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

esmerobbo

I suppose law does have to be fair to all (even fairer to those with deeper pockets) but if Judge McIlwaine did browse certain forums, he would have seen the threats people have to deal with from these companies, this may well have set VCS well back in his reasoning.

The_Shonko_Kid

That transcript is a gem.

It's almost a shame that the Judge threw it out on the basis of a shoddy contract, as I think his train of thought prior to that was leading to a much more damaging dismissal; Namely that in failing to stop them leaving the car park and simply observing them doing it would rule that the so-called losses of £80 were nothing of the sort - You don't sit and watch someone take £80 from your wallet with the intention of then invoicing them with a threat to sue. You could almost hope that it would lead to that entire class of PCNs being ruled illegal.

Also, having ruled that the contract with Wickes was not enough for them to pursue any recovery from anyone, I wonder if there is mileage in anyone who has actually paid for a PCN at that site, prior to the court date, in attempting to claim it back, citing this case. Perhaps Mr Ibbotson could leaflet the Car Park on his next visit.

peter_the_piper

VCS did not even know which parts of the car park were actually their to ticket.

AlexisV

taxiphil wrote: »

I quite agree; Judge McIlwaine certainly seems to have an agenda and has alluded to a cheeky interest in internet forums. The consipracy theorist in me thinks that this was intended as a bloody nose in return for S-R-S's well publicised comments about District Judge Lateef in the Martin Cutts case.

In terms of "natural justice" this makes for a delightful read. But on a wider note I do find it deeply worrying that a judge can turn the whole case upon his own moral prejudice and give one party such a savaging. Despite our contempt on this forum towards PPCs, I'm not the first person on this thread to feel some degree of sympathy for the PPC's representatives in this matter; I do feel that Judge McIlwaine's threat of imprisonment was a step too far and goes beyond the rules of the game.

There's also the fact that our legal system is supposed to be adversarial, and so the judge should only consider the issues of law that are presented to them by each party. It's quite a concern, then, that the judge went to town on an issue of law that the defendant never even raised (as Coupon Mad has pointed out).

Let's not forget that an unfair legal system can cut both ways and if we are to applaud maverick judges, we must also accept the age-old British tradition that maverick judges usually have a bias in favour of the corporation, and against the man in the street. In other words, let's pause for a moment and consider our outrage if the innocent motorist had been on the receiving end of such a mauling.

I appreciate what you're saying. If I case is brought on a particular subject I think it's right that the judge has extensive knowledge on all aspects of law related to the subject matter, as long as its applicable. Because PPC cases are so rare, it's the judges that have zero knowledge that should be up for criticism, so I'm glad to see a judge that knew to examine matters of contract without prompt.
A judge that knows the PPC game inside and out will always give the company a hard time. So I don't think we need to feel sympathy when the law has been correctly applied. Remember ACS Law?

Regarding the 'entertaining' criticism, it boils down to due diligence. Again, when do judges ever know to bring this up? If you attempt to pul the wool over the judges eyes, with pathetic attempts to justify loss, you're going to get bitten one day. To be honest, they knew about VCS v HMRC and they continued. I think they should be grateful this didn't actually come up in name, but then again the saga isn't finished yet.

eamon

..........Wow!

Kite2010

Poor VCS, that was a good read.

LincolnshireYokel

AlexisV wrote: »

Remember ACS Law?.

Oh yes, that was jolly entertaining for quite a while in the end. Im staggered Crossley isnt running a PPC, same game, different target victim. They were another company who's only court successes relied on default judgements.

Kite2010

Isn't there another company doing something similar to ACS Law seeking money to avoid court if you downloaded a porno movie from Ben Dover productions?

"Dear Mr/Mrs Wireless Printer, you have caught downloading XYZ, please pay us £500 to avoid this going to court".

notts_phil

Just had a very good read of that contract !

Well she got a good rollocking!!

HardWorker2010_2

Great way to spend a happy half hour reading the transcript. I'd love to see what Mr I said in his email.....