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

give_them_FA

Interestingly, the link posted up by the OP here does not lead to the report contained in the first post. Neither, having examined the CAG forum, can I find this report.

Freddy, if you are a genuine law student and are posting purely as a matter of interest- IF - then you need to understand that this forum is constantly plagued by a Parking Company owner who comes on, using a variety of different user names, and does his utmost to confuse and spread disinformation. Hence, when you, as a brand-new user, came on and started off with "Tosh" that immediately set the alarm bells ringing.

You are correct in your statement that no judgment will refer to a previous, parallel court judgment of course; but that will not stop the judge from taking a previous, similar case into consideration even if he does not later quote it.

Whilst the situation now is that the original case posted up here needs to be verified, I can readily see why (if it is accurately reported) the DJ made such comments.

On 2nd May VCS were told by the Upper Tribunal that they had no right to pursue Court claims on their own behalf. Yet, just two weeks later, they are doing precisely that! It would be surprising if any Judge would not think they were being contemptuous of the previous decision and warn other Courts.

After all a common problem with small claims is that as it is largely parties acting in person, it may be easy for the company to attempt to pull a fast one in the belief that the Defendant will not know enough about the Law to raise the point.

By the way, as a Law Student how is it that you cannot spell precedent? Can hardly be a typo as the two letters a and e are not adjacent.

It is a feature of our uninvited guest that his spelling is often defective.

give_them_FA

vax2002 wrote: »

WARNING:
I think this bloke is arguing so he can collect posters interpretation on defending claims.
Stop showing him your hands of cards.

Possibly, Vax. But in civil courts I think you have to play with your cards face up. You are not supposed to "surprise" your opponent by hiding things until the last moment.

vax2002

But lets say if he was the new solicitor from Excel, exploring defences in preparation, to tailor cases, then if they are pre-warned they are pre-armed

give_them_FA

If you cannot see my point then you will not do very well in the field of law! Precedent is a word you will use very frequently in your legal education and undoubtedly already have. Hence the suspicion raised by your apparent inability to spell it. And application of law, which is largely the comprehension of the written word, requires high levels of proficiency in the English language IMHO. Yes indeed I am going to be considerably older than you and was educated at a time when phonetic spelling was not permitted!

I would however say that I am beginning to come towards the opinion previously expressed by Stephen that the syntax of your posts is dissimilar to our usual guest.

give_them_FA

vax2002 wrote: »

But lets say if he was the new solicitor from Excel, exploring defences in preparation, to tailor cases, then if they are pre-warned they are pre-armed

No, we are the ones who are pre-armed because we always see the particulars of claim before having to respond with the defence. And I think as do most, that the Excel newspaper blurb was... just that. If the case reported in this thread is correct they will not be taking out any more claims in the near future.

I don't agree that the reference in the Upper Tribunal judgement to VCS being unable to sue was obiter. It was the core reason for the decision. The Court made the decision that VCS had no right to form a contract with the motorist, so their charge to the motorist was the property of the landlord ("client"). It was explicit that VCS could not offer or enter into any contract.

The Tribunal apparently did not consider the matter of enforcements in court, simply the issue of the charges; hence the comment that the charges would be unenforceable penalties was indeed obiter.

bargepole

freddy_miles wrote: »

I agree that penalties can not be imposed, however you statement above is technically incorrect.
Parties can agree that a fee for anything is payable, it is all down to the wording of each and every contract which is normally different in each and every occasion. ...

Your statement is also technically incorrect. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations would apply if one of the parties is a private individual, and if part or all of the contract was found to be in breach of those regulations, it wouldn't matter what fees had been agreed, the contract is unenforceable.

give_them_FA

bargepole wrote: »

Your statement is also technically incorrect. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations would apply if one of the parties is a private individual, and if part or all of the contract was found to be in breach of those regulations, it wouldn't matter what fees had been agreed, the contract is unenforceable.

Yes, and this applies in particular to contracts where the terms are not individually negotiated but are laid out in advance. Such as a PPC notice.

taffy056

You've got to agree to the terms and conditions of parking, it has been argued that those terms are not enforceable if you can't see them! And Excel lost the case in that regard. Try this link and watch video 5 where watchdog brings up the exact case of Excel losing in court.

give_them_FA

I believe that the reasoning lay in the contract VCS had with the client. The contract afforded no right of occupation or tenancy and therefore VCS had no beneficial interest that would enable them to charge and retain monies on their own behalf. They could only act as agents of the landowner.

It does not look to me as if the Tribunal was putting this proposition forward this as new law, but was citing it as an established principle
leading to the conclusion that any offer of contract by VCS was void.

I do not think that the reason of the charges being sought (failure to display permit) had any bearing on the issue. It just so happened that it was a permit park. The same would have applied had it been, e.g., a pay and display. The agent has no right to form a contract, only the landowner.

give_them_FA

Yes, and now you are understanding why we are here- to deal with the underhand methods of these companies whose objective is revenue generation, not parking management. All too often the signs are placed where they are not obvious, as in the case Excel lost in Stockport where the DJ actually visited the locus in quo to check. Yes I did Latin at school as well, lol