VCS Spanked in Court Today

bargepole

​Sheffield County Court
Case No. 3QZ64216
VCS v Rachael Finn
Claim for £732.81 + Court Costs (multiple tickets)

I prepared all the defence packs for this lady, and handed the case over to kirkbyinfurnesslad as it's his territory.

He's just been on the phone to say the claim was dismissed, with £95 costs awarded to the defendant.

Apparently the killer point was GPEOL, the Judge ruled that VCS's calculations of loss didn't bear any relation to the parking incidents.

No doubt KIFL will supply further details when he gets home.

trisontana

I hope PE are also taking note regarding their false claims about never ever losing a court case over GPEOL.

trisontana

I wonder if Simon Renshaw Smith will have anything to say on this? Remember his comments when Excel lost the Peel Centre case, saying the judge was a disgrace to her profession?

Folkiedave

Well done to all concerned. I do think the judges are getting wise to these Private Parking Companies.

bazster

Folkiedave wrote: »

Well done to all concerned. I do think the judges are getting wise to these Private Parking Companies.

Indeed. SRS may well be sending a thank-you bouquet to Rachel Ledson. Of poison ivy.

Stroma

Wonderful news

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

First of judge asked what capacity I was there in, so pointed him to it in CPR
Vcs had no objections( quite a nice guy actually)
Judge started of by saying the case lay on three thing, locus/GPEOL/signage.

First of on locus standi he was satisfied (just) that they had standing due to the witness statement being signed by the same person and that it referred to the bpa code of practice
He said the contract they produced nothing and vcs then produced the contract which i objected to and if they wished to rely on it then i would ask for an adjournment, vcs said they wouldn’t show it. Judge said in any case no adjournment and to be dealt with today
He then spent most of the hearing going through the GPEOL statement, on each figure vcs went first then I questioned what they said etc. I tripped them up on quite a few of the points, and the judge agreed. The was no proof for these figures. I managed to get him in a twist over debt collection costs etc. VCS kept going back to a 2003 case (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2003/1669.html) where he kept saying about how GPEOL could be for a foreseen outcome according to this ruling

On the issue of signage this went mainly the way of vcs.

Judge then adjourned.

Vcs won on standing and signage
On the case of GPEOL he went to Thurlow judgement as it was the only relevant case. He said the document was unsatisfactory, there was no proof of these figures and that if the business operated like this it must owe a lot of money. Claim was then dismissed. Costs awarded

I only realised we were going to win when he left gpeol to last and said this was the most difficult bit

The judge commented on why was the no real binding judgement and mentioned that the would be at some point a hearing in cambridge

Quick chat at the end about parking eye and the vcs guy said how much all the parking companies were waiting on this court hearing

bazster

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

The judge commented on why was the no real binding judgement and mentioned that the would be at some point a hearing in cambridge

Clearly the judicial grapevine is operating!

The_Deep

Would that be Professor Rachael Finn, University of Sheffield?

bargepole

The_Deep wrote: »

Would that be Professor Rachael Finn, University of Sheffield?

The very same.

Marcyboy88

Really pleased to hear about someones success! In the early stages of waiting for the NTK myself. My landlord owns the bay I got the 'invoice' in, with proof of deeds, so if it ever should get to court I hope it will get laughed out.

Again though, pleased for Rachael and the brilliant people that have helped her.