We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Excel/VCS Spanked Again - Threaten with Contempt of Court!
bargepole
Posts: 3,238 Forumite
A thread over on CAG here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?326409-Excel&p=3839732&posted=1#post3839732
shows that Excel applied for an NPO to get the driver's name, which was granted, but when they brought the claim to court, the District Judge threw it out on the basis that only the landowner can claim for damages. Furthermore, he is circulating this ruling to other DJs, and has required Excel to provide reasons for wasting the Court's time with vexatious claims, or they may be charged with contempt of court.
This case was heard this past week, and follows on from the ruling from the Judges in the Upper Tax Tribunal (Excel/VCS again) that agents of the landowner (ie PPCs) have no legal right to claim for alleged breaches of contract.
So it looks like Simon Renshaw-Smith, with his outbursts against the judiciary, is actually doing a better job than these forums when it comes to torpedoing the sinking ship that is the PPC business model. Pip pip!
shows that Excel applied for an NPO to get the driver's name, which was granted, but when they brought the claim to court, the District Judge threw it out on the basis that only the landowner can claim for damages. Furthermore, he is circulating this ruling to other DJs, and has required Excel to provide reasons for wasting the Court's time with vexatious claims, or they may be charged with contempt of court.
This case was heard this past week, and follows on from the ruling from the Judges in the Upper Tax Tribunal (Excel/VCS again) that agents of the landowner (ie PPCs) have no legal right to claim for alleged breaches of contract.
So it looks like Simon Renshaw-Smith, with his outbursts against the judiciary, is actually doing a better job than these forums when it comes to torpedoing the sinking ship that is the PPC business model. Pip pip!
I have been providing assistance, including Lay Representation at Court hearings (current score: won 57, lost 14), to defendants in parking cases for over 5 years. I have an LLB (Hons) degree, and have a Graduate Diploma in Civil Litigation from CILEx. However, any advice given on these forums by me is NOT formal legal advice, and I accept no liability for its accuracy.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards