copy of your lease regardless of parking issues.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 15:34
Post #1387740

[attachment=5 5722:Lease_Page_13.pdf]

Point 6

This is the only refernce to the car park in the lease apart from the plan showing car parking space allocated to the Apartment.

No references to MA
No reference to Third parties.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:44
Post #1387786

Where is the def of the premises? It's capitalised so it's a defined term
There is an allowance for the lessor to make reasonable regs for occasional parking areas - was this one of those areas?

Posted by: ostell Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 17:52
Post #1387794

But there is no mention of being charged by a third party for that third parties actions.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 18:30
Post #1387803

QUOTE (ostell @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 18:52)

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 18:44)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 06:48
Post #1387937

But not relevant if they wer not parked in- which is what I was asking, if this was the allocated bay or not

So the premises definitively includes the alloctaed bay, so IF this is where the vehicle was standing, then there is an unfettered right to use that space, granted by the lessor, and that cannot be a) derogated from or b) mean that anyone else has anything of VALUE to offer - meaning no possible contract can exist

Id be going for a counterclaim; YOU are the landholder so they have broken their ATA code of practice AND trespassed on the land, they had NO REASONABLE CAUSE to request anyones details from the DVLA

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 08:13
Post #1387950

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 07:48)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 08:17
Post #1387954

DPA - you need t olook at Vidal-Hall v Google. They claimed £750. Recent DPA claim got £250, so aim for £500. Remember you will need to pay a counterclaim fee. You even mentioned Davey in your first post

You should have looked already at getting the MA of the site to order VCS to cease and desist. You could consider enjoining them to the counterclaim - after all, theyre liable for the actions of their agents.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 08:33
Post #1387960

£500 it is then, Im writing to the MA today.

As others have done before me:

Should there be a financial award granted in my favour; 50% will be donated to this commendable site
and 50% to charity.

Regards
Pearl

Posted by: Eljayjay Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 16:24
Post #1388097

Your lease really is an excellent friend.

Usually, a leaseholder with an allocated parking space is granted a right to park which, in itself, is usually a good foundation on which to build a defence. As you know, however, your allocated parking space is part of the demised premises which is even better.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 07:32
Post #1388227

.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 13:20
Post #1388666

Received the Particulars of Claim today.
States VCs are “Acting on behalf of their Client in accordance with their appointment”

They have failed to name said “Client”
Is this permissible?
Do they not have to name their client before the Hearing a part of the Practise Direction for Pre Action Conduct

The MA appears in name on the VCS issued permits, so it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that it’s them.
(Although I have already made that conjecture )


ElJayjay, many thanks for the above post.
Acting on it as we speak

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 13:52
Post #1388679

Just to make sure that we are singing from the same song-sheet here...

Did you receive a letter before claim or letter of claim - they are the same thing - at any time?

In your first post, you mentioned that you had received a County Court claim. Was this sent to you by the County Court Business Centre in Northampton and when? If so, have you acknowledged service of the claim through MCOL? Also, what were the particulars of claim entered on the claim form?

What else do today's Particulars of Claim say? If you can, post a redacted version of what you have received. Otherwise, type t out.

The parking company do not have to state who their client is. It is very likely to be the managing agents. Whoever it is, you will demand that they evidence a chain of authority from the owner or occupier of the land. Furthermore, you will assert that, for parking purposes, YOU are that person, but more on this when you have answered the above questions.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:01
Post #1388683

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:52)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:13
Post #1388687

POc as attached

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:15
Post #1388688

I am sorry to ask more questions, but...

What was the date of the LBC/LOC?

Did you keep the envelope containing the LBC/LOC? If so, is it postmarked and, if so, what is the date of the postmark?

What was the date of the claim?

Do they relate to the same parking event?

I ask these questions because they are supposed to allow you 30 days to respond to the LBC/LOC before commencing court proceedings.

In addition, please state the full Particulars of Claim stated both on the claim form and in the document received today. Redact any identifying details.

We must have hit Add Reply almost simultaneously.

There are no particulars of claim posted.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:23
Post #1388689

[attachment=55827:POC_VCS_page_1.pdf]

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:33
Post #1388691

We are gradually getting there, but...

The two posted pages are the same and you have not answered all of the questions which I asked.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 14:34
Post #1388692

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:15)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:18
Post #1388704

Currently struggling to get page 2 of POC (uploaded file to large ??)

Please bear with....


[attachment=55829:POC_version_2.jpg]

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:38
Post #1388717

LBC dated = 23rd April 2018
POC dated = 29th May 2018

No envelope kept from either

Both: refer to same parking event by : Date : Vehicle reg : Location of parking space
No reference of VCS PCN ticket ref on either


N1SDT : Reference to Breach of Contract only
No: Date of breach
No: Vehicle reg
No: Location

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:39
Post #1388718

Did you reply to the LBC/LOC?

I presume not; however, if you did, what did you say? And what did they say in response?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 15:47
Post #1388720

LBC reply sent 09th May 2018
Extracts of main points as follows :

• What exactly is the PCN charge for
• What are the terms of the Contract
• How was the Contract offered and accepted
• Is this charge for a) trespass b) breach c) contractual charge
• If a) or b) applies please supply a full breakdown of your loss and proprietary interest
• If c) applies please supply a VAT invoice
• Evidence of Driver
• Authority from Landowner
• Your Right to an Audience or that of any other chosen VCS Legal representative.
In summary:
You had no right to enter my Property on 12th Sept 2017. This unauthorised entry was a trespass;
The Landowner covenanted has given me uninterrupted quiet enjoyment of the Property and you have unlawfully interfered with my pre-existing rights to use and occupy the Parking Space which was demised to me by the Lease.


Cont'd


Furthermore, as a result of your actions, I have suffered damage and distress and should you continue to harass me I will seek an award of damages against you in respect of the following:

i. Tortious interference with my rights under my Lease (£167, a sum equivalent to the amount you are currently seeking to recover from me);

ii. Trespass (£167, a sum equivalent to the amount you are currently seeking to recover from me).

iii. Should you in the meantime issue further proceedings against me, I will make a counterclaim against you in the above terms. I will also seek costs against you (court fees plus my time at £35.00 per hour).

I also require you to do the following:
• Please confirm in writing that you will not continue to pursue me for payment in respect of the PCN and the PCN is to be rescinded, any continued claim will be seen as harassment and I reserve my rights under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
• I also require you to undertake not to enter onto the Parking Space again – whether or not the car parked in it is displaying a permit.
• I also require you to cease processing my data immediately.
• If you will not do any of these, then I reserve the right to seek damages and costs against you.

Yours faithfully


CC Claim was the next thing rec from VCS

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 16:08
Post #1388726

I am going to start drafting a defence for you. I may be a while. In case I have any more questions for you, please view your thread from time to time.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 16:23
Post #1388735

My highest gratitude and appreciation – Im eternally grateful for your support.

Have a great weekend

Pearl

Posted by: Eljayjay Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 14:29
Post #1389214

Below you will find a draft defence for you to post through MCOL. Further below, you will find a draft counterclaim for you to post through MCOL at the same time.

You will need to pay a court fee to cover the counterclaim.

Before you post anything through MCOL, if you decide to pursue the counterclaim on the bases mentioned, you will need to establish the price of a day’s parking locally. You may be able to google this information (in which case print what you find so that you can include printout as an exhibit when you submit your witness statement). Alternatively, you may need to visit your nearest car park (in which case take a photo of the charges there so that you can include the photo as an exhibit when you submit your witness statement).

Please do read thoroughly both the defence and the counterclaim to check them for accuracy before posting them.

One you have posted your defence and counterclaim, there will be an exchange of notices of direction. At that stage, you will have the opportunity to name the County Court where the case will be heard. Once the case has been allocated to a particular court, you stop dealing through MCOL. The Court to which the case has been allocated will notify you of the date of the hearing. It will also issue you with instructions about what you need to do. The instructions are likely to include a date by which you must provide your witness statement and exhibits to both the Court and the Claimant. That date is usually two weeks before the hearing. When you submit your witness statement, you will also be able to submit a statement of legal arguments.

The witness statement and the statement of legal arguments provide an opportunity for you to flesh out your defence by saying what you know and what you believe respectively.

Obviously, if you have any questions on the defence, the counterclaim or the process, please do not hesitate to ask.

You may wish to await the comments of others before doing anything.




The statement of defence...


Introduction

1. I, <your full name>, of <your address> am the Defendant in this case and I make this, my statement of defence.

2. I acknowledge that I am the registered keeper of vehicle, registration number <VRN>, and that the vehicle was parked at <location> on <date of event>.

3. I do, however, deny that I owe any amount to the Claimant in relation to my vehicle being parked there on that or any other occasion.

4. Although the Claimant asserts that its cause of action is a breach of contract, I have never entered into any contract with the Claimant.

5. This case relates to land where my rights are governed by a lease,

6. The Claimant has chosen to blatantly disregard both the existence lease and my rights under it.


The Claimant’s failure to comply with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims

7. The Claimant issued a letter of claim to me on <date>.

8. I responded to the letter of claim on <date> requesting certain information from the Claimant.

9. The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims makes it very clear that the Claimant should have replied to my letter within 30 days and prior to launching its formal claim, but it has never replied to my letter.

10. Having failed to comply with the Protocol, the Claimant should not have brought its claim.

11. Even at this late stage, the Claimant has not disclosed the identity of its client at <location>.

12. In addition, in its Particulars of Claim dated 29 May 2018, although the Claimant makes bald statements about its “terms and conditions”, it has not provided me with a copy of the contract containing those terms and conditions and it has not specified the particular term(s) or condition(s) which it purports me to have breached.

13. In the event of the Claimant providing further details of its Particulars of Claim, I reserve the right to amend or add to this, my statement of defence.


The Claimant’s negligence

14. The Claimant describes itself in its Particulars of Claim as “a national car park operator that provides car park management on behalf of its Clients at a number of car parks across Great Britain”.

15. With such wide experience of parking matters, it is reasonable to expect the Claimant to know that, for a parking scheme to be valid, a contract needs to exist between itself and a person who (a) is either the owner or occupier of the land or authorised under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land and (b) has power to override any pre-existing contrary contractual conditions applying to the land.

16. The Claimant has, however, acted negligently by failing to establish the credentials of the other party to its parking contract, whoever that other party may be.

17. If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, it would have realised that the other party to its contract to manage parking on the relevant land, whoever it may be, is empowered to enter into such a contract with the Claimant.

18. If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, it would have detected that the land is subject to a pre-existing lease which has primacy of contract over the Claimant’s fatally flawed arrangements.


The Defendant’s lease

19. Under a long-term (125-year) lease purchased by me on 15 May 2015, “The Premises”, which include not only an apartment but also an allocated parking space, have been demised to me as the lessee until a date in the next century.

20. I do, therefore, have exclusive use of the relevant land, i.e. my parking space, for the foreseeable future.

21. The vehicle was parked in full compliance with my lease on the relevant land on <date of event>.

22. My lease makes no provision allowing either any other party to it or any stranger to it, such as the Claimant, to impose regulations on my parking space or those parking in it.

23. Decisions as to whether and what such regulations might exist in relation to my parking space are matters entirely for my own discretion and prerogative.

24. I am further protected against the Claimant’s unauthorised and predatory parking scheme by ( a ) the Claimant’s lack of any third party rights in relation to my lease, ( b ) the legal principle of non-derogation from grant implied in all leases, and ( c ) the legal principle of the right to quiet enjoyment also implied in all leases.


The Claimant’s standing

25. There is nothing which compels me to enter into a contract with the Claimant for parking in my parking space.

26. I have not granted the Claimant the right to use my parking space for the purposes of its business.

27. As the parking space being part of the premises demised to me without any rights being reserved, no other person has the power to grant the right to the Claimant to use my parking space for the purposes of its business.

28. The Claimant does not, therefore, have any right to use my parking space for the purposes of its business.

29. It follows that the Claimant has no parking to offer there, i.e. for the purposes of a contract, the Claimant lacks consideration.

30. In turn, it follows that the Claimant has no grounds for charging for parking in my parking space.

31. Insofar as my parking space is concerned, the Claimant is nothing more than a serial trespasser and a nuisance without any standing at all.



The counterclaim...

1. I make this, my counterclaim, against the Claimant.

2. There are two grounds for making my counterclaim: the Claimant’s repeated trespass on my parking space; and the Claimant’s tortious interference with my lease.

3. The Claimant has been using my parking space for its business purposes since it was demised to me on 15 May 2015.

4. To the date of writing, i.e. 11 June 2018, therefore, the Claimant has made use of my parking space for the purposes of its business for a total of 1,124 days.

5. It follows that the Claimant has trespassed on my parking space for that number of days.

6. In the nearest car park available to the general public, the cost of one day’s use of a parking space is £4.

7. My understanding is that, under Common Law, insofar as trespass is concerned, the Court is required to assume a hypothetical negotiation between a willing and reasonable person in the position of the trespasser, i.e. the Claimant, and a willing and reasonable person in my own position as the leasehold owner of the land.

8. I further understand that the appropriate measure of damages for trespass is the price which such persons would have negotiated as the reasonable price payable for the relevant right of user, or the sum of money which might reasonably have been demanded as a quid pro quo for permitting the trespass.

9. As the Claimant deems £100 to be a reasonable charge for the use of my parking space for one day, the Court could regard that as a reasonable amount on which to base my counterclaim.

10. Frankly, however, I believe £100 for one day’s use of a parking space to be an exorbitant amount, not a reasonable amount.

11. Instead, I regard the very much lower amount of £4,the cost of one day’s use of a parking space available elsewhere locally as being much more reasonable figure on which to base my counterclaim.

12. My counterclaim is, therefore, for the sum of £4,496, i.e. 1,124 days at £4 per day.

13. Although that amount is based on a counterclaim for trespass alone and I believe that it would be reasonable for the Court to award me a further amount for tortious interference with my lease, I am willing to accept the sum of £4,496 in settlement of the whole of my counterclaim.

14. In addition to agreeing to my counterclaim, I would ask the Court to order the Claimant to cease and desist from its activities in relation to my parking space.

15. In the event that the Claimant discloses the identity of its client at the development, I reserve the right to request the Court to join that person to my counterclaim.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 14:46
Post #1389221

With regards to my Counterclaim and inclusion of the MA :-

I have been trawling through historical emails and the ignominy I have been subjected to is staggering with hindsight

April 2015: I purchase property and ask for Parking Permits to adhere to regime
MA advises that there is a debt on the property account of £200 and until this is resolved/paid no permits can be released in my name. I query debt and they say that the 6 monthly service charge which is payable in advance from Jan has only been paid up to April.

I then explain that as the property has been sold the Vendor had only paid their portion up to the date of completion/exchange of contract and that unless the account is put into my name I would never be able to reconcile the account and therefore never get the permits. I ask if they will take note of my Tenants vehicle regs x 2 so they will know NOT to ticket vehicles.

MA advises that they will look into this matter.

10 PCN’s are issued in the meantime

Fast forward to June 2015: Account put into my name. Service charge paid, 2 Permits received. 1 for allocated Residents space No:20 & 1 for Visitors space
I contact MA and complain that I need 2 x Residents as apartment has 2 allocated spaces and the numbered permit does not correspond to Apartment No.
MA states I am not entitled to 2 residents spaces- only 1 and that the numerical reference is irrelevant.
I email copies of Land Reg docs clearly showing 2 spaces. MA fails to accept this and refuses to send additional permit. I contact them again and request property manager meets me to do onsite survey and get confirmation of the 2 spaces. She ignores my request.

Additional PCNs issued, one for displaying the WRONG numbered permit in numbered space.

I appeal against first few PCN’s direct to VCS – not one of them is upheld.
I am then subjected to debt letters from BW: DLC: Zenith: DCBl followed by a barrage of phone calls.

I conclude that you can’t argue with idiots as they will always beat you with experience and decide to let the matter determine itself and wait for the arrival of a CC claim…… and so here we are.

I’m of the firm opinion I have been held to ransom and deliberately denied/ given permits to allow VCS to ‘Farm’ me as a unwitting target in their unlawful revenue scam .
I have been subjected to abject misery by the MA’s ineptitude

This will all be included in my claim for Damage

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 14:57
Post #1389224

Eljayjay .......
To say that is brilliant is an understatement

I will read and read again and get it sent tomorrow.

Thank you
Thank you
& Thank you again

Posted by: ostell Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 16:25
Post #1389238

Would it be helpful to state that the lease does not require the display of any permit and therefore any display can not be seen as an acceptance of an alleged contract but purely as an an identification aid for the parking company

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 16:28
Post #1389240

QUOTE (ostell @ Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 17:25)

Posted by: Eljayjay Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 17:51
Post #1389261

I have great respect for ostell. Ostell does often think of things that I have missed.

There is, however, a huge temptation to fire all ammunition at the defence stage.

What we are saying in the defence is that the Claimant has no right to be there fullstop.

In addition, unless I have missed it, the Particulars of Claim say nothing about the requirement to display a permit.

That being so, I think the matter of permits, which is really just a bit of detail, can be left until the witness statement and the statement of legal arguments.

If this has been going on since before 2015, we may need to make some amendments because we do not want your counterclaim to exceed £10,000, the maximum for a small claim. In addition, the Claimant's deal may predate your lease. That should not be a problem for you. It may, however, be a problem for the other party or parties to the lease.

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 18:12
Post #1389268

That point has to be in the defence

I would put it more strongly and make clear that its display does not signify that VCS has any authority over its use of the space

The witness statement, in my view, undervalues the damages for trespass in your counter-claim

Regarding your defence to the VCS claim, I would add #33

The VCS operative knows that the vehicle is authorised because he's seen and inspected it on many occasions
From his company records and memory, he knows that it has a permit and he has no legitimate reason to enter the prperty and look into the vehicle
The demand for £100 if he does not see a permit on any particular occasion is exorbitant and unconscionable within the meaning of ParkingEye v Beavis

Regarding the value of the counter-claim for trespass :

The benefit that VCS gained when the operative stood in your space isn't the cost of a parking ticket because he stood in your space for free when he could have stood in a nearby car park
It's the £60 profit that they hoped to gain if he didn't see a permit that you were not required to display

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 19:21
Post #1389279

" In addition, the Claimant's deal may predate your lease. That should not be a problem for you. It may, however, be a problem for the other party or parties to the lease."

VCS were intially instructed by MA Oct 2014 (6months prior to purchase)

When I orginally protested to MA about the appalling conduct of VCS; the response was

“We wrote to all residents in Oct 2014 about the introduction of the scheme, if you had a problem you should have raised it then”

I asked why would they write to me in Oct 2014 when I didn’t purchase until April 2015?

- Silence.

I then requested a copy of the introduction letter and I’m still waiting for it, some 3 years on.

Eljayjay, do you see a large ££ Counterclaim ??

I'd appreciate advice as to a 'prospective' sum

Posted by: Redivi Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 20:33
Post #1389294

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 18:51)

Posted by: Eljayjay Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 20:36
Post #1389296

I stand by my previous comment that there is no need to say anything about permits in your defence because there is no mention of them in their Particulars of Claim. It is part of the draft defence that the Claimant has made bald statements about breaching terms and conditions. You do not have to second guess what specific terms and conditions have been breached. What the defence majors on is that the Claimant has no rights whatsoever over the parking space.

You can (and will need to) expand on what you have said in your defence at the later witness statement and statement of legal arguments stage. At that time, there will be a need to say significantly more about a number of subjects, perhaps especially third party rights, non-derogation from grant and quiet enjoyment. They have been mentioned in the defence and that is sufficient for now.

Who are the parties to your lease? Clearly, there is a Lessor and there is a Lessee (i.e. you). Is that it or are there others? For example, is a management company also a party to the lease? What does your lease tell us, if anything, about the managing agents? If the lease mentions them at all, does it say who is responsible for appointing them?

When it comes to the amount of the counterclaim, it does not matter that the Claimant has made little or nothing from using your parking space for the purposes of its business. It is my understanding that what counts is simply the fact that it has made use of the space for the purposes of its business. As the counterclaim says, if the Claimant and yourself had willingly entered into negotiations about its use, it would have been entirely reasonable for you to require an amount equal to the cost of parking elsewhere locally.

So, I would say that a figure based on days times daily rate is a reasonable amount to claim; however, if that comes to more than £10,000, you may include a discount for, say, goodwill.

If you tell me when you completed the purchase of your flat and how much a day's parking is elsewhere locally, I shall gladly do the arithmetic.

Posted by: ostell Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 21:24
Post #1389307

The PoC are embarrassing in that they do not give a a good reason for the claim so this will have to be an embarrassed defence in that the defendant does have to second guess the reasons for the claim nd address them in the defence so that there can be no problems bringing this up later. Did the original PCN mention lack of permit? If it did this is a valid reason to bring up the permit situation now.

I sort of agree that the defence should be just in answer to the particulars but the PoC is so bad it is difficult to make a sensible defence from it, hence what I have suggested. The PCN will be in their witness statement and bundle so it will appear. Could be difficult if their witness statement and bundle are last in and the defendant does not get the chace to add about the permit situation.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 21:36
Post #1389309

Lessor is a 'Property Group'
No mention of third parties in Lease
No mention of Landlords Agent in lease 'E & M Estates Management@
No mention of MA in lease

Nearest car park charges £4 per day

MA is appointed by the Lessors 'Agent' who takes care of Lease sale/property transfer requirements and to ensure each leaseholders rights are protected, they also collect ground rent.

That said Ive just done a search at Companies House on 'Lessor's' Ltd Company name
They used toi Trade under the name of 'Peveral' and so did the MA

So this now tells me Lessor and MA are one

No mention of Permit in POC
Refers only to Signage and compliance with T & C's

Posted by: Eljayjay Sun, 10 Jun 2018 - 21:57
Post #1389322

What was the date on which you completed the purchase of your flat?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 07:17
Post #1389355

15th April 2015

many thanks

Posted by: Eljayjay Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 10:53
Post #1389421

I have made some changes to post #48 mainly to replace some of the previously unknown or redacted stuff, but there are still some things for you to amend.

Please double-check everything and make sure that it all makes sense to you.

As before, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

On the basis mentioned in the counterclaim, it amounts to £4,496. As a court fee, this would cost you £185.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 10:58
Post #1389425

£4496 Counterclaim amount
Could that be doubled as I have 2 spaces or would that be ill advised?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 11:31
Post #1389438

Have you looked at the filing fees for a claim of that size?
ALso, you cant charge for parking. They werent parking. They were stood there.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 11:40
Post #1389444

I'm have no intention of exploting this issue for a greater claim.
By asking questions. I'm trying to underpin the ethics of CC protocol.

Attending a Driver Awareness course recently, is the nearest Ive ever got to breaking the Law and appearing in any Court

I value you advice Nosferatu, many thanks

Posted by: Eljayjay Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 11:58
Post #1389447

The counterclaim is being made for the Claimant's use of the parking space for the purposes of their business, not for the Claimant actually parking in the space.

In effect, it is a rental fee which, if the Claimant and you had willingly entered into negotiations with a view to allowing the Claimant to use of the space, would have been payable to you in that event.

I accept that the wording of the counterclaim could have been better and have amended it accordingly.

For two spaces, you could launch a counterclaim for twice the amount, i.e. £8,992, the court fee for which would be £404.64.

I am going to send you a private message about the two spaces.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 13:30
Post #1389483

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 12:58)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 16:20
Post #1389523

There is an issue with PM's
I can't send another till later ????

I'll upload what I can to confirm 2 x spaces

regards

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 17:12
Post #1389541

Technology conspires against me. I have tried everything to upload lease plan/land reg docs but have failed miserably. I’ll try again later

Soooooooooooooo frustrating as I definitely have 2 spaces .

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 17:15
Post #1389543

Tiny pics is your best bet.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 17:40
Post #1389547

Tried reducing photos / file size etc and still can't upload

The lease doc refers to a "Forecourt/car parking space" (space1) and "Roof cover" on ground floor (space 2)

Materially there are 2 spaces opposite each other and both have the Apt number painted/stencilled onto the Tarmac.
Space 1 is on the Forecourt
Space 2 is under a Carport

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 18:03
Post #1389554

Again, try using tiny pics or another image hosting site - just not photo bucket.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 19:42
Post #1389587

Eljayjay, would you kindly confirm receipt of plans & update our Forum friends

many thanks

Posted by: The Rookie Mon, 11 Jun 2018 - 20:02
Post #1389595

Read the FAQ on posting pictures, or the advice above to use tinypic or similar (not photo bucket).

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 12:12
Post #1389786

I have been through the lease.

I can find absolutely nothing in it which either aids the parking company's claim or harms your defence. Indeed, I strongly believe that the opposite is true.

I shall be back later with some details.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 14:22
Post #1389868

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 13:12)

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 18:50
Post #1389963

I am putting together some notes on what the lease does not say.

In the meantime, here are some extracts from the lease containing words with the stem "park" and my notes on their relevance (if any).


SOME KEY DEFINITIONS IN THE LEASE


On page 1 of the lease, 1(b) states:
"the Development" means the Lessors residential estate known as xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx being the land now or formerly comprised in Title No. xxxxxxxx consisting of two individual buildings which comprise a total of sixty two apartments together with parking spaces outbuildings open spaces perimeter walls paths and vehicular roads and accessways


On page 2 of the lease, 1(j) states:
“the Premises” means the premises hereby demised as described in the Second Schedule hereto


On page 2 of the lease, 1(l) states:
“the Reserved Property” means those parts of the Development not included in the respective demises of the dwellings and is more particularly described in the First Schedule hereto


ALL EXTRACTS FROM THE LEASE CONTAINING WORDS WITH THE STEM “PARK”


The First Schedule on pages 8 & 9 of the lease, in describing The Reserved Property more fully, states:
THIRDLY ALL THOSE the main structural parts of the buildings forming part of the Development including the roofs gutters rainwater pipes canopies foundations floors all walls bounding individual apartments and individual parking spaces (apart from such parts of the walls as are the responsibility of the Lessee) and all external parts of the said buildings but excluding any external balcony (if any) included within the demise of an individual apartment

Note: The above extract makes it clear that, insofar as the parking spaces are concerned, only some of the walls bounding them, not the parking spaces themselves, are included in The Reserved Property.


The Second Schedule on pages 9 and 10 of the lease, in describing The Premises, states:
ALL THAT second floor apartment known or intended to be known as No 23 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx aforesaid more particularly delineated on Plan 2 and thereon edged red TOGETHER WITH the forecourt/parking space and roof covering (if any) on the ground floor delineated on Plan 1 and numbered 52 TOGETHER WITH the bin store on the ground floor delineated on Plan 1 being that part of the area coloured brown and numbered 52 TOGETHER WITH the doors and windows thereof and the interior faces of the ceilings up to the underside of the joists slabs or beams to which the same are affixed the floors down to the upperside of the joists slabs or beams supporting the same and one half in width of the internal walls which are not main structural walls and which divide the said apartment from adjoining apartments or the said parking space from adjoining parking spaces or from any part of the Reserved Property which walls are hereby declared to be party walls but including the plaster to the inside of the walls TOGETHER WITH… all cisterns tanks drains sewers pipes wires cables ducts conduits and channels and any other apparatus or system used solely for the purpose of the said apartment and parking space and… EXCEPTING AND RESERVING all cisterns tanks drains sewers pipes wires cables ducts conduits and channels not used solely for the purpose of the said apartment and parking space

Note: The above extract makes it clear that the forecourt/parking space forms part of the demised premises.


The Third Schedule on pages 10 and 11 of the lease grants the following as “Rights included in the Demise in favour of the Lessee”:
8. The right to use in common with all others entitled to a like right on a first come first served basis any parking spaces marked "v" on the Plan (if any) for the temporary parking of visitors private motor vehicles not exceeding three tonnes gross laden weight.

Note: The above extract grants the Lessee the right to use other parking spaces at the Development. It is not relevant to the circumstances of the claim.


The Third Schedule on pages 11 and 12 of the lease also states:
All the rights and benefits specified in this Schedule are subject to and conditional upon the observance by the Lessee of such reasonable rules and regulations made at any time and from time to time by the Lessor (and notified in writing to the Lessee) which the Lessor may deem necessary or expedient for the good management of the Development or for the general benefit of the lessees of the apartments and the dwellings and upon the Lessee paying the Service Charge at the times and in the manner stipulated in the Ninth Schedule hereto

Note: As the only parking related right or benefit specified in the Third Schedule concerns the right to use the parking spaces provided for visitors, the above extract is not relevant to the circumstances of the claim.


The Fifth Schedule on page 13 of the lease, the Lessee covenants:
Not to park any motor or other vehicles upon any part of the Development other than in the parking space comprised in the Premises or in such areas (if any) as may be designated by the Lessor from time to time for occasional parking and subject to such reasonable regulations relating to such parking areas as the Lessor may from time to time prescribe

Note: Although the Lessor may prescribe regulations about parking, the above extract makes it clear that the application of those regulations is restricted to “such areas (if any) as may be designated by the Lessor from time to time for occasional parking” only. The Lessor has no power to make regulations relating to the “forecourt/parking space” where the vehicle was parked and which form part of the demised premises. The extract also makes it clear that any regulations must be reasonable.


The Sixth Schedule on page 21 of the lease, the Lessor covenants:
To keep the Reserved Property and all fixtures and fittings therein and additions thereto in good and substantial state of repair and condition and decoration including the renewal and replacement of all worn and damaged parts and including (without prejudice to the generality of such provision)…
roads paths accessways parking areas landscaped areas open spaces and gardens on the Development and any buildings or structures from time to time erected thereon and intended by the Lessor to be enjoyed by the Lessee in common with owners and lessees of other dwellings and the boundary walls gates and doors bounding the Reserved Property so far as the obligation for maintenance and repair thereof rests upon the Lessor

Note: The above extract imposes an upkeep requirement on the Lessor. It is not relevant to the circumstances of the claim.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 20:24
Post #1389995

Any slight doubts I may have been harbouring have been totally dismissed.
There can be no surprise disclosures or cunning attempt to manipulate the Lease by the claimant.

They really have nowhere to go with this, as a few have said before, its embarrassing.


Again, I'm in your debt for this.
Thank you.

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 12 Jun 2018 - 21:35
Post #1390013

Yes, the parking companies are really quite clever at the same time as being really quite thick. You were suffering in exactly the same way that I and many others have suffered and are suffering.

I started off with just an instinctive feeling that they cannot have the right to charge me this ridiculous amount for parking in kids’ own allocated parking space; however, even when I had read the lease, googled, looked at other threads, and began to have some belief that my initial instinct was right, I still had lingering doubts. After all, I thought, they must know what they are doing, they would not take me to court if they thought they would lose, when, in fact, what they were doing is playing on my doubts.

As time went by, however, I gradually got to grips with the lease and some legal principles and then came to realise that I was not in the least deluding myself about the strength of my defence.

Anyway, that’s enough of that. Here are some more notes.

Some of this has been mentioned before, but I make no apology for that because the more we drum this stuff into our heads, the more confident we can be about the eventual outcome.

As usual, please do get in touch if you have any questions.


RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES

Before the passing of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a person could not enforce a contract to which he/she/it/they were not a party. The Act changed that in some situations. The Act states:-

“Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—
(a) the contract expressly provides that he may, or
(b) … the term purports to confer a benefit on him.”

None of this applies insofar as your lease is concerned: your lease does not expressly provide that any third party may enforce any of its terms; and there is no term in your lease which purports to confer a benefit on any third party.


REGULATIONS

Although, under your lease, the Lessor has rights to make regulations relating to certain matters, those rights do not extend to regulations relating to parking on your forecourt/parking space.

Nevertheless, if they did extend that far, it may be reasonable in some circumstances to make regulations requiring vehicles to display a parking permit. In the event that you failed to display a permit, the Lessor’s remedy would be the same as though the regulations were part of the lease, i.e. the Lessor could apply for an injunction ordering you to display a permit in future and/or the Lessor could claim for damages.

In the latter event, the damages would probably represent nothing more than a very small administration charge to cover the cost of giving you a ticking-off.

Your right to park in your forecourt/parking space is yours and yours alone. As no-one else has the right to park there or to authorise others to park there, no-one is able to charge for parking there.


AMOUNTS DUE

Your lease requires you to pay service charges and (ground) rent to the Lessor. Your lease says nothing about you having to pay separate parking charges.

The Lessor can, of course, hire an agent to collect the service charges and rent from you. The Lessor cannot, however, hire an agent to collect parking charges from you.


QUIET ENJOYMENT

On page 24 of the lease, the Lessor covenants:
“That the Lessee paying the Rent and Service Charge and other payments herein reserved and observing and performing the covenants and restrictions on his part herein contained shall and may peaceably and quietly hold and enjoy the Premises during the Term”

On the presumption that the Lessor is the parking company’s principal, the Lessor is in breach of your lease because, instead of providing you with quiet enjoyment, the Lessor is allowing its agent to harass you for parking charges which are not due.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 10:25
Post #1390406

Can anyone please tell /direct me to section of The Landlord and Tenants Act 198,5 where it states that Lessor or Agent of Lessor is obligated on request, to give details of any third party contract and its involvement with Lesse .

Many thanks

Posted by: Eljayjay Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 17:26
Post #1390570

legislation.gov.uk

You may well be looking for section 20

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 08:06
Post #1390688

Thanks!

Im gathering as much evidence as I can.
Im starting to put the meat on the bones of my WS


Ive asked MA for a copy of the Long Term Agreement / Contract with VCS

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 09:29
Post #1390707

Does that mean you have submitted your defence and counterclaim?

Asking for the contract is a sensible move, but often the request is refused.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 09:41
Post #1390711

Yes Defence and Counterclaim sent.

I read the Defence Statement you prepared for me and then gave great consideration to it over a few days.
I concluded that it should be submitted in its entirety. (with an addtion from Redivi)

After reading about your own experiences and the conduct of the claimant's representitive, I decided to go for it !

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 11:25
Post #1390764

OK, many thanks for that reply.

I suspect that I may sound as though I am barking out orders. I do, however, accept that I am not the fount of all knowledge and you are, of course, free to include whatever you like in your defence, etc.. It is important that you are comfortable with what you say and, if acting on Redivi's and others' suggestions gives you some additional comfort, that is fine by me,

At some time in the near future, you will need to complete a Directions Questionnaire (form N180).

I gave hope8861 some tips yesterday on how to respond to a DQ submitted by Gladstones on behalf of Parking & Property Management Limited. In case I cannot find it again later, here is what I said to hope8861 about the N180 - most of it will apply to you, but some of it will depend on what VCS and/or its solicitors have to say.


You need to download a form N180 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...ll-claims-track

Where it says "In the" at the top, enter Northampton CCBC.

Obviously, enter the case number and your name in the relevant boxes.

Where it says "who is", leave 1st and Defendant showing.

Tick No where it says:-
Do you agree to this case being referred to the
Small Claims Mediation Service?

Complete the Your Contact Details section

Tick Yes where it says:-
Do you agree that the small claims track is the appropriate track for
this case?

At D1, enter the name of the court where you wish the case to be heard and the words "I am an unrepresented defendant and this is the most convenient court for me."

At D2, tick No.

At D3, enter a number - it will be at least 1 because you count as a witness for this purpose.

Complete D4 as appropriate.
So, if you and/or a witness have booked some holidays, tick Yes
and give the dates.
If you book some holidays later, advise the court to which the case will be allocated. Avoid the hearing date if it has been set by then.

Tick No where it says:-
Will you be using an interpreter at the hearing either for yourself or
for a witness?

In the space at the bottom of the page, write:
PLEASE NOTE THAT
I DO NOT AGREE THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE HEARD ON THE PAPERS ALONE.

Sign the form in the box.

Below the box, lease 1st and Defendant showing.

Scan the whole form.

If you do not know CCBC's email address, phone them and ask for the email address to which a Directions Questionnaire form N180 should be sent.

Attach it to an email to CCBC and copy it to VCS's solicitors or, if they have no solicitors acting for them, to VCS themselve. The email should be headed "Directions Questionnaire: Case No. <case number> and read as follows:-


Claim No. <case number>
Issue Date <date of claim>
Claimant <name of claimant>
Claimant’s reference <ppm's ref>
Defendant <your name>


Dear CCBC,

As you will see, I am sending this email not only to yourselves but also to the <claimant or claimant's solicitors>.

As requested, I attach the Directions Questionnaire (N180) duly completed by myself.

[Use this sentence if appropriate] Given that the <claimant or claimant's solicitors> <has or have> requested that the claim should be dealt with on the paper alone, I would ask you to note that I do not agree to this request.

I look forward to hearing from you again in due course.

Yours faithfully,

<your name>

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 12:21
Post #1390785

Again, I thank you for your invaluable input.

I'm taking a small sabatical from all of this, as I need to step away to reconcile & resolve my thought process

I need to keep a clear head for the next round.

I'll be back in touch in about a week.

Very best regards

Posted by: Eljayjay Mon, 18 Jun 2018 - 12:27
Post #1391603

In working on another thread, I found the following error in your draft defence.

This paragraph in your draft defence...

17. If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, it would have realised that the other party to its contract to manage parking on the relevant land, whoever it may be, is empowered to enter into such a contract with the Claimant.

should read...

17. If the Claimant had acted with skill, care and diligence, it would have realised that the other party to its contract to manage parking on the relevant land, whoever it may be, is not empowered to enter into such a contract with the Claimant.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 09:04
Post #1395914

I have recieved a letter and copy of form N180 from VCS notifiying me that the agree to the case being referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service.

Is this a tactical move on their part.

I did not request this on my AOS

Thoughts ?

Many thanks

Posted by: Eljayjay Wed, 4 Jul 2018 - 10:44
Post #1395947

The time has come for you to complete your own form N180 Directions Questionnaire - see post #85 for some guidance on what to do.

As regards your specific question about the Small Claims Mediation Service, you are right about this being a tactical move by the parking company. You should tick the "No" box.

You are, of course, welcome to ask other questions about what you need to do.

Once your form N180 has been submitted, the claim will be allocated to a Court and then a hearing date will be set. The date of the hearing is likely to be months into the future.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 11:18
Post #1405160

VCS have had their claim against me 'Struck Out'

On the 9th July 2018 they were served with Form N24 - General Form of Judgment Order.
This ordered them to give full and proper details of their claim.
They failed to respond.
They could not say on who's authority they relyed upon to bring their claim.

Yesterday I received another N24 IT IS ORDERED THAT : The Claim STANDS STRUCK OUT.

In my AOS I filed a Countersue Claim and paid the fee accordingly.

Do I now have the right to request that the Court have the Order varied and my claim heard in their absence?

with many thanks
Pearl

Posted by: kommando Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 11:30
Post #1405167

You have the right for your counterclaim to continue but cannot see it being heard in their absence unless they agree for it to be heard on papers alone or just don't turn up. You need to contact the Judge and remind them your counterclaim is still in play.

Posted by: cabbyman Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 13:10
Post #1405202

Popcorn time! Round 1 to you. They enter round 2 bleeding profusely! Good luck in the next stage.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 14:37
Post #1405221

Thank you for your replys.

I say 'In their absence' as I doubt very much that they will travel from Sheffield to the North East.

VCS have exhausted their bullying and intimidation against me.
Their unlawful scheme/attempt to claim against me has run its course.

They have nowhere to go with this.

I've come this far, with an invaluable input from the highly regarded forum members of this commendable site.
So, it is my fullest intention to continue on against VCS; if not for me then for everyone who has/will fall foul of these dishonest fools.

The more we stand together, the sooner they fall.

Pearl

Posted by: Umkomaas Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 19:53
Post #1405288

^^ Like your style ^^

Posted by: Eljayjay Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 20:39
Post #1405301

Why aye, that's canny, pet!

I presume that, as suggested by commando, you will contact the Judge about your counterclaim.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 07:52
Post #1405365

You dont need to vary the order - only the claim was struck
However now YOU will have ot pay the hearing fee, so you need to contact the court to find out when that will be

Posted by: cyclocross Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 08:22
Post #1405379

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 10:19
Post #1405441

First N24: 9th JUly 2018 : District Judge Temple

Second N24: 3rd aug 2018 : District Judge Atherton

Allocated: In The County Court at Newcastle Upon Tyne

May Fairness rule on the day!

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 11:50
Post #1405505

Have you checked to confirm YOUR counterclaim is still live? From what youve said the judge has NOT struck that out.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 13:29
Post #1405543

Vehicle Control Services Ltd : 1st Claimant

Mrs xx xxxxxx : 1st Defendant


IT IS ORDERED THAT

1) The Claim automatically stands struck out, reason- the claimant did not comply with DJ Temple order dated 9th July 2018

2) As this order has been made by the Court without considering representations from the parties, the parties have the right to apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed. A party wishing to make an application must send or deliver the application to the Court (together with appropriate fee) to arrive within seven days of service of the order

Dated 3 Aug 2018
------------------------------
The above is Verbatim as sent

Ive already written to the Court requesting my counter claim still be considered.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 13:53
Post #1405556

Id ring up instead. You need to know ASAP - once dropped its hard to get it onto the rolls again...

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 14:10
Post #1405566

Nosferatu, many thanks I'll call them now

Regards
Pearl

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 14:24
Post #1405574

Just called the CC and been told to call back on Weds after 10.30am

The Counterclaim is still live but is to be put before a District Judge who will determine if it is to be heard?

Posted by: Albert Ross Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 15:53
Post #1405606

Was a counter-defence filed by the claimant?
Would you be better to claim indemnity costs at half band 4 for your wasted [defence] costs; and request default judgment in full for your counterclaim.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 16:38
Post #1405627

No Counter Defence filed, hence it being struck out.
POC -failed to name 'Client' therefore VCS had no Right to an Audience.

I like the notion of default judgement in full for my Counter Claim

Thank you Albert

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 19:32
Post #1405684

No, you're misunderstanding

They do not file a counter to your defence. They just follow process

However for your COUNTER CLAIM they were required to file a defence within 14 days. Did they do so? If they did not file a defence within 14 days you can just ask for default judgement to be applied - ie you win.

Posted by: Eljayjay Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 23:16
Post #1405753

My understanding is that, until relatively recently, the Claimant did have to submit a defence to a counterclaim but that is no longer deemed a necessity.

I believe this change was introduced because the defence to a counterclaim would be likely to bear a striking resemblance to the original claim.

I suppose that, as the Court seems to have regarded the original claim as being unfounded, this may indicate the Court may be willing to accept there can be no defence to the counterclaim.

Let's hope so and that Albert Ross and nosferatu1001 are proved right.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 04:06
Post #1405767

I'd say its worth a shot at applying for a default, after all if the claim has been struck out as having no merit and they have not submitted a 'defence' then they have nothing to go with, nothing ventured and all that!

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 07:34
Post #1405799

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 6 Aug 2018 - 20:32)

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 08:23
Post #1405812

Good luck, a default would be the best scenario.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 09:45
Post #1405849

This morning I spoke to the County Court and advised that no defence had been filed against my Counterclaim within 14days.

They agreed.

I was then instructed that my claim has been given priority and to email any further supporting docs.

I followed instruction and I requested, with respect that the Court consider judgement by deafult and sent all my supporting documentation; Lease: Title Deeds etc.

I now sit back and wait.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 09:58
Post #1405857

You can make an application for default, not just a request. State that, as the Claimant has no claim and no defence to counterclaim, the counterclaim should proceed to default judgement.

Posted by: Jlc Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:51
Post #1405872

How much was the counterclaim for?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:51
Post #1405873

Nosferatu
Again, many thanks

Posted by: Albert Ross Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 16:42
Post #1406014

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:45)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 17:25
Post #1406036

QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 17:42)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 10:45)

This morning I spoke to the County Court and advised that no defence had been filed against my Counterclaim within 14days.

They agreed.

I was then instructed that my claim has been given priority and to email any further supporting docs.

I followed instruction and I requested, with respect that the Court consider judgement by deafult and sent all my supporting documentation; Lease: Title Deeds etc.

I now sit back and wait.

Was a schedule for costs included?

The usual rate for a litigant in person is £19 per hour.
The conduct of the claimants issuing 35? tickets and trying to use the Court as a scare tactic with inadequate particulars of claim; which was struck out, may allow you to claim your usual professional rate for your work done on the defence. plus printing and posting
Is the court aware there were 35 tickets, or just the one in the claim.

For the question of counterclaim is denied for a striking resemblance to the Claim. The Claimants were relying on Contract Law where you are asserting your rights using Land Law.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 7 Aug 2018 - 17:43
Post #1406042

No Schedule of costs included.

Court aware of only one PCN being used in their claim of £220.

I am asserting my rights using Land Law.

My usual proffesional rate as Financial Director of my own company would be considerable and easily substantiated by HMRC form SA302 .

My Counterclaim is for considerably more than theirs and I am contend to let it take its own standing.

The Counterclaim (Extracts from)

1. I make this, my counterclaim, against the Claimant.

2. There are two grounds for making my counterclaim: the Claimant’s repeated trespass on my parking spaces; and the Claimant’s tortious interference with my lease.

3. The Claimant has been using my parking space for its business purposes since it was demised to me on 15 April 2015.

4. To the date of writing, i.e. 11 June 2018, therefore, the Claimant has made use of my parking space for the purposes of its business for a total of 1,124 days.
5. It follows that the Claimant has trespassed on my parking space for that number of days.

6. In the nearest car park available to the general public, the cost of one day’s use of a parking space is £4.

7. My understanding is that, under Common Law, insofar as trespass is concerned, the Court is required to assume a hypothetical negotiation between a willing and reasonable person in the position of the trespasser, i.e. the Claimant, and a willing and reasonable person in my own position as the leasehold owner of the land.

8. I further understand that the appropriate measure of damages for trespass is the price which such persons would have negotiated as the reasonable price payable for the relevant right of user, or the sum of money which might reasonably have been demanded as a quid pro quo for permitting the trespass.


Credits due to other forum members for Counterclaim

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 07:57
Post #1409043

.


This just in
[attachment=57371:N24_14th_Aug_2018.pdf]

So owing to an admin issue at the Court
The N24 dated 3rd Aug - VCS claim Struck Out is now set aside.

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 09:10
Post #1409054

Given what the order says, I suppose the Judge had very little option but to grant it.

It just moves the case back to where it should be in terms of time.

It does not affect its strength.

Posted by: Albert Ross Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 18:11
Post #1409375

The Order states that the claimant filed particulars of claim dated the 12/07 but it is not in the thread.

Have you received them?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 07:39
Post #1409461

I states the D received them 13th

Was there a defence to counterclaim?
You should still ask that this is awarded to you in full.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 14:25
Post #1409588

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 08:39)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 15:24)

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 08:39)

I states the D received them 13th

Was there a defence to counterclaim?
You should still ask that this is awarded to you in full.

No there has been NO Defence to my Counterclaim

They were asked to supply full and Proper details of their POC (N24 9th July which should have given them 21 days taking it to the 30th July)

The only difference in their 'Amended POC' is one paragraph stating:
The Terms & Conditions was 'Valid Permit Holders' and that the said permit must be displayed inside the front windscreen at all times. The Defendant breached the Terms & Conditions by failing to display a valid permit.

They also enclose a copy of their 'Sign'

ive also enclosed latest from court

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 14:31
Post #1409589

WHat i Was saying is

If there was no defence to counterclaim, have you checked the CPR to see what that means? You should ask the court to award your counterclaim in full.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 15:08
Post #1409600

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 15:31)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 16:36
Post #1409620

Actually just looked at CPR again and its section 15.8

I have emailed the Court pointing out that I recieved forms N149A & N271 stating that it is now a 'Defended' claim & that the Claimant must file a response.
They completedd a form N180 but no Defence

Posted by: Eljayjay Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 16:37
Post #1409621

I am sure I read somewhere that the requirement to issue a defence in response to a counterclaim no longer exists.

I am sorry to say that Part 20.11 relates to "Special provisions relating to default judgment on an additional claim other than a counterclaim or a contribution or indemnity notice".

There is, however, a bit of cross-referencing which says "(Part 15 makes provision for a defence to a claim and applies to a defence to a counterclaim by virtue of rule 20.3)." in 20.4.

I have just noticed something else on this. Be back soon.

It was a reference to 12.3 where, despite the mention of "other than a counterclaim" in 20.11, it does suggest that judgement in default of defence may be obtained "in a counterclaim made under rule 20.4, where a defence has not been filed".

I shall not pretend that I am not puzzled.

Posted by: henrik777 Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 18:27
Post #1409643

Defendant’s counterclaim against the claimant
20.4

(1) A defendant may make a counterclaim against a claimant by filing particulars of the counterclaim.

(2) A defendant may make a counterclaim against a claimant –

(a) without the court’s permission if he files it with his defence; or

(b) at any other time with the court’s permission.

(Part 15 makes provision for a defence to a claim and applies to a defence to a counterclaim by virtue of rule 20.3).

(3) Part 10 (acknowledgment of service) does not apply to a claimant who wishes to defend a counterclaim.






Application of these Rules to additional claims
20.3

(1) An additional claim shall be treated as if it were a claim for the purposes of these Rules, except as provided by this Part.

(2) The following rules do not apply to additional claims –

(a) rules 7.5 and 7.6 (time within which a claim form may be served);

(b) rule 16.3(5) (statement of value where claim to be issued in the High Court); and

© Part 26 (case management – preliminary stage).

(3) Part 12 (default judgment) applies to a counterclaim but not to other additional claims.

(4) Part 14 (admissions) applies to a counterclaim, but only –

(a) rules 14.1(1) and 14.1(2) (which provide that a party may admit the truth of another party's case in writing); and

(b) rule 14.3 (admission by notice in writing – application for judgment),

apply to other additional claims.

(Rule 12.3(2) sets out how to obtain judgment in default of defence for a counterclaim against the claimant, and rule 20.11 makes special provision for default judgment for some additional claims).

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 07:53
Post #1409764

THE RULES RELATING TO A REPLY

CPR 15.8.
“Reply to defence
15.8 If a claimant files a reply to the defence, the claimant must

(a) file the reply with a directions questionnaire; and

(b) serve the reply on the other parties at the same time as it is filed.

(Rule 26.3(1) and (6) requires the parties to file directions questionnaires and specifies the period for doing so).

(Part 22 requires a reply to be verified by a statement of truth)”


VCS completed the Directions Questionaire No Reply to Defence was filed.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 09:16
Post #1409786

IF a claimant files...
No requirement to.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 10:08
Post #1409802

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 10:16)

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 10:56
Post #1409813

That was what I thought when I said "I am sure I read somewhere that the requirement to issue a defence in response to a counterclaim no longer exists", but then I could not find anything to support.

I imagine that nosferatu1001 has found something which supports my original view.

I suppose if you think about it, it does make sense. If a claimant has every confidence in its claim and it is successful, they would almost certainly not need a defence to the counterclaim. So, why should it be a requirement to submit one?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 11:16
Post #1409824

Because a counterclaim doesnt have to be on the same points of law as the claim, is one obvious point.

They claim contract, residents claim Land.

A reply to defence is NOT a reply to counterclaim, it is merely a reply to the *defence*, as the name tells you!

Post 127 told you that you can apply for judgement in default. Have you read the referenced section?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 12:15
Post #1409834

A post last month highlighted a case where a defendant obtained judgment in default on a counterclaim. The judge refused to set aside the judgment and, in effect, the claimant’s entire claim failed. There is a clear and obvious need for a Defence to Counterclaim to be lodged. However a failure to do this properly could be just as bad as not doing it at all. The problems that inadequate pleadings can cause can be seen in the judgment of Master Matthews in Muhammad -v- ARY Properties Limited [2016] EWHC 1698 (Ch). The judgment also contains important observations on the matters that must be pleaded in a defence (which includes a defence to counterclaim).

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 12:16)

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 12:46
Post #1409844

Perhaps I took the excerpt from nos’s previous post out of context.

Whatever the situation (and, although I don’t always agree with nos, I know he is pretty good at procedural matters), it makes sense to give trying to get a default judgement a go).

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:06
Post #1409851

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:46)

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 15:23
Post #1409885

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 14:06)

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:46)

Perhaps I took the excerpt from nos’s previous post out of context.

Whatever the situation (and, although I don’t always agree with nos, I know he is pretty good at procedural matters), it makes sense to give trying to get a default judgement a go).

Me too, I'd never go against anything Nos has to offer

I have applied to the court for Judgement by Default - emailed
I'll ring them in the moring too.

Thanks all

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 16:02
Post #1409893

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 16:23)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 14:06)

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 13:46)

Perhaps I took the excerpt from nos’s previous post out of context.

Whatever the situation (and, although I don’t always agree with nos, I know he is pretty good at procedural matters), it makes sense to give trying to get a default judgement a go).

Me too, I'd never go against anything Nos has to offer

I have applied to the court for Judgement by Default - emailed
I'll ring them in the moring too.

Thanks all

You have to apply via a part 23 application and pay your monies. Of course it is always open to the court to use it's discretion but i'd doubt they'd grant a default judgment just because you emailed them.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 22 Aug 2018 - 07:39
Post #1410027

An application for default costs £100, but you should be able to get that application ADDED to the amount claimed - as it is just another court fee for them to deal with.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 13:41
Post #1411770

I have just rang the County Court.

I emailed on the 20th Aug 2018 stating that the Claimant had failed to file a defence to my Counterclaim within 14 days and requested Judgement by Default.

I have just been advised my email request has been referred to Chambers on the 21st Aug for consideration.

As Claimant they do not file a 'Defence'

As it is a Defended Claim they have to respond within 14days

(Please say I've got this right )

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 14:13
Post #1411789

They file a defence to councterclaim

That is different to having to respond to the defended claim

When a claim - NO C OUNTERCLAIM - is defended, they have to say within the timelimit whetehr they want to contionue with the claim, or discotninue.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 14:20
Post #1411792

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Tue, 28 Aug 2018 - 15:13)

Posted by: panther12 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 10:20
Post #1411988

I could be wrong but I think the procedure for requesting default judgment on a counterclaim is similar procedure to requesting DF on any normal claim where the defendant hasn't filed a defence, so if the CC was for a specified amount I would have completed & filed a N225 form with the court.

Posted by: henrik777 Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 18:27
Post #1412135

QUOTE (panther12 @ Wed, 29 Aug 2018 - 11:20)

Posted by: Albert Ross Thu, 30 Aug 2018 - 02:20
Post #1412213

The value of a parking space and hypothetical negotiations.

Kettel & Ors v Bloomfold Ltd [2012] EWHC 1422 (Ch) (25 May 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1422.html

A case in Northern Ireland: Car Park Services V Bywater Capital; however Street v Mountford and Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank arguments are defined (formation of contracts + Landlord and Tenant)
Very close to a readymade cut and paste Skeleton Argument

Car Park Services Ltd v Bywater Capital (Winetavern) Ltd [2018] NICA 22 (3 May 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2018/22.html

And Because it is VCS afterall, When they appealed HMRC to the Court of Appeal Claiming input tax on non taxable supply. Late in the day they provided a contract.
They require a contract with the landowner to allow them to claim for trespass.
Your Lease for the Car Park comes under Landlord and Tenant Law.
The Landlord or their agent have no right of re-entry.

The Landlord has or had no right to allow VCS to enforce parking controls on your land.
VCS have no authority to enforce parking on your Parking space (regardless of who parks there)

Judgment was debated http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=77414&view=findpost&p=796843 with regard to contract parking
Vehicle Control Services Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2013] EWCA Civ 186 (13 March 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/186.html

For the hearing...
If in argument you refer to a judgment, make sure you hand a copy accross to the bench for the judge to reference. Even if it is in the bundle in front of the Judge.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 31 Aug 2018 - 08:19
Post #1412604

Albert Ross & Henrik777

Thank you for your advice which is duly noted!

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 09:30
Post #1414270

Despite making several attempts to get Judgement by Default, I have yet to hear from the CC

In the meantime, the clock is ticking and I have to submit my witness statement to The CC and VCS on the 13th Sept before 16.00

I intend to name the Management Company as VCS's client and demonstrate that I have written to them twice under the Landlord and Tennant Act 1985 Section 20; asking them to show evidence of any Contracts they have entered into involving me as Landholder/Property Owner.

To date they have ingnored both my requests.

Is this Defence or Witness statement content?

Are there any Templates/Examples of Witness statements available?

With many thanks
P

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 09:37
Post #1414276

Then you will raise it at the hearing. Ask the court to render judgement in default because the claimant failed to submit a defence to counterclaim, and the facts are not the same as the claim,a s your counterclaim is based on Land law, not COntract law.

It is WS content because it is a fact.

Yes of course there are - but you cannot just copy them
You have to recite the facts related to your defence and your counter claim. I would do this in two documents, with suitable headings
Within this you refernce your applicable evidence, referenced YOURINITIALS/001 etc.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 10:11
Post #1414294

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 6 Sep 2018 - 10:37)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 12:23
Post #1416228

[attachment=57982:Form_N157.pdf]

It is now 13.15pm on the 13th Sept and I have not yet received the VCS Witness Statement as per instructions on attached form N157

My post has been delivered and the Guaranteed Next Day Delivery / Signed for 1pm deadline has also passed.

Unless their WS comes hand delivered by Courier (anyone know if this has happened?)
Looks like their Ship has sailed and I'm standing on the Pier waving it off.

I may be tempting fate however, but I'm sure nothing will turn up by 4pm.

At 1 minute past 4pm, I'll be ringing the Court.

My WS was received by both them and the CC by 12.30am yesterday.
Tracked and signed for.

Posted by: Eljayjay Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 12:36
Post #1416234

VCS’s bundle could arrive by email.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 15:28
Post #1416300

VCS have missed their deadline

16.25 !

No Witness Statement
No Letter
No email

This an only be struck out and Judgement by Default given in my favour

Posted by: Eljayjay Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 15:35
Post #1416302

I really do hope so.

I suspect VCS know that they have no chance of winning. If I am right, what would the point of them submitting anything?

But don’t count your chickens just yet.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 21:16
Post #1416408

But why shouldn't I count my chickens?

VCS failed to respond and submit a defence to my Counter claim
and now they have failed to submit a witenss statement.

What are the Court Sytems all about?
We all place are trust in these agengies and they contuniosly let us down.
Where has the justice gone in this world?

From my recent experiences with so intended crime enforemnt agencis, I'm convinced that crime does pay!
And so to that end I'm going to start importing class 'A'drugs.
Shoplifting, running a tax avoidance scheme. beating people up in the street and engaging in VAT fraud.

Not to mention running a house of ill repute.

Serioulsy, if I don't get jusitce with this shower of ****; Im turning to a life of crime.

Because at the end of the day, I just don't care anymore.

God save me from stupid people.





*our

and yes, I'm drunk again!

Posted by: Umkomaas Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 21:26
Post #1416410

Steady fella!

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 21:29
Post #1416413

I have just encountered a lovely Barrister chappy, for whom a good bottle of Red he will do his upmost to be of upstanding quailty and unconciousable standing, willing to give his support at every turning.

I rest my case your Honour.

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 22:26)

Steady fella!

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 22:04
Post #1416423

I'm just a sweet old lady who listens to Radio 4 and who truly trusts and believes in the Justice System,

Evil will always win
If the good do nothing

Posted by: ostell Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 22:19
Post #1416429

Unfortunately the courts will, yet again smack wrist of VCS but give them extra time to get their witness statement into the court, not that the likes us poor litigants in person would be given that break. Or VCS could claim that the court have lost their witness statement that they sent and please can we adjourn so that we can prepare another. If VCS end up saying it was sent but never arrived then please demand that they show the proof that they actually sent it. That's why free certificate of posting is always recommended.

Edit: Best of luck with the counterclaim.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 23:22
Post #1416444

It stinks!
Why oh why should they be given so much opportunity to flaunt the system!

Serioulsy it's so unfair.

I want my day in court with these people.

How and why should they be allowed to get away with a flagrant and shamless abuse of the legal process

QUOTE (ostell @ Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 23:19)

Unfortunately the courts will, yet again smack wrist of VCS but give them extra time to get their witness statement into the court, not that the likes us poor litigants in person would be given that break. Or VCS could claim that the court have lost their witness statement that they sent and please can we adjourn so that we can prepare another. If VCS end up saying it was sent but never arrived then please demand that they show the proof that they actually sent it. That's why free certificate of posting is always recommended.

Edit: Best of luck with the counterclaim.

QUOTE

Chappy !! I shall have you know Sir I am a Female of undisputed integrity!

Prove It!!!!

Posted by: Eljayjay Thu, 13 Sep 2018 - 23:27
Post #1416446

Justice will out. It just takes its time.

You’re nearly there.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 11:37
Post #1416554

NEWS JUST IN: NEWS JUST IN : NEWS JUST IN

I been awarded Judgement by Defalut as VCS failed to enter a Defence to my Counter Claim
Full amount of £4496 + £185 =£4681

I only rang the Court to ask if they had received VCS's WS and they said No.
The guy then said it had already been decided anyway and gave me the news!
Judgement forms on their way to me.

Of course VCS's can appeal but with the WS not being received in time I hope the Court will dismiss it!

Posted by: ostell Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 11:43
Post #1416559

Well Done !!!!

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 11:45
Post #1416562

QUOTE (ostell @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:43)

Posted by: henrik777 Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:28
Post #1416588

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:37)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:34
Post #1416590

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:28)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:37)

NEWS JUST IN: NEWS JUST IN : NEWS JUST IN

I been awarded Judgement by Defalut as VCS failed to enter a Defence to my Counter Claim
Full amount of £4496 + £185 =£4681

I only rang the Court to ask if they had received VCS's WS and they said No.
The guy then said it had already been decided anyway and gave me the news!
Judgement forms on their way to me.

Of course VCS's can appeal but with the WS not being received in time I hope the Court will dismiss it!

Their claim is still live though ?

Posted by: henrik777 Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:35
Post #1416592

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:34)

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:28)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:37)

NEWS JUST IN: NEWS JUST IN : NEWS JUST IN

I been awarded Judgement by Defalut as VCS failed to enter a Defence to my Counter Claim
Full amount of £4496 + £185 =£4681

I only rang the Court to ask if they had received VCS's WS and they said No.
The guy then said it had already been decided anyway and gave me the news!
Judgement forms on their way to me.

Of course VCS's can appeal but with the WS not being received in time I hope the Court will dismiss it!

Their claim is still live though ?

I don't know.

It'll be struck out as they failed to provide the Court and Me with their WS within timescale
Court still not in receipt of it today. Deadline was 13th Sept 16.00pm

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:39
Post #1416594

Do bear in mind that the date for submission has already been put back once at VCS's request.

From Pearlofwisdom's previous posts, it does seem that her defence, etc. was finding favour with the Court.

Furthermore, I think the Court office would not have said "you have won" if there was any doubt about that. Instead, they would probably have said "you will have to wait and see".

As judgement has been awarded against them, VCS's claim is not still live unless they appeal successfully.

I doubt that VCS will be allowed to appeal.

In addition, the defence, etc. were so strong that, even if VCS were allowed to appeal, I believe the appeal would not be upheld.

As I mentioned yesterday, "I suspect VCS know that they have no chance of winning. If I am right, what would the point of them submitting anything?".

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:45
Post #1416596

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:35)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:34)

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:28)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:37)

NEWS JUST IN: NEWS JUST IN : NEWS JUST IN

I been awarded Judgement by Defalut as VCS failed to enter a Defence to my Counter Claim
Full amount of £4496 + £185 =£4681

I only rang the Court to ask if they had received VCS's WS and they said No.
The guy then said it had already been decided anyway and gave me the news!
Judgement forms on their way to me.

Of course VCS's can appeal but with the WS not being received in time I hope the Court will dismiss it!

Their claim is still live though ?

I don't know.

It'll be struck out as they failed to provide the Court and Me with their WS within timescale
Court still not in receipt of it today. Deadline was 13th Sept 16.00pm

The claim could proceed without evidence It is quite unlikely a judge would kick it out so soon after the deadline.

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:47
Post #1416597

I think it is henrik777 who is confused.

Posted by: henrik777 Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:50
Post #1416598

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:45)

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:35)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:34)

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:28)

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 12:37)

NEWS JUST IN: NEWS JUST IN : NEWS JUST IN

I been awarded Judgement by Defalut as VCS failed to enter a Defence to my Counter Claim
Full amount of £4496 + £185 =£4681

I only rang the Court to ask if they had received VCS's WS and they said No.
The guy then said it had already been decided anyway and gave me the news!
Judgement forms on their way to me.

Of course VCS's can appeal but with the WS not being received in time I hope the Court will dismiss it!

Their claim is still live though ?

I don't know.

It'll be struck out as they failed to provide the Court and Me with their WS within timescale
Court still not in receipt of it today. Deadline was 13th Sept 16.00pm

The claim could proceed without evidence It is quite unlikely a judge would kick it out so soon after the deadline.

Im confused. If default Judgement has been awarded in my favour, does that not mean the case is now over?

They were ONE day late with their full and detailed POC and the Judge 'Struck it Out'

But becasue of a Court admin error it was 'Struck Back in again'

So if they don't have their WS today - same thing will happen

Posted by: Eljayjay Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 13:16
Post #1416606

henrik777 is confused

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 14:20
Post #1416618

I'd be suspicious of this one.

The counterclaim approach is a novel one which they had not seen before. VCS are not a "mass market" claimant and tend to be very specific about what they are trying to achieve and will throw money at it (VCS v HMRC).

The Airport/Byelaw cases that are around at the moment are another example and they appear to have been able to differentiate in "No stopping" cases compared to the Bull case by using Crutchley.

Eljayjay might want to take this off board for the moment.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 14:33
Post #1416624

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 15:20)

Posted by: whjohnson Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 14:40
Post #1416629

Well I say (a premature) well done.

Hurting them in the pocket is the only language they seem to understand, although £4K+ is but a mere day's takings for them in the great scheme of things. £40+K might have made them sit up and take notice!

Nice to see this particular company's balls nailed to the wall for a change.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 14:59
Post #1416633

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 15:33)

QUOTE (emanresu @ Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 15:20)

I'd be suspicious of this one.

The counterclaim approach is a novel one which they had not seen before. VCS are not a "mass market" claimant and tend to be very specific about what they are trying to achieve and will throw money at it (VCS v HMRC).

The Airport/Byelaw cases that are around at the moment are another example and they appear to have been able to differentiate in "No stopping" cases compared to the Bull case by using Crutchley.

Eljayjay might want to take this off board for the moment.

VCS have claimed their client is "The Landowner" when in fact their client is the previous Mangement Agent, not the current one.

They have produced an out of date Contract with a FM company that no longer exisit.

Their Contract should be with the Lessor, not their Agent.

The Lessor has no right to introduce a third party without a Contract agreement with me or Deed of Variation of the Lease.

Ther case has no merit.

Said out of date Contrcat is signed by some 'Doris' - Northeast Property Manager.
How dare some employee think they can control where & when I park on Land of which I am the Landholder!

Posted by: emanresu Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 15:13
Post #1416639

Posted by: henrik777 Fri, 14 Sep 2018 - 16:08
Post #1416657

It's a rather large hurdle to overcome, a default judgment, when you can't claim you weren't served and decided to ignore it.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 10:23
Post #1416774

[attachment=58033:Form_N24.pdf]
Here it is

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1) Judgement in default of filing of defence for the Defendant etc etc.

No addtional add on re: Parties have the right to have the order set aside, varied or stayed.

So can VCS still appeal?

Many thanks
P

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 10:52
Post #1416782

Remove the claim number as well!

No date ordered for settlement? Subject to the comments of others, you may have to chase that down with the court. I believe there is normally a 'payable by' date included. I'm looking forward to them being in default and you sending in the bailiffs!

Great news!

Posted by: ostell Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 11:09
Post #1416786

No date could be construed as forthwith, the legal term for "now". Start counting the days and we'll be able to see a CCJ against their name.

Hope we'll see them on "Can't pay We'll take it away", there's been quite a few the other way.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 11:25
Post #1416793

QUOTE (ostell @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 12:09)

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 11:33
Post #1416798

I am keeping my fgingers crossed for you that no further obstacles are put between you and the counter where you'll cash that cheque.

All I ask is that once ypour payment is secured, that you go to the press, local radio station etc and tell them all about the case.

It may well cool VCS's ardour in bringing such absurd claims against others in future.

Posted by: mjmkfm Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 13:30
Post #1416830

Can I firstly thank all contributors to this thread as it has been a very valuable and reassuring source of information as I am dealing with a very similar issue.

I share the sentiments of dis-belief that our systems allow Companies to operate knowingly illegal business models.

I am in the process of having exactly the same argument with VCS on behalf of my son who was issued 4 PCNs in respect of an apartment that he rents. Our appeal has been rejected and I fear I will be proceeding down the same route. His tenancy agreement, that references the main headlease for the apartment (that the landlord has kindly provided) is clear on all the same points as here in respect of his allocated parking space. So I share the view that there is no legal grounds at all for the PCNs to be raised. So unless there is some hidden difference between a tenant and the rights of the Leaseholder then I think the situation is virtually identical. There is no doubt these Companies use the courts to threaten and bully people into paying. So congratulations on your perseverance with this and a thank you to you and all the contributors.

Posted by: henrik777 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 13:31
Post #1416831

I would still wish to check the status of the original claim (them v you)


Time for complying with a judgment or order
40.11 A party must comply with a judgment or order for the payment of an amount of money (including costs) within 14 days of the date of the judgment or order, unless –

(a) the judgment or order specifies a different date for compliance (including specifying payment by instalments);

(b) any of these Rules specifies a different date for compliance; or

© the court has stayed the proceedings or judgment.

(Parts 12 and 14 specify different dates for complying with certain default judgments and judgments on admissions)

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 13:39
Post #1416835

mjmkfm

Do start your own thread.

I shall be glad to help in any way I can.

Posted by: mjmkfm Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 16:00
Post #1416855

Eljayjay

New thread started - many thanks.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 16:46
Post #1416863

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 14:31)

Posted by: henrik777 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 17:16
Post #1416867

Technically i believe you are correct.

However, this is a common flaw within the court system. How can VCS be expected to know about it before the court sends it out on 13th ? Deemed service would be Monday 16th unless they admit to getting it on Friday 14th.

I wouldn't be too hasty. You could politely enquire on Monday to see what they are saying.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 17:34
Post #1416872

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 18:16)

Posted by: henrik777 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 17:36
Post #1416873

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 18:34)

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 18:16)

Technically i believe you are correct.

However, this is a common flaw within the court system. How can VCS be expected to know about it before the court sends it out on 13th ? Deemed service would be Monday 16th unless they admit to getting it on Friday 14th.

I wouldn't be too hasty. You could politely enquire on Monday to see what they are saying.

I agree and have fallen foul of the Court's delayed dispatch of Judgement Notices.

Would I be correct in saying VCS would only have the right to appeal, if there had essentially been a Hearing and Judgement awarded in my favour.

As it was a Default Judgement, there is no right to Appeal?

Many thanks
P

Posted by: ostell Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 19:46
Post #1416890

As you have the judgement I would suggest not prompting VCS and reminding them until such time as they can't appeal the judgement. I believe there is a very limited time to appeal, When the letter is opened in the office will the mail opener know what to do with it? If the format is not known to them it may go on the "look at it later " pile.

When the time allowed to appeal is over and they haven't then go in all guns blazing.

Posted by: cabbyman Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 19:59
Post #1416893

+1

Posted by: Albert Ross Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 20:34
Post #1416900

Without wanting to sound like a harbinger of doom.

I would like to suggest that a hearing on the principle claim, if it goes in their favour may elicit an appeal on the counterclaim. Even if it is out of time.

Or more likely that a no contest on the principle claim would mean that the counterclaim would have no persuasive weight for it not being argued in open court.
An appeal on the counterclaim, effectively a setaside. That includes the principle claim hearing.

You may have a pyrrhic victory with no persuasive effect.

But well done.. & as you have so far, have faith in the system.

Posted by: henrik777 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 20:59
Post #1416904

QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 21:34)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 21:06
Post #1416905

QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 21:34)

Posted by: henrik777 Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 21:30
Post #1416906

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 22:06)

QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 21:34)

Without wanting to sound like a harbinger of doom.

I would like to suggest that a hearing on the principle claim, if it goes in their favour may elicit an appeal on the counterclaim. Even if it is out of time.

Or more likely that a no contest on the principle claim would mean that the counterclaim would have no persuasive weight for it not being argued in open court.
An appeal on the counterclaim, effectively a setaside. That includes the principle claim hearing.

You may have a pyrrhic victory with no persuasive effect.

But well done.. & as you have so far, have faith in the system.

They have failed to provide their WS within timescale. (Should be Struck Out)

Default Judgement ordered on no Defense being submitted to Counterclaim.

How many 'Pass Go and collect £200 cards' will the Courts permit?

Posted by: Eljayjay Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 22:36
Post #1416909

There is absolutely no possibility that VCS will win their claim.

It is hopelessly and fatally flawed.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with the counterclaim.

It may be novel in a parking case, but the basis of calculation is a recognised method of longstanding in other cases.

All of the current speculation is simply that - speculation. Que sera sera.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 11:16
Post #1416967

There is always a possibility. That's litigation risk. We've seen a couple courts bend over backwards for a claimant, and some for a defendant.

I would ask that the claim is struck out by the court, pursuant to the order of x date. Send in a letter so it's on the file.

Posted by: henrik777 Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 11:38
Post #1416977

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:16)

Posted by: Pensioner Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 15:02
Post #1417025

and the next move: After the 21 days to appeal has passed.

https://www.courtenforcementservices.co.uk/services/ccjs-transferring-high-court/

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 18:15
Post #1417116

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:38)

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:16)

There is always a possibility. That's litigation risk. We've seen a couple courts bend over backwards for a claimant, and some for a defendant.

I would ask that the claim is struck out by the court, pursuant to the order of x date. Send in a letter so it's on the file.

Pursuant to the order ? The order doesn't appear to me to mention the original claim, merely the counterclaim ?

Phone the court and clarify the original claim status, surely ?

Posted by: henrik777 Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 18:33
Post #1417120

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 19:15)

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:38)

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:16)

There is always a possibility. That's litigation risk. We've seen a couple courts bend over backwards for a claimant, and some for a defendant.

I would ask that the claim is struck out by the court, pursuant to the order of x date. Send in a letter so it's on the file.

Pursuant to the order ? The order doesn't appear to me to mention the original claim, merely the counterclaim ?

Phone the court and clarify the original claim status, surely ?

What about the original order from the court to submit WS by a specific date?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 20:16
Post #1417138

A sanction for failing to comply with an order can be to strike the claim out of its the claimant at fault

For example https://www.jpcreditsolutions.co.uk/site/blog/witness-statement-sanctions-and-importance-of-adhering-to-court

Posted by: henrik777 Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 21:45
Post #1417161

Rule 32 doesn't apply to the small claims track.

Rule 32 does have sanctions attached and the judge in that case also specified sanctions.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 07:22
Post #1417190

Every DQ we've ever seen has no witnesses listed, or to be determined. Meaning to intrduce evidence they need a WS. No WS, no evidence, just their initial claim.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 08:14
Post #1417204

Just rang CC and although it isn't stated on Form N24, notifiying me of Judgement in Default dated 13th Sept 2018.

The orginal claim brought by VCS against me has been struck out.

The orginal claim is NO longer live.

I have been advised to email the CC today and request that this be written up on a General Form of Judgement or Order form.

Posted by: henrik777 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 08:32
Post #1417208

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:14)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 08:33
Post #1417209

Good news!

they will NOT enjoy paying this one, so expect an appeal.

I would request your payment ASAP, and if they dont pay or appeal in time, then start enforcement. Straight to High Court given it is over £600.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:00
Post #1417214

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:33)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 09:41
Post #1417223

Assumig you do get your cash, can we suggest a small donation to a charity or to this site? It helps keep it running if you choose the latter, and the former makes you feel good

As I said, I would expect them to appeal, or rather set aside, but that SHOULD be money down the drain.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 10:42
Post #1417236

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 10:41)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 10:48
Post #1417237

I tend to go to various HIV / AIDS charities such as Stonewall, Terence Higgins Trust etc as my first choice. Thanks so much for the offer

I keep my inbox full as otherwise I get inundanted, as do the other regulars, but not usually for such pleasureable requests!

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 11:35
Post #1417251

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Mon, 17 Sep 2018 - 11:48)

I tend to go to various HIV / AIDS charities such as Stonewall, Terence Higgins Trust etc as my first choice. Thanks so much for the offer

I keep my inbox full as otherwise I get inundanted, as do the other regulars, but not usually for such pleasureable requests!

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 05:14
Post #1417470

No wish to be a doubting Thomas but it is still early days.

However IF they pay up, could some of the money not be allocated to a Transcript. By paying up they will have confirmed the line of attack used is a valid one which can be used against them again and again. The Transcript would support this.

My personal view, is they have paid for a Barrister to look at this for an appeal, as it could be very expensive for them to let it lay.


Edited: Forgot it was a default judgment.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 07:42
Post #1417489

Emanresu - would it not have to be a set asie,d and under what possible grounds could they set aside?
They knew of the counterclaim, as it was sent to them by the court
They failed to repsond
So judgement was entered in default of a defence to counterclaim AND their claim was dismissed as they havent filed the required bundle .

Hiring a barrister to tel lthem they f***ed up would be funny, but I dont see how they can get back from this one...

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 07:59
Post #1417498

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 08:03
Post #1417499

Oh indeed not, but Im still trying to work out how a set aside could be argued

Certainly the OP would want to object to even there being a hearing on this - they ignored a counterclaim, and got a default judgement. A D to a standard claim wouldnt get a second bite at this, not without some other reason!

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 09:05
Post #1417530

When you only have one side of the story it's pretty difficult to determine what may ,or may not, be available to argue for a set aside.

The court admin is generally poor and slow. I'd be inclined to contact the claimant and ask when payment would be forthcoming, not to hurry payment necessarily, but to see what they say regarding receipt of paperwork and their intention.

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 09:13
Post #1417536

......But surely not until the deadline for any possible set aside/appeal (IF such is even possible) has passed?

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 09:26
Post #1417545

Why ? If they don't know about it alerting them gives them a deadline (or at least makes it hard to argue out of time on the basis they did not know), if they do know about it the deadline doesn't change.

Posted by: cabbyman Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 09:39
Post #1417549

But making it impossible to argue is a bit more than making it hard to argue. As you rightly surmise, the debt isn't going away, unless they successfully argue set aside/appeal. Why give them the chance to even consider that when a wait of a few more days guarantees that they can't wriggle out of it?

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 09:47
Post #1417553

If you miss the deadline for set aside it's not impossible to have it set aside. In fact we regularly see many default CCJs set aside months and years later because the victim didn't know about it initially.

If you can argue at a set aside application and evidence the fact you told them then that's a massive hurdle as applications must be made promptly.

Posted by: kommando Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 09:51
Post #1417556

I would not be alerting them to the deadline, let the deadline pass and then they are the ones doing the worrying and concocting a way out of the mess they got themselves into.

Posted by: Pensioner Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 10:01
Post #1417561

I would just leave it for a month from the date judgements, that will be well beyond the time limit for any appeals.


Without any notification to the claimant fill in and send the forms for uplifting to the High Court (Fee £66.00). All the other costs are added to the debt.

https://www.courtenforcementservices.co.uk/services/ccjs-transferring-high-court/

Posted by: Redivi Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 10:32
Post #1417575

Does anyone know the layout of 2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park ?

The address is shared with Excel and I wouldn't put it past Excel/VCS to tell the bailiffs that VCS has no assets there

A couple of alternatives :

Apply for an order to freeze a bank account if known

Apply for an order to force Simon R-S into court to be questioned about the bank accounts

Posted by: kommando Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 10:35
Post #1417576

Why not apply for an order that all judgements won by VCS are paid to POV until the full amount is paid. So the only way not to pay POV is by VCS not winning any more claims.

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 10:41
Post #1417579

It's 1 day past deemed service of the order (an order which was ages ago but still ...).

Take a chill pill people.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 11:31
Post #1417599

Should VCs appeal, I would aver that the Appellant was put to Strict Proof as to how & why they failed to submit a Defence to Counterclaim and failed to submit their WS Bundle on time.

It still wasn’t with the CC on Monday 17th Sept. 4 Days passed deadline.

It not just a hurdle it’s Bechers Brook

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 12:20
Post #1417615

Strict proof is just proof

t still hadnt been processed by that point...

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 12:30
Post #1417624

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 21:59)

QUOTE (Albert Ross @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 21:34)

Without wanting to sound like a harbinger of doom.

I would like to suggest that a hearing on the principle claim, if it goes in their favour may elicit an appeal on the counterclaim. Even if it is out of time.

Or more likely that a no contest on the principle claim would mean that the counterclaim would have no persuasive weight for it not being argued in open court.
An appeal on the counterclaim, effectively a setaside. That includes the principle claim hearing.

You may have a pyrrhic victory with no persuasive effect.

But well done.. & as you have so far, have faith in the system.

Out of time set asides are a huge pain if you don't have a very good reason. http://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/05/29/setting-aside-judgment-delay-and-denton-promptness-considered-delay-must-be-explained/

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 12:53
Post #1417634

And here's me thinking I was on a roll!

I was woken up this morning by the Local Hunt out Cubbing in my field at the back of the house.

I ran out and yelled at them that "They were nothing but a Gang of unlawful serial Trespassers tortuously interfering with my Freehold.

They looked at me like I was a Mad woman.

Note to self - calm down!

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 18 Sep 2018 - 23:08
Post #1417899

Try some signage along the lines...

PRIVATE LAND

HORSE PARKING IS FREE FOR A HORSE DISPLAYING A PERMIT.

THE RIDER OF ANY HORSE PARKING WITHOUT DISPLAYING A PERMIT AGREES TO PAY A HORSE PARKING CHARGE OF £100.

But do not hire VCS to manage the parking scheme for you.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 07:06
Post #1417914

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 00:08)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 08:56
Post #1417946

Pretty sure they have right to roam

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 09:20
Post #1417957

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 09:56)

Pretty sure they have right to roam

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 09:30
Post #1417962

Which bit of POFA deals with the transfer of liability to the rider for any transgression incurred by the horse?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 09:34
Post #1417965

It isnt parking, so theyd have to use something else

Posted by: Fluffykins Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 10:12
Post #1417976

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 10:34)

It isnt parking, so theyd have to use something else

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 10:18
Post #1417981

QUOTE (Fluffykins @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 11:12)

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 19 Sep 2018 - 10:34)

It isnt parking, so theyd have to use something else

Don't you just love neighsayers? ........

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 14:15
Post #1419594

VCS have filed an Application to set aside the Judgement by Default, given the seriousness of the Order.

They base their case upon good reason of a defence being filed and the claimant having a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

In addition the Claimant seeks that the Court excercise its powers pursunat to CPR 3.4 (2) and strike out the defendants counterclaim given that is has no real prospects of success.

They go on to claim I am not the owner of the Demised land and I am not granted immediate and exclusive possession in any event.

Furthermore, the claimant denies that the defendant owns the apartment or the any applicable demised parking space. (sic)

Thoughts ???

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 14:30
Post #1419601

Post the actual applicaiton, I would suggest. It helps to see it set out.

Posted by: kommando Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 14:44
Post #1419605

So nothing about why they did not file a defence to the counterclaim when required ?

No good waiting until they see how much they have to pay to then decide if they will defend, hopefully.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 14:55
Post #1419606

[attachment=58270:vcs_part_1.pdf]

Sending part 1 now as file to big to up load all at once

May have to delete this file to get part 2 uploaded

Let me know when your ready for file 2 and I'll upload
Thanks
P

QUOTE (kommando @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 15:44)

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 15:08
Post #1419607

I'm ready for file 2.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 15:16
Post #1419611

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 16:08)

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 15:30
Post #1419613

This is the VCS statement after being OCR's. It has not bee proof-read and may leave some things to be desired.


I, Jake Burgess, of 2 Europa Court, Sheffield Business Park, Sheffield, S9 !XE, will say as
follows:
1. The facts and matters referred to in this statement are within my own knowledge,
except where I have indicated otherwise. Where the facts are within my
knowledge, they are true. Where they are not within my own knowledge, they are
true to the best of my information and belief.
2. I am employed by Vehicle Control Services Limited as an Associate Legal
Executive and have been employed since September 2015.
History
3. The Claimant has brought proceedings against the Defendant in respect of an
unpaid Parking Charge Notice ["PCN"] issued for breaching the Terms and
Conditions of parking situated at the Residents Car Park
Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 IJN. The Defendant has failed to settle her
outstanding liability.
4. The Defendant filed a defence to the Claimant's claim and a counterclaim for the
sum of £4,496.00 for trespass and tortious interference with her lease. The
Claimant filed a defence to the counterclaim on the 28 June 2018.
5. The Claimant issued proceedings on the 28 May 2018 followed by further
detailed Particulars of Claim to which was filed and served on the 29 May 2018.
The Defendant duly filed a Defence and Counterclaim on the 18 June 2018.
6. The Claimant hereby filed a defence and lodged the Direction Questionnaires on
the 28 June 2018. It is unknown as to when the Defendant filed their Direction
Questionnaires due to the Claimant not having sight of a copy.
7. On the 21 June 2018, District Judge Temple ordered further directions in
so far as
'the Claimant shall by 4pm on the 12 July 2018 provide to the Court and the
Defendant fall and proper Particulars if it's claim. In default of compliance the
claim shall stand struck out without further order'.
8. Notwithstanding the fact that this order was not drawn up until the 9 July 2018
and received at our Head Office on the 12 July 2018, the Claimant duly complied
and filed and served a copy of the Particulars of Claim on the 12 July 2018 at
15:24 by email to ci, il.nc\\castlc.countvcoun'i"1 jusuce.!!O\ .uk and by first class
post upon the Defendant.
9. On the 3 August 2018 District Judge Atherton made an order confirming 'The
claim automatically stands struck out, reason - the Claimant did not comply with
DJ Temple order dated 9 July 2018'. As such, the only matter that would proceed
to Trial would be the Defendant's Counterclaim.
I 0. On or around the 3 August 2018 the Claimant contacted the County Court at
Newcastle tu confirm that the order of District Judge Temple had indeed been
complied with-and requested that-the
matter be referred to a designated Distriet
Judge for the purpose of setting aside the order of District Judge Atherton dated
the 3 August 2018.
11. On the 13 August 2018, the Claimant received a Notice of Allocation to the Small
Claims and Directions. Further, the Defendant was incorporated into a Part 20
Claimant based upon the Counterclaim and Defence.
12. On the 14 August 2018 District Judge Malik duly ordered:
'Upon reading the Court file; And upon noting the Order of District Judge
Temple which she made on the 21 June 2018 was not typed until the 9 July 2018
and only gave the Claimant until the 12 July 2018 when it is clear from the
manuscript of her order that the time for the Claimant to provide Particulars of
Claim to the Court and the Defendant was to be by 4:00pm 21 days from when the
order was typed making that to be 30 July 2018; and Upon the Claimant having
filed and served Particulars of Claim under cover of their letter dated the 12 July
2018, received by the Court on 16 July 2018 and by the Defendant on 13 July
2018;
IT IS ORDERED THAT
1) The order of District Judge Atherton dated 3 August 2018 be and is hereby set
aside.
2) Claim to be listed for a small claims Track hearing at Newcastle County
Court with a time estimate of 2 hours. (Details of hearing date and time to
follow)
13. On the 22 August 2018, District Judge Temple ordered 'Judgment in default of
filing of defence for the Defendant/Part 20 Claimant upon the counterclaim in the
sum of £4,496.00 as claimed together with the court fees of £185.00'.
14. Given the seriousness of this order. the Claimant ha� hereby tiled an Application
to set aside Judgment based upon good reasons of a Defence being filed and the
Claimant having a real prospect of successfully defending the claim.
15. In addition, the Claimant seeks that the court exercise its powers pursuant to CPR
3.4 (2) and strike out the Defendant's counterclaim given that it has no real
prospect of success.
The Application (2 Fold)
CPR 13.2 and
CPR 13.3
16. The application is made pursuant to CPR 13 .2 in so far as the Court must set
aside Judgment entered under Part 12 if Judgment was wrongly entered because;
(a) in the case of a judgment in default of an acknowledgment of service, any of
the conditions in rule 12.3(1) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied;
(b) in the case of a judgment in default of a defence, any of the conditions in rule
12.3(2) and 12.3(3) was not satisfied; or
© the whole of the claim was satisfied before judgment was entered.
17. The Claimant submits that CPR 13.2 (a) does not apply given that the Judgment
entered derived from a counterclaim, however, CPR 13.2 (b) does apply in so far
as Defences. The Claimant submits that a Defence (attached to the Claimant's
Direction Questionnaire) was filed to the Counterclaim and lodged with the
County Court Business Centre and the County Court at Newcastle on the 28 June
2018.
18. Given that directions were previously listed would indicate that the County
Court at Newcastle has had receipt of both these documents and therefore the
Claimant does not understand why Judgment by default was entered.
19. Further, and for the sake of advancing the Claimant's Application further, the
Claimant also relies upon the provisions of CPR 13.3 (a) and (b), such being;
(I) In any other case, the court may set aside or vary a judgment entered under
Part 12 if;
(a) The Defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim; or
(b) It appears to the court that there is some other good reason why -
(i)
The Judgment should be set aside or varied; or
(ii) The Defendant should be allowed to defend the claim.
(2) In considering whether to set aside or vary Judgment entered under Part 12,
the matters to which the Court must have regard include whether the person
seeking to set aside the Judgment made an application to do so promptly.
Promptness
20. The Court should first consider whether this application was made promptly. The
Claimant submits that promptness is an important matter to which the Court
must have regard too. Whilst the constitution of promptness will be judged by
the Court on the basis of all the facts of the case, reference is made to Hart
Investments v Fidler (2006) EWHC 2857 (in the 2014 White Book notes at
13.3.3) HH Judge Coulson held that a delay of 59 days in making the application
to set aside Judgment
in
default was 'very much the outer limit of what could
possibly be acceptable'.
21. The Claimant submits that the Judgment was granted on the 22 August 2018
albeit not drawn up until the 13 September 2018 and received at the Claimant's
Head Office on the 18 September 2018. The Claimant's application is dated the
24 September 2018 and therefore this falls well within the time frame outlined
by HHJ Coulson.
Real Prospect of Success
22. The Claimant avers that the Claimant has a real prospect of successfully
defending the counterclaim to which is a claim for an alleged trespass. The
Claimant vehemently rejects the Defendant's allegation with respect to
trespassing on privately rented land. The Claimant submits that trespass to land
involves the 'unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and
exclusive possession of another".
23. The Claimant avers that the Defendant is not the landowner nor does the
Defendant have immediate and exclusive possession of the land identified as
+
Jesmond Road, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE2 IJB whether in whole or in part.
C-.'<:>'C>�'::.
N �;'.)
•
24. It is evident that the Defendant is merely a leaseholder of an apartment and an
individual parking space. The Defendant is not the owner of the demised parking
space and onlr the freehold owns the building and the land it stands on outright,
in perpetuity. The Defendant has a lease between the freeholder (sometimes
called the landlord) and their nominated management company to use the home,
or parking space as the case may be, for a number of years.
-* .. s �<?..Q.'"
25. The freehold is Barratt Homes Ltd and the management company, First Port
=-..,.._,'la.:;,
\_\Sa,-,;� A.,
formerly OM Property Management Ltd, have the ability to control and manage
c"""'�" �s
\---<1.0,,)5� •
the development as they deem fit subject to the legal obligations within the lease.
In
essence, they have the right to control the development along with any
associated demised parking space irrespective of whether the Defendant has a
long lease.
26. Notwithstanding the above, it is further argued that a demised parking space
subject to a lease does not grant the Defendant immediate and exclusive
possession in any event. It is argued that a single parking space is defined as an
easement and therefore the right stops short of granting exclusive possession of
the land to the leaseholder.
An
27.
easement should not confer exclusive possession or prevent the owner from
making reasonable use of his land or property. The Claimant makes reference to
the case of
Kettel v Bloomfield 2012
to suppo
rt
their ar
gum
en
ts
that a sing
l
e
parking space is de
fin
ed as an easement and therefore c
ann
ot amount to
im
mediate and exclusive possession.
28. Notwithstanding the above, the Claimant has permission to occupy the
development by way of a licence from the management company, First Port
formerly OM Property Management Ltd, to provide a parking enforcement
scheme since the 21 July 2() 14 and continues to nm in correlation with clause
6.5.
29. The Claimant submits that First Port formerly OM Property Management Ltd is
the nominated management company on behalf of Barratt Homes Ltd and is
stipulated as a party within the lease. As such, irrespective of whether the
Defendant has a lease, it does not stop any other vested party to the lease from
contracting with third parties for the benefit of the amenities.
30. The granter of the licence only requires to have a right to grant the licence to
which allows the Claimant to occupy the development. As such, the Claimant
denies any allegation of trespass and submits that they have consent to enter the
development and provide a parking enforcement scheme.
31. Based on the Defendant's claim of trespass by tortious interference, there are no
grounds given the Defendant has no legal right to exclude others from entering
her parking space. Therefore, given that the Defendant has no grounds to exclude
it cannot be considered as having immediate and exclusive possession of land to
which the Defendant claims trespass of.
32. Following on from that, given that the freeholder or management company has a
right to control and manage the demised parking space they have given consent
to the Claimant to manage and enforce a parking scheme as allowed under the
terms of the lease.
Some Other Good Reason
33. The Court should use their discretionary grounds to set aside the Judgment given
that a defence was filed with the County Court Business Centre and the County
* Court at Newcastle on the 28 June 2018. The Claimant had no reason to believe
<cu� 't:>='\t:.'S Q��'
,
that the Court did not receive such given that several Directions were listed as a
result.
Strike Out of Counterclaim pursuant to CPR 3.4
34. The Claimant submits that the Defendant does not have any reasonable grounds to
bringing a claim:
1)
In
this rule and rule 3.5, reference to a statement of case includes reference to
part of a statement of case.
(2) The court +ay strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -
(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or
defending the claim;
(b} that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise
likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or
© that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court
order.
35. The Claimant submits that the Defendant does not have any reasonable grounds to
bringing a claim as outlined in Paragraph 22 to 32. For the sake of clarity, they are
as followed;
a) The Defendant does not have immediate and exclusive possession of the
demised parking space and therefore has no standing to sue;
b) The Claimant has consent to enter the development to which the Defendant
alleged to have ownership of;
c) The Defendant's quantum is misconceived.
Order
36. The Claimant respectfully request that the Court hereby order the following:
1) Judgment dated the 22 August 2018 be set aside
2) The Defendant's Counterclaim be dismissed
3) Costs in the case.
STATEMENT OF TRUTH
I
believe the contents of this statement are true
Sign
.
Jake Burgess
Associate Legal Executive A.CILEx
For and on behalf 1Vehicle Control Services Limited
Enclosed:
Chain of Correspondence
Claimant's Licence to Occupy Windsor Mews, Newcastle

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 15:40
Post #1419615

So it's going to a circuit judge to look at the paperwork - like the Ambler case.

Is the location Regency Court?

Could be a bonus in this one if it goes the right way.

Posted by: Eljayjay Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 15:52
Post #1419620

I have only skim-read it so far.

VCS seems to be relying on there being an easement to park as opposed to either a much stronger right to park or even a much stronger still demised parking space.

It is not often that I use text-speak but I think LOL might be appropriate.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 16:02
Post #1419623

QUOTE (emanresu @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 16:40)

Posted by: emanresu Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 16:50
Post #1419638

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 17:02
Post #1419641

Did you ever get their DQ which they claimed had their defence ?


https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1422.html&query=(kettel)

Posted by: kommando Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 17:43
Post #1419650

Hmmm, bonus indeed.

Posted by: Quicksilver Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:36
Post #1419664

Looks like they will have to work hard to see this one through. I would expect they will spend a lot of money on a barrister to argue their case. I wonder what the office reaction was when they received the judgement order?

Soiled underwear?

Q.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:39
Post #1419667

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:02)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:57
Post #1419672

HHJ David Cooke referred to the specific wording of the agreement which noted that “[the landlord] demises to the Tenant the Premises together with (my emphasis) the rights specified in the Second Schedule…” On the basis that the right to park in the allocated space was in addition to the demise, it was held that it could not have formed part of the demised property.

My spaces ARE included in the 'Premises' so are therefore included and form part of 'The Demised Property'

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:39)

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:02)

Did you ever get their DQ which they claimed had their defence ?


https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1422.html&query=(kettel)

No and neither did the Court.

although they have produced a 'defence' today dated 28th June 2018.

Poor postal service if neither I or the Court received a copy.

QUOTE (Quicksilver @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:36)

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:59
Post #1419674

I would ask HOW the claimed service took place. If they can convince the court they did indeed file a defence then a set aside is merely a formality. Getting a court to believe 2 pieces of communication to 2 different addresses has gone astray could be problematic though.

"8. Notwithstanding the fact that this order was not drawn up until the 9 July 2018
and received at our Head Office on the 12 July 2018, the Claimant duly complied
and filed and served a copy of the Particulars of Claim on the 12 July 2018 at
15:24 by email to ci, il.nc\\castlc.countvcoun'i"1 jusuce.!!O\ .uk and by first class
post upon the Defendant. "

Did this arrive ? (court too ?)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:17
Post #1419681

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:59)

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:27
Post #1419683

Did you at anytime inform the claimant or the legal team of your default judgment application or ask where there defence was etc ?

Or to put it another way, can you tell the court that the claimant knew of the issue before receiving the order in September ?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:30
Post #1419684

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 20:27)

Posted by: henrik777 Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:35
Post #1419688

Well aside from enquiring as to how they served the defence and potentially pointing out you didn't receive, i'd not be participating in the relief from sanctions hearing as you can't add much and contesting could result in costs against. Hopefully the court will deal with it anyway.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 19:36
Post #1419689

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 20:35)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 08:39
Post #1419758

"17. The Claimant submits that CPR 13.2 (a) does not apply given that the Judgment
entered derived from a counterclaim, however, CPR 13.2 (b) does apply in so far
as Defences. The Claimant submits that a Defence (attached to the Claimant's
Direction Questionnaire) was filed to the Counterclaim and lodged with the
County Court Business Centre and the County Court at Newcastle on the 28 June
2018. "

That doesnt make sense

They claim to have NEVER seen the Ds DQ, meaning they could not knwo the court it was allocated to.
At this point, it wasnt even allocated to Newcastle
So theyre expecting the court to belive that they just guessed?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 09:30
Post #1419782

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 09:39)

Posted by: henrik777 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 11:30
Post #1419812

Have you checked with Northampton, Newcastle what/when anything was received and also the claimants version, by phone/email of what/when/where they sent stuff ?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 17:11
Post #1419909

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 12:30)

Posted by: Eljayjay Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 17:35
Post #1419916

The counterclaim was not only for trespass.

Posted by: Churchmouse Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 17:38
Post #1419917

QUOTE (Eljayjay @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 18:35)

Posted by: ostell Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 17:50
Post #1419920

Churchmouse +1 Throughout that defence they are mixing up Defendant and claimant. I know it can get confusing on a counter claim but this is ridiculous.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 18:51
Post #1419934

Notice how that defence doesn't even attack the quantum? Not that I can see. It also doesn't suggest it's merely an easement, which it clearly isn't.

8 depends on how you view "owned" I guess

VCS are having a laugh,surely?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 04:22
Post #1419997

At least we now know that the stench of desperation is much like the smell of BS, just more concentrated.

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 07:58
Post #1420011

Their case against you appears to be built on the allegation that you are not the landowner, ignoring the fact that you are the landholder/leaseholder.

Yet their claim for authority to operate is based on a contract they hold with the body they think is the landholder, not the landowner.

Lovely set of double standards.

Posted by: emanresu Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:12
Post #1420017

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:17
Post #1420020

The use of 'frivolous' and 'vehemently' had me convinced.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:27
Post #1420023

Indeed
I think the courts attention shodl be drawn to the fact that
- they claim to have sent the defence to counterclaim to two different courts, neither of which has any record of receiving the defence, and neither does the defendant
- they claim to have sent the defence to a court they cannot have known was the court that would hear the claim as no allocation had been made at the time they supposedly sent their defence
- they claim to have sent further particulars that were not received by anyone, court or defendant (or did I get that wrong? Their claims are so woeful its hard to keep them in track)

anything else?

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:31
Post #1420024

QUOTE (emanresu @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:12)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:34
Post #1420027

[attachment=58295:VCS_Lice...o_Occupy.pdf]

This is what VCS call their Licence to Occupy.

It is signed by a OM Property Management local Manager.
OM Property no longer exist.

VCS call them 'The Client' and claim that said 'Client' is the Lawful Occupier.

Contract valid for a period of 12months from 12th Sept 2014 (the term)

Notice the document is a 'VCS Terms and Conditions of Contract'.

Entered into with the Management Agent and not the Lessor.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:41
Post #1420032

The fact that OM were not the lawful occupier was for VCS to uncover while undertaking their due diligence (Please stop laughing at the back - of course they do no such thing, they are like bank lending departments ahead of the GFC and just desperate for business). That OM were not the landholder of all the areas they purported to be renders the contract a nullity for those areas, that is a matter for VCS to take up with OM. Of course if OM end up settling they are bound to try and recover the cost of their negligence from their customers like PoW through their 'manage, we can barely cope' fees.

Of course as MA they could NEVER be the landholder they are either an agent of the residents or landlord but NEVER landholder as any professional organisation would no.
4.3 and 4.4 are interesting, the MA has breached its contract by not ensuring all cars display a permit, but I note they also indemnify VCS agaisnt actions such as PoWs.

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:57
Post #1420037

When were these tickets issued. That contract takes effect from July 2014, but according to clause 6.5 only runs for a Term (12 months) and one singular Extended Term (another 12 months), so up to July 2016 when it expires.

Posted by: bearclaw Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 08:59
Post #1420039

VCS - OM property management Ltd made an agreement on the 21st July 2014 according to that...

Companies house reports that OM Property Management Limited were not incorporated until 2 days later.... https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09143096

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:21
Post #1420044

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:57)

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:27)

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:21
Post #1420048

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:59)

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:28
Post #1420052

So i think that needs adding as well
- WS bundle could not have been recieved within the time ordered

Posted by: bearclaw Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 10:43
Post #1420080

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 10:21)

QUOTE (bearclaw @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 09:59)

VCS - OM property management Ltd made an agreement on the 21st July 2014 according to that...

Companies house reports that OM Property Management Limited were not incorporated until 2 days later.... https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09143096

So OM could not have made the agreement as they didn't actually exist, its a nullity in so many respects now....

VCS would have a juicy claim on whoever signed it though....... Misrepresentation on 2 counts (representing the company that didn't exist and also claiming to be a landholder when the signatory could never ever be).

Posted by: disgrunt Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 11:13
Post #1420087

Unfortunately OM Property management limited did exist on that date, it’s now called FIRSTPORT PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED. The company that was incorporated on 23rd was initially called FIRSTPORT PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED, but Are now OM Property management limited.

One quick question is the contact Has the name as ltd rather than limited? I suspect that doesn’t matter but would need someone versed in company law to answer that.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 11:29
Post #1420093

QUOTE (disgrunt @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:13)

Posted by: bearclaw Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 11:30
Post #1420094

Now im getting confused...

Firstport appear to be the original company. They changed names to Peverel OM and then to OM property management in 2010.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02061041

So where does the other OM property management appear from in 2014? You cannot have two companies with the same name.... and these companies have different numbers.. firstport is 2061041

We then have OM property management ltd incorporating under number 9143096 23rd July 2014 and in 2015 passes a resolution to change it's name from Firstport to OM - despite being a new company never known as firstport....

messy or what....

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 11:31
Post #1420096

Limited / Ltd, tomayto, tomahto.

I still say it expired in July 2016 anyway.

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 11:34
Post #1420101

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:29)

QUOTE (disgrunt @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:13)

Unfortunately OM Property management limited did exist on that date, it’s now called FIRSTPORT PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED. The company that was incorporated on 23rd was initially called FIRSTPORT PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED, but Are now OM Property management limited.

One quick question is the contact Has the name as ltd rather than limited? I suspect that doesn’t matter but would need someone versed in company law to answer that.

OM didn't become incorporated till 23 July 2014. Co number :09143096

Changed to FirstPort 14th April 2015 Co. Number : 02061041

Posted by: Churchmouse Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 11:45
Post #1420109

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:31)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 11:52
Post #1420113

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:45)

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:31)

Limited / Ltd, tomayto, tomahto.

I still say it expired in July 2016 anyway.

Interesting. I seem to recall that you would not be allowed to register a company with Ltd if another company with Limited (and vice versa) already existed.

How did this "License to Occupy" come into the OP's possession? As noted above, whoever executed it, it does not appear to be relevant to the situation at the site on the date of the parking incident. (Also, did it include the "boundary plans and site instructions" referred to therein? This is critical for understanding what "The Car Park" means.)

In a way, it's too bad this has come out now, as they may have simply attached the wrong document.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: bearclaw Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:05
Post #1420116

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:45)

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:31)

Limited / Ltd, tomayto, tomahto.

I still say it expired in July 2016 anyway.

Interesting. I seem to recall that you would not be allowed to register a company with Ltd if another company with Limited (and vice versa) already existed.

How did this "License to Occupy" come into the OP's possession? As noted above, whoever executed it, it does not appear to be relevant to the situation at the site on the date of the parking incident. (Also, did it include the "boundary plans and site instructions" referred to therein? This is critical for understanding what "The Car Park" means.)

In a way, it's too bad this has come out now, as they may have simply attached the wrong document.

--Churchmouse

Posted by: Albert Ross Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:07
Post #1420118

As a director of the Claimant, SRS has a Right of Audience.

Does not make a valid Claim though.

in short your Corporeal possession trump their Incorporeal piece of paper.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:49
Post #1420130

I think the OP is confusnig right of audience with standing
They have no standing as they neither have a valid contract NOR do they have anything that can override your lease

They have right of audience *at the court hearing* but that bears no relation to their standing. Two entirely different concepts.

Posted by: ManxRed Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 13:24
Post #1420139

QUOTE (Churchmouse @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 12:45)

Posted by: cabbyman Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 13:45
Post #1420150

The only estates that can override your term of years absolute, is a longer term of years absolute or the freehold estate, also known as the fee simple absolute in possession. A bare licence, which even they claim they have, being a 'chattel,' cannot extinguish any of the granted to your legal estate. That is common law dating back to the 1200s, IIRC.

Posted by: disgrunt Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 13:46
Post #1420151

Just to clear up the earlier confusion. There is a current company called first port. They incorporated in 86 and were OM Property management from 2010 to April 2015. They two companies then switched names. (Both had the same registered address)

Posted by: Pensioner Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 14:36
Post #1420167

QUOTE (disgrunt @ Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 14:46)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 19:05
Post #1420263

VCS have filed form N244 Appilication to set aside Judgement and paid fee accordingly.

Today I rang the following to ask if they have receipt of a Defence to my Counterclaim

Northampton CC Business Centre - VCS claim to have sent their Defence there on the 28th June 2018 annexed to DQ

Sheffield CC -their nominated Court on form N180

Newcastle CC - Allocated Court as of 18th June 2018

All say no Defence filed.

Do I write to Newcastle CC or is there a particular form I now need to submit to object to their Application?

Thanks
P

Posted by: henrik777 Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 19:30
Post #1420273

Did anyone admit to receiving the DQ ?

Did you ask the claimant who they it was sent to ?

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 28 Sep 2018 - 01:17
Post #1420330

Claimant stated they filed to both CCBC and a court they had no,idea would be the allocated court at the time they supposedly filed it

No form that I am aware of, but I would summarise the I'm,possibilities of their claim, the unlikely elements - that three locations failed to receive any of their supposed documents - and that their defence to counterclaim has no merit, as it construes a demised exclusive possession as being merely an easement. They're clutching.

Posted by: whjohnson Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 00:02
Post #1420693

PoW - I would now do as you previously mentioned in an earlier post - go at them for the full amount now, since they are messing you around and causing you more un-necesary inconvenience and cost.

Do them for the £8K instead of the original £4K and if you win, keep enough back to pay your legal representitive.

VCS need to pay - end of.

Posted by: emanresu Sat, 29 Sep 2018 - 06:24
Post #1420697

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 4 Nov 2018 - 10:57
Post #1430886

 vcs__N24.pdf ( 390.92K ) : 203


This arrived in the post Tues 30th Oct

VCS had their appeal against the Default Judgement.

They are now under strict proof to show that their Witness Bundle arrived on by 4pm on the 13th Sept.
It didn't it arrived on the 14th at 02pm.

The letter annex to WS was dated and signed 13th Sept marked 1st class post.

As their defence to my counterclaim is still missing, I'm going to ask for another/second default judgement.

A Hearing date has now been set for Feb 2019

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 15:35
Post #1458994

Court Hearing today at 12.00pm

VCS put to strict proof that they had served their Response /Defence to my Counterclaim and that their WS bundle for Appeal to first strike out, was served on time as per Court Direction.

They couldn't on both counts. Case struck out for the second time.

Default Judgement ruled - yet again.

Didn't help that their Brief went to the wrong Court 20miles away and turned up 45 mins late.
He went to Local Magistrates 20 Miles, away instead of City Centre Combined Court.

Thought he was there under instuction from VCS to argue against first 'strike out'.
Oh dear.......

I was embarrassed for him.

So lets see what happens next.
Will I get my Counterclaim acknowledged without enforcement.

Yet another bad day at the office .........

Posted by: Umkomaas Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 07:45
Post #1459184

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 09:14
Post #1459202

QUOTE (Umkomaas @ Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 07:45)

QUOTE

Didn't help that their Brief went to the wrong Court 20miles away and turned up 45 mins late.
He went to Local Magistrates 20 Miles, away instead of City Centre Combined Court.

Comedy Casebook - you couldn't make this stuff up.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Wed, 6 Feb 2019 - 11:16
Post #1459260

BLoody hell
Did you get further wasted costs for the day you wasted while they argued the wrong issue???

It really should be unreasonable behaviour by this point. Not even knowing what claim they were defending???!?!?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 10:16
Post #1462886

After the Appeal Hearing on the 5th Feb VCS had their claim against me dismissed.

I rang the court Friday to ask when I could expect payment for the Default Judgement ruled in my favour.

I was informed that VCS have now filed a 2nd Appeal, against the Discharge of 1st Apppeal.

The Judge on the day was thorough and displayed alacrity in reaching his verdict.

I will be vehemently objecting to a second Appeal being heard after the fiasco of the first one.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Sun, 17 Feb 2019 - 19:41
Post #1462995

At this point is there anything else you can do as r4gards their behaviour?

Maybe a standards complaint to the SRA?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 11:02
Post #1476126

 VCS_Appeal.pdf ( 444.84K ) : 122


2 Default Judgements for not observing Court Direction and Procedure

1 Strike out for bungling Solicitor not knowing case for 1st Appeal and missing deadline for WS bundle

And now this !!!

2nd Appeal to first Appeal

Looking forward to the 15th of April to see if Mr Fizzywig turns up again

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 11:56
Post #1476143

Has VCS provided the documents that were ordered ?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 12:24
Post #1476150

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 11:56)

Posted by: henrik777 Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 22:36
Post #1476310

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 12:56)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 09:04
Post #1477136

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 22:36)

QUOTE (Redivi @ Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 12:56)

Has VCS provided the documents that were ordered ?

Have they missed the deadline ?

Also is the court date before the deadline due to the inefficiency of the court ?

After all the document date is 15th March and it's due within 35 days of SERVICE.

Posted by: henrik777 Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 19:26
Post #1477271

What reasons did they give for the failures ?

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 07:34
Post #1478182

QUOTE (henrik777 @ Wed, 10 Apr 2019 - 20:26)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 15:26
Post #1478350

After waiting 1½ hours to be called into Court the Case was eventually heard.

VCS had their appreal upheld!!!
So despite two Judges previously ruling the Judge this morning decided to overturn previous judgement.

The irony being, he didn't even have a court file in front of him and had to have it explained chronologically what had gone before.

Which was of course delivered by the Barrister that VCS had engaged.
They still claimed they had served a Defence to my Counterclaim despite there being NO proof.
I was even told I couldn’t sit in the first row before the Judge as I had I wasn’t legally represented.

However, the VCS Barrister was the most utterly, charming and affable individual who said it would be fine for me to sit in the front row.

Moral of the tale - don’t go before the bench unrepresented; otherwise you are nothing more than a wittering irritant.

So now it’s back in the Pot and been allocated YET again to the small claims track.
British Justice at its bloody best!!!

Posted by: henrik777 Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 20:15
Post #1478440

QUOTE (Pearlofwisdom @ Mon, 15 Apr 2019 - 16:26)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 25 Jul 2019 - 17:57
Post #1502722

We write in respect of the above matter.

We note that the Small Claims Hearing is due to take place on the 2nd of August 2019 at 10:00am.

Due to the considerable delay and expense that have been wasted in pursuing this matter, we are willing to put forward a drop hands offer.

Kindly confirm that you are amenable to the same?

If we do not hear from you by 4pm on the 29th of July 2019, then we will continue our pursuit.

We look forward to hearing from you. WITHOUT PREJUDICE


This email turned up today ???

To date we have had 2 Court Hearings
1st They appointed a Solicitor
2nd They appointed a Barrister


So clearly their costs are considersble.

Is this because they consider my counterclaim to be with merit and they will be incur considerably more costs?

Thoughts please .....

With many thanks


I am seriously considering their offer.

However, it will be conditional; in that they must attest too and ensure that they will not operate on or enter onto my Leasehold land again in writing.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 25 Jul 2019 - 18:44
Post #1502734

A drop hands offer may mean they think they'll lose. Make them a counter offer to settle.

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 08:19
Post #1502802

Its a farily desperate play. My guess is they are fairly certain they will lose, given duh, lease, and you havea VERY good shot at gettings costs AND counterclaim

Personally I would keep going, but you could send a WP offer back asking them to settle for your costs to date and yoru counterclaim, and undertake to never trespass on yoru leasehold again

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 15:29
Post #1502983

We STRONGLY advise you obtain your own legal advice, as you appear not to understand what a 'Drop Hands Offer' means.

Further, the land in question is NOT your land.

In any event, we will press on with the Court Hearing.

Many thanks

Litigation team



This just in after I presented them with a WP counter offer

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 15:54
Post #1502985

My response


Good afternoon

I have taken Counsel and fully understand the 'Drop Hands Offer'
That being:

VCS have made a 'Drop hands’ offer to the Defendant. This means that the claim is discontinued, with both parties paying their own costs.

I was advised not to fully accept your offer but to submit my own 'Conditional Drop Hands Offer'.

VCS as the Claimant contested Liability of my Counterclaim but continue to uphold the 'Quantum' of a weak case.

I have not agreed to enter into a contract with VCS, or any so-called quasi-contract.

Therfore we must continue to Court, having failed to reach an agreement on any essential terms, such as your ineffective drop hands offer.

With sincere best regards

Posted by: nosferatu1001 Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 16:08
Post #1502992

You are the landholder, and VCS are in breach of their cop as they lack agreement with you. Complain to the ata, see what they say l(lol)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 16:29
Post #1502996

QUOTE (nosferatu1001 @ Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 17:08)

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 26 Jul 2019 - 16:46
Post #1503000

Just found a very similar case online .....



Simon Renshaw-Smith Hit By Double Whammy 18th Jul 18 at 3:14 PM



Milton Keynes today, before DDJ Simpson.

Case No. D9QZ6Q0J – VCS v Mr C.

Claimant represented by Mr Smith (Solicitor’s Agent)
Defendant represented by me.




For the 5 tickets for no permit, we argued that the AST, which was silent on the subject of parking, gave the tenant an implied right, and the fact that he had been issued with a key fob to access the electronic gate to the underground parking area, meant that he was a de facto authorised user.

The DDJ agreed, and said that the displaying of a permit was a matter of convenience to VCS, but there was no legal obligation for authorised users to display one. He said it was clear that the purpose of the scheme was to deter random interlopers, which did not apply here.

He dismissed the claim, which he said was ill-conceived, and improperly pleaded.

He ordered that VCS must repay the £2,677.77 to the Defendant within 7 days

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 12:14
Post #1504706

VCS had their case against me dismissed in Court this very morning.
Victory is mine!

The Judge took all of 5 mins to state that the Premises including 2 x Car Parking Spaces are demised to me by virtue of my Lease.
I have Exclusive Possession.
VCS have no legal right to issue PCN’s on private residential land.

My Counterclaim was also dismissed, as I couldn’t prove pecuniary loss.
However, I am delighted at the outcome.

My next consideration is the unlawful acquisition of my details from the DVLA.
VCS had no legal right to do so.

(Count to date = 35 )

Once again my grateful thanks to all contributors to this thread.

Posted by: Umkomaas Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 19:52
Post #1504830

Posted by: Redivi Fri, 2 Aug 2019 - 20:12
Post #1504836

My Counterclaim was also dismissed, as I couldn’t prove pecuniary loss.

Could Beavis be used as an argument:

There doesn't have to be pecuniary loss if there's a public interest; the charge is no higher than necessary to discourage the behaviour but has to be large enough to be worth the effort of recovering ?

How about the OP telling VCS that he's no longer taking part in the permit scheme and withdrawing their right of implied access to his space to inspect the vehicle ?

It leaves VCS with no defence to a claim for trespass if they issue a Parking Notice
The decided case leaves them no defence to a claim for processing the OP's details without reasonable cause
The PCN is evidence of what they intended to gain from the trespass and therefore the starting point for the damages

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 13:02
Post #1505912

Case against me brought by Vehicle Control Services dismissed within 5 minutes on Friday 2 Aug 2019

Today in the post I received yet another/different CC Claim form from this shower of sh*t!

You couldn't make it up.

CLOWNS !!!

Posted by: ManxRed Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 13:19
Post #1505923

For the same place/contravention?

Try Googling 'Res Judicata'

Posted by: Pearlofwisdom Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 11:09
Post #1506207

QUOTE (ManxRed @ Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 14:19)

Posted by: Nosy Parker Fri, 12 May 2023 - 09:56
Post #1778426

That was nearly 4 years ago. What happened next, Pearlofwisdom? Your many fans are agog...