vcs/excel get their !!!!!! kicked

Trebor16

taffy056 wrote: »

But it's the context on why he called him a fool that is important

Quote
About time, although it's taken that fool Renshaw-Smith long enough to tell the courts what they should be doing. Now we'll be able to get all our legal charges paid and see an end to this ignore everything crap. Every case I've taken to court has been won. As soon as we can hold the registered keeper responsible, whoever was actually driving, we;ll be able to issue fines to whoever we want, and there'll be nothing anyone can do about it.

He thinks he has won every case he has taken to court?? Now that is funny!!:D

give_them_FA

It's true! He HAS won BOTH of them. But his nephew is getting fed up with being his stooge so there probably won't be any more.

Stephen_Leak

I'm, of course, aware of UKCPS vs. Thomas, but what was the other one?

PS. Allegedly.

HO87

Or more accurately, Combined Perking Solutions v Stephen Thomas. Apparently.

Stephen_Leak

ManxRed wrote: »

Good.

In my view, 'Reasonable Cause' may just have left the building.

Maybe. Maybe not. How much "reasonable cause" does the DVLA make?

ManxRed

Its just shy of a couple of mill a year isn't it?

They'll struggle to justify it if some crusading individual (and God help us if we have to rely on the Daily Mail, but if so, then fine) pushes the point that (unless the car park is owned, or the contractual arrangement with the landowner is sufficiently worded) that NO PPC has sufficient powers to pursue ANYONE in respect of a Parking Charge, then they have no 'reasonable cause' at all.

Driver8

Quote
About time, although it's taken that fool Renshaw-Smith long enough to tell the courts what they should be doing. Now we'll be able to get all our legal charges paid and see an end to this ignore everything crap. Every case I've taken to court has been won. As soon as we can hold the registered keeper responsible, whoever was actually driving, we;ll be able to issue fines to whoever we want, and there'll be nothing anyone can do about it.[/QUOTE]

Who the hell does the fat get think he is? Issue fines to whoever they want ! The total imbecile.

If someone was driving my car and run some one down am i liable for it? No, not at all and the same will apply to invoices sent from a PPC. It is never going to happen and as soon as the first one gets to court, if it ever does, it is going to be struck out. You cannot override centuries of law just so some fat get working for a PPC can get his money off the backs of honest people. It is not going to happen.

The PPC model is collapsing around their ears and they don't like it, tough. The keeper liability is never ever going to happen because as soon as someone clued up gets to court it will be ripped to shreds and thrown out. I hate and despise the total parasites, just who the hell do they think they are?

give_them_FA

Steady on there old chap! Don't you know the fat git has just destroyed his own case by using the word "fine".

Why take it so seriously? We all know that this "business" survives on the back of lies, bluster, and bluff, and what you have read is "more of the same".

Yes, I think now that Courts are getting wise to them, that option will be closing fast.

The "fools" should have been content with the mugs that paid up, instead of believing their own propaganda and thinking they were legit. Their card house is definitely tottering, Excel have not heard the last of the Scun thorpe case, I believe. Their problems are just starting.

They should not have taken on an even bigger scammer than themselves either- H.M. Government Revenue and Customs.

Trebor16

If Typhoo put the T in Great Britain then Simon Renshaw-Smith put the c unt in Scun thorpe:D

HO87

ManxRed wrote: »

Its just shy of a couple of mill a year isn't it?

They'll struggle to justify it if some crusading individual (and God help us if we have to rely on the Daily Mail, but if so, then fine) pushes the point that (unless the car park is owned, or the contractual arrangement with the landowner is sufficiently worded) that NO PPC has sufficient powers to pursue ANYONE in respect of a Parking Charge, then they have no 'reasonable cause' at all.

I'm sure you are aware that matters are being "pushed" in the appropriate quarters.

The interesting situation that the ICO now finds itself in is the apparent coming home to roost of a minuted comment one of its seniors made a while back about the strength of the "reasonable cause" argument. He suggested that were it shown that charges were not legally enforceable then that negated "reasonable cause". Certainly as far as Excel/VCS is concerned that would seem to be the case and I suspect that a good few PPC's could well find themselves in the same boat.

One wonders how long it will be before the DVLA act (or will it be the BPA themselves or the ICO?)? They were particular swift in withdrawing Premier Parking's database access recently when matters were brought to their attention (it will remain withdrawn until the BPA have reported on their investigation of the case).

It will be some while, I suspect, before we see a definitive answer to the situation but it seems to me that given Excel's/VCS's position viz. Simon Renshaw-Smith's presence on the BPA board, the matter cannot be ignored.