Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 12th Jun 17, 11:32 PM
    • 5,987Posts
    • 7,707Thanks
    beamerguy
    BW Legal "A Special Incompetence" production."
    • #1
    • 12th Jun 17, 11:32 PM
    BW Legal "A Special Incompetence" production." 12th Jun 17 at 11:32 PM
    VCS slapped with costs for unreasonableness. Elliot v Loake and CPS v AJH Films are not relevant
    Vehicle Control Services v Hall C9DP7T5D 12/06/2017. Blackwood County Court, before DJ Mackay.
    http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/vcs-slapped-with-costs-for.html

    It is now very clear that BWLegal are just wasting the courts time.
    They have already been told by judges that ....
    Elliot v Loake and CPS v AJH Films are not relevant ???

    What is their problem, why do they waste time and money
    for VCS and Excel. ???

    Simon Renshaw-Smith of Excel/VCS should get rid of these
    timewasting legals as they cost him money

    A fool and his money is easily parted

    Yet another thread listed on google about BWLegal .... WOW
    Last edited by beamerguy; 12-06-2017 at 11:55 PM.
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
Page 1
    • beamerguy
    • By beamerguy 13th Jun 17, 8:16 AM
    • 5,987 Posts
    • 7,707 Thanks
    beamerguy
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 17, 8:16 AM
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 17, 8:16 AM
    I wonder what part of "not relevant" that BWLegal do not understand
    RBS - MNBA - CAPITAL ONE - LLOYDS

    DISGUSTING BEHAVIOUR
    • fisherjim
    • By fisherjim 13th Jun 17, 8:36 AM
    • 2,420 Posts
    • 3,653 Thanks
    fisherjim
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 17, 8:36 AM
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 17, 8:36 AM
    Additionally, the photographs of the vehicle which form the Claimant's claim do not show a vehicle which is parked. It shows a vehicle entering a car park, and leaving. Indeed, the photos are produce from machines called "BrookIN" and "BrookOUT". A moving vehicle is not parked, and the
    court notes that it can take time both to locate and park in a parking space, and also to exit the parking space and car park.

    Once again a judge confirms anpr is not fit for purpose.
    To quote the words of the great Count Arthur Strong "You Couldn't make it up"
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,777Posts Today

8,003Users online

Martin's Twitter