VCS ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - double dipping - St Mary's Gate Retail Park, S1 4QZ ***Claim Dismissed***

[FTMDave]

Yes, once you're at the LBA stage you need to answer, as it's a formal threat to take you to court, and VCS do do court regularly.

 

As dx writes, post up a draft of a snotty letter to ridicule their claim (double dipping due to cameras they bought in a car boot sale, NTK out of time as they can't read a calendar properly, etc.)  The more insulting & abusive the better, so they see you don't take them seriously and have seen through their claim.

[FTMDave]

Well done - I think you may be rivalling our resident expert Ericbrother in the snotty letter stakes

 

We normally go for "Dear Simple Simon" (Simon Renshaw-Smith, the owner of VCS).  Did someone called Jake sign the LBA?

 

I would drop "given that any parking on site would have been carried out in line with your pretend ‘rules’" which seems superfluous.  No way will they apologise, up to you if you keep that last line - but hopefully they will crawl back under their stone.

 

Maybe hang on for 24 hours in case of other comments, then send VCS your both barrels (and get a free certificate of posting from the post office).   

[FTMDave]

Looks pretty good to me

 

Get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.

[FTMDave]

Simon has A LOT of previous for starting court claims - even though he has no intention of actually going to court.

 

It's a numbers game.  It only takes two minutes for VCS to start court action on a computer with their carp cut & paste claims, and it only costs £25.  Presumably enough motorists are terrified of going to court and cough up the money, including the £25 and £60 Unicorn Food Tax that Simon adds.  Then there will be those who have moved or for whatever reason don't defend, so Simon wins by default.

 

However, put in a strong defence and then WS and Simon will often run away.

 

That's not guaranteed of course, you need to prepare everything with the view of seeing VCS in court - and giving them a hammering.

Edited November 2, 2020 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

Looks good to me!

[FTMDave]

I've just had a quick skim through Simple Simon's WS, and the repetitive tripe he normally sends out is, well, repeated even more than usual.  It's like watching grass grow.  I'll read the whole lot properly this evening.

 

You need to start drafting your WS, concentrating on the points dx has pointed out.  The fact you've got Simon's statement first gives you the advantage.

 

Simon always pretends the Unicorn Food Tax is added because the company doesn't normally deal with legal matters ... yet right at the start Mr Wally states he is employed by the company as a paralegal!   

[FTMDave]

Ye gods, Simon/Wally's point 5 repeated again at 17, 52 & 55.  Point 8 at 56.  23 at 54.  29 at 53.  The feather drivel 28 and again 51.  Yawn. 

 

Interesting that they have held their hands up and admitted their tripe is not POFA compliant.

 

Plus they have lost the OP's reply to the LBA, or alternatively don't want to show the judge they knew it was double dipping as the OP told them but they went ahead and started a court case anyway..

 

[FTMDave]

You have done a lot of research - well done!

 

I think the individual points are superb.  However, they need to be grouped together in a more logical order.  Will get on to it later today when time permits.

[FTMDave]

Well, that only took a few minutes due to your excellent work.

 

I've written a single sentence about "double dipping" and apart from that just changed the order.

 

Let's see what the other regulars think.

WS.pdf

[FTMDave]

It doesn't make much odds.  The reason we say to wait till late is so you get your hands on Simon's WS first and demolish it - as you have done.

 

So either post it this Saturday (e-mail the court's and send Simon's 2nd class so it takes ages to get there) ...

 

... or e-mail the court's, and post Simon's on 7 June, still 48 hours before the deadline.

 

BTW, on any of the VCS paperwork is there written "Legal Department"?  I ask as I think your WS should include an extra paragraph about the £60 Unicorn Food Tax that Simon has made up.  I don't see why he should expect you to pay Mr Wally's wages.  I'm just thinking of ammo before adding the paragraph.    

 

 

[FTMDave]

As there is quite a lot of retweaking going on, and using the version in post 51 as the starting point, I would suggest creating another small section between "Double Dipping" and "Conclusion", to deal with Simon's Unicorn Food Tax.  Something like -

 

Double recovery of costs

 

20.  The Claimant in claiming not only £100 for the PCN plus court fee and interest, but a completely invented sum of £60 for which there is no justification.  This seems to be a way of attempting to bypass the limit on costs at small claims.

 

21.  In case the Claimant tries to state that this case has somehow created extra unforeseen costs for the company, the fact is that the Claimant's company has a Legal Department as evidenced by its letter to the Defendant of 20 March (Exhibit XXXXX) and the company employs a paralegal as shown in paragraph 1 of the Claimant's WS.  Presumably it is the normal daily job of these employees to write legal letters.

 

Hopefully the section will be completely superfluous as the judge will have thrown the case out thanks to your prior points.  However, I think it's worth sticking the boot into Simple Simon and Mr Wally too over the Unicorn Food Tax.  From some reading up I've done I doubt very much that Simon really does have a Legal Department, but as he lies on his letters and pretends he does then he can pay the price!

 

As you're considering sending it off on Saturday, please post up a revised draft at sometime tomorrow if you can with all the retweaking done.

 

BTW, it's fantastic to read those words "I'm on holiday from this Saturday for a week" from someone again after so long!

 

[FTMDave]

Looks a cracking WS to me - which will not only be superb for you personally to stick the boot into Simon, but will stay on the site as as a useful template for others in a similar situation.

 

Either send it tomorrow, and then enjoy your holiday thinking of Simon and Wally-of-the-feather-fame sweating in their office upon its receipt ...

 

... or send it off when you get back, makes no real difference.  Happy Hols!

 

[FTMDave]

Well spotted Gick!

[FTMDave]

There's the same error in 21.

 

To answer your question, yes it would be better to include an exhibit in 15. 

 

TBH I preferred your earlier slimmed-down version, but what do I know?

 

Don't worry if you send it slightly late, you'd be allowed a little leeway as a Litigant in Person.  However, if you can respect the court's deadline, it's best to.  Simply send 1st class - but get a free Certificate of Posting.  Also click that you want a return receipt when you e-mail the court their copy.

[FTMDave]

Wonderful work - as per usual - from lookinforinfo.

[FTMDave]

Lads & lasses,

 

Wali's WS is already on the thread at post 41.

[FTMDave]

If you win, the judge should mention costs, and you should have two lists of costs prepared.  One with your normal costs such as time off work, travel expenses (I suppose nothing in this case if it's done on-line), printing and posting expenses, etc.  And then a second list with all the above plus extra sums for unreasonable behaviour.  IIRC the 5 x £19 preparation time would only be allowed for unreasonable behaviour, but I'm not sure, I've tried to look it up now but have got nowhere, hang on and see what the other regulars who know more have to say over the weekend.

 

Then if you win ask the judge for unreasonable behaviour costs since Simon knew full well that this was a case of double dipping and yet continued with his claim as he is a serial litigant who abuses the court system to intimidate motorists to give in and pay money they don't owe so as to avoid going to court (plus whatever other arguments come up on Monday).

 

The judge will either say "yes" or "no" to unreasonable costs and on the basis you read out one or the other lists of costs.

[FTMDave]

Just knocked off work and seen this superb news.  Well done 

 

Unreasonable costs was just a very vague idea from me which judges hardly ever grant, so no worries there.

 

Another welcome hammering for Simon.

Edited July 5, 2021 by FTMDave
Typo

[FTMDave]

So much for Wally's feather.

 

Seems like the judge decided there wasn't the weight of one feather on the the OP's side, more like a hundredweight of feathers