VCS/ELMS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - Liverpool Airport - No Stopping

[_Ray_]

Thanks for all that...

The WS was based on the one recommended further up in this thread (by Alaska 101 I believe) so I can't take full credit . I'm not concerned about getting it to the Court on time, it is not too far from where I live, so I could hand deliver it if needed. Plus the court said I can email it to them if necessary.

It was more about getting it to VCS on time so as not to give them any additional leverage - by the sounds of it though, making sure they get it by the Monday 4pm cut-off time isn't crucial.

 In some ways it will be a shame if the WS scares them off, I know it's probably never a good idea to go to court if it can be avoided, but was secretly hoping they would press on.

If it does get in front of the judge, can I ask for any costs for the time it's taken to deal with this? Sure somewhere I've seen there's a set amount you can value your time at? If there is, do I have to ask at this stage or later?

Thanks again 

Do I have the right to question the person who wrote the Claimant's witness statement or is it OK for them to send a replacement?

[FTMDave]

Costs are capped at small claims so if you win you can only claim travel costs, postage, etc.  Were VCS to win they would only get their £50 legal costs plus court fees.  You ask when you win the case, so have a list of costs prepared.

 

This cap only changes if the judge decides there has been unreasonable behaviour in litigation, and the bar is quite high.

 

VCS have a policy of not sending their WS authors to court.  This may or may not be connected to a famous case where their representative was threatened with imprisonment by the judge.  They will go running to a solicitor practising near you who won't have a clue about the case.  This will cost them a hell of lot more than £50 so you've already hit them in the pocket.  And yes, you can bring to the judge's attention that you would have liked to question the WS author but VCS have a policy of never, ever, ever allowing this person to appear in court.

 

 

[_Ray_]

Thanks

This is a telephone case so no travel costs to claim, there is a small amount of postage but not much. I'm sure I've read somewhere I can claim for a set number of hours (at a set hourly rate) for the preparation work I've done - am I mistaken in that?

It surprises me you say they would get their £50 legal costs, I thought it had been decided that the amount on the NTK included ALL costs? Or does  that amount exclude legal costs?

Can you point me anywhere I can verify that VCS never let the WS author into court or is it just from your experience here? I'd like to verify it for myself so that I'm not claiming something to the judge that I can't justify.

[honeybee13]

I haven't seen it lately but we always used to say you could claim for litigant in person (LiP) costs of five hours at 19 pounds an hour. Maybe someone will confirm.

 

HB

[FTMDave]

Have a look at the PPC Successes thread at the top of the page.  Start with the last page of the thread and work backwards.  Open threads with "VCS" and "claimform" in the titles.  Reportbacks from court should be near the end of the threads.

 

You'll soon see that neither Ambreen nor Wally ever, ever appear in court.

[_Ray_]

Witness Statement sent, will update here as soon as I have anything. Court date 2 weeks today - 21/03/22

[lookinforinfo]

Good luck. It will help if you read around he subject so you can counter when their lawyer tries to misdirect the judge.

[_Ray_]

Had the hearing yesterday but turns out it was just a telephone hearing to see if we could come to any agreement before a full hearing...

A Mr Pickup was representing VCS, it sounded like he was driving which the judge seemed to get a tad upset about. He said he was just parked near a motorway to excuse the noise, but he got cut off a couple of times, so not sure if he was telling the truth or not.

The hearing didn't start too well, as the judge hadn't been given my WS, but accepted that I must have sent it in, as they did have my contact details which were sent at the same time. Because of this he asked me what my case was based on:

1. No contract between VCS & Airport, also no contract between VCS and me

2. Airport byelaws

3. NTK non-compliant

4. Double recovery

At first he only heard the first part of point number 1 and thought I was on a 'sticky wicket' if I was saying the signage didn't form a contract. I thought he was going to rule against me right away, but after explaining about the other points and that this was a very brief overview of my case, we got to continue.

VCS said they hadn't received my WS either, but I have a receipt saying that it was delivered to them and the judge accepted that. 

On one occasion when Mr Pickup got reconnected to the call, the judge read him my side of the case and asked him if he agreed that these were the 4 points of contention in this case. Mr Pickup said that from what he had read he agreed they were!

Now, Mr Pickup could only have 'read' this if he had seen my WS, so me thinks he had probably seen it. I got the feeling that it was a good thing Mr Pickup agreed to this as the case will now be fought on my points - am I right in that thought, or is it irrelevant? 

The judge asked VCS to provide a 'bundle' 10 days before the hearing, I'm pretty sure he didn't ask me for anything. What would be in this bundle? He also set aside 90 minutes for the case, is the amount of time important at all - it sounded quite a long time for something pretty straightforward?

Just so I can be prepared, what should I expect VCS to do now?

 

 

[dx100uk]

its a current fad of simon to say they dont have a defendants WS, you'll see it in quite a few recent ones ...if you go read a few..usually the local rep (mug) that VCS employ says it as VCS dont bother to send it on to say costs as they think everyone will fold and wet themselves having to actually goto court.

 

is the next one phone too?

 

[_Ray_]

No the next one is an in-person hearing...

 

Forgot to say, I asked the judge if I had the right to question the author of the Claimant's WS at the next hearing. He told Mr Pickup to make a note of that, and his reply was "they usually don't make the author available and were aware that it weakens their case" - I paraphrased the bit in bold because I can't remember his exact words.

 

 

[brassnecked]

Looks like this judge might be on to Simple reading between the lines, especially as proof of delivery of WS to VCS provided

[lookinforinfo]

Ray

using double recovery for their overcharging doesn't always work since some Judges agree that because the parking crooks have had to devote more time chasing up motorists who haven't paid that there should be some compensation for their extra work. pretty much like the Banks used to claim years ago when in reality all it cost was a couple of letters that wouldn't cost even a fiver yet they added on £20 plus.

 

Far safer is to add the fact that with the new CoP it confirms that it was the will of Parliament from the outset of the original PoFA back in 2012 that the maximum amount that could be charged was the amount on the signage. The new CoP spells it out this time by Ministers saying that the extra charges are a rip off and leave the Judges in no doubt that it is parliaments intention that they expect the Court to observe the parts of the new CoP that can be introduced straight away.

 

These are the words of Minister Neil O 'Brien

" The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation. "

 

What that means is that adjusting to the new CoP has already started. Things that can be changed now , should be, such as no extra charges. Only the things that cannot be changed immediately like new PCNS and contracts with land owners for instance will be deferred till next year.

 

"And there will be no wriggle-room for rogue companies who continue to flout the rules. If they fail to follow this Code, they will effectively be banned from issuing parking charges indefinitely."

 

Below is the Government confirming the rip off extra charges. Print this off for the Judge to see as it is relevant to the double recovery that you already  have in your WS.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-clamps-down-on-rogue-parking-firms-with-new-code-of-practice.

 

• Code of Practice launched to crackdown on cowboy private car parking firms
• Fines cut by up to 50% in most areas across England, Wales and Scotland
• New Appeals Charter will eliminate fines for motorists who make genuine errors or have mitigating circumstances
• XXXXX  Additional rip-off debt collection fees banned XXXXX
• Rogue operators who do not follow the Code could be banned from accessing Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data
•  

Therefore by continuing to press for the rip off charges now it can surely mean that VCS are one of the rogue companies being targeted by Parliament and either they should be banned from accessing DVLA info. or they should be subject to exemplary charges for pursuing you to Court knowing that their extra charges are unlawful but they are still including them and being paid by many other motorists who have not had the benefit of a Court hearing.

 

Point out the above to the Judge and you may get exemplary costs.

If you don't ask you don't get.

Really hammer home that VCS are a rogue company ignoring not only the new CoP but the old one too.

[brassnecked]

This COP needs to be standardised into all WS where overcharging is evident, the Judges need educating as well.  Adding that should help lessen any Judge Lottery impacts.

[FTMDave]

Agreed.  I hadn't realised till LFI pointed it out yesterday that the basic law has been on the statute book since 2019.

[lookinforinfo]

Nor did I FTM!

[_Ray_]

Thanks again for all the help, not been ignoring it, but I'm away at the moment so not checking the laptop as much as usual.

 

Does anyone have an idea as to what might be in the bundle the judge asked VCS to produce? Is he giving them the opportunity to produce an additional WS? Just don't want to be caught unawares...

 

Also, given that they now know what my arguments are, and they're getting a second bite at the cherry so to speak, is there anything they might try that I should be aware of?

 

Cheers

 

 

[brassnecked]

Use that code of practice extract as suggested by LFI it adds bite to your argument, VCS will trot out loads of CTRL C CTRL V cut 'n paste verbage and some irrelevant cases probably.

[_Ray_]

How would I introduce that to the judge at this stage?

I've already submitted my witness statement (albeit the judge didn't get given a copy) assumed I would be prevented from offering new information after the court received the original WS?

 

 

[brassnecked]

If they submit what seems to be a rewrite and it differs substantially to previous, you should be able to draw attention to it.

[_Ray_]

Sorry if I'm being dumb, but would I draw attention to it in written form some way, or verbally with the judge on the day of the hearing?

[brassnecked]

If it looks like a whol;e new WS might be able to, think there was something on another thread about a supplementary WS from a fleecer, one of the others will be along soon with some ideas as well.

[FTMDave]

BN is right.  We had a case recently where:

 

1.  Simple Simon filed his WS.

 

2.  The Cagger filed theirs.

 

3.  Simon tried to be clever and filed a supplemental WS with various lies, trying to counter the Cagger.

 

4.  Now, accepting the supplemental WS is at the judge's discretion IIRC.  But logically if the judge accepts extra info from one party they will accept extra info from the other party.  So the Cagger gave Simon a taste of his own medicine and in turn filed a supplemental WS.

 

So if VCS are allowed to write an extra WS you'll be allowed to counter.

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

To answer your question on how to bring in the new legislation is easy in this case. If you say that it was always Parliaments intention to have the maximum charge for breaches of parking at £100 as evidenced by the stipulation in PoFA that the maximum sum that can be recovered is the amount stipulated on the NTK. And you can use the rip off comment to confirm that.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-clamps-down-on-rogue-parking-firms-with-new-code-of-practice

So your ideas on the overcharge are confirming the concept of PoFA 2012 not 2022.

Although I think you should add that by continuing to overcharge despite the new Act having come into force in 2019 does appear to confirm that VCS are one of the rogue companies and their ability to access DVLA records should be questioned.

You will need to let the Judge see the websites that cover your comments.

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by lookinforinfo

[_Ray_]

Morning,

 

VCS have, to my surprise, paid the court fee in this case, so the hearing is next Monday (13th June). I think I have pretty much everything ready, but just wondered if you have any tips that might be useful on the day? Also I have one or two points that I could do with clarifying if that's OK...

 

1. VCS submitted their 'new' bundle to the court, but it was exactly the same as their original. It doesn't address any of my arguments that the judge in the telephone hearing said should be the 4 points of contention in the case. Do you think this will help or hinder my case in any way?

 

2. I asked the judge in the telephone hearing if I could question the author of VCS' witness statement. Do I restate this right at the start of the case, even though the author isn't there?

 

Sure I will have a few more bits n pieces to ask as the week goes on and I think of new things.

 

 

[lapwing_larry]

They may try to address those 4 points through skeleton arguments to be sent much closer to the court date. Be aware that VCS have also been known to try and introduce new "evidence" along with these skeletons. Any judge should see through this.