Heads up - New VCS Loss statement

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

What are peoples thoughts?

We need to be getting this challenged as and when they come up.
You can see they are including the Cambridge case in it and saying that a penalty is allowed under contract law.

This new statement cant and must not go unchallenged.

Links are here:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/95rvrhgwvuo4fwp/G2_PEOL_Legal%20Argument.pdf

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zzdtze0h72kioh6/G1_GPEoL%20Statement.pdf

On the basis of the above legal arguments we submit to the Adjudicator that our charge represents a legally enforceable
charge under English Law and is based on a genuine pre-estimate of loss. If however the Adjudicator believes, or is
persuaded by the motorist's claim that this represents a penalty then we submit that on the basis of the legal case law
and argument provided, that a penalty is also permitted under Contract Law and the Adjudicator cannot rule against this
charge on such basis as was determined by HHJ Moloney QC, in his rulin

g.

Umkomaas

I wonder who drafted those two? Fingerprints of Capt Kirk?

The_Slithy_Tove

So not even VCS know if their charges are GPEOL or lawful [TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM] penalty. Surely it's for them to lay out the basis of their charge, not for POPLA or the appellant to guess. If VCS can't state up front the basis of the charge, then surely that's enough to have it thrown out. [Though we all know POPLA are as inconsistent as the likes of VCS when it comes to making coherent arguments.]


Oh, and just to show how deluded those morons at VCS are, the Cambridge case is NOT case law.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

The ruling is not case law

skypilot

kirkbyinfurnesslad wrote: »

The ruling is not case law

I refer you back to the VCS contract proposal I pasted on. VCS are clearly looking for away to justify GPEOL, in the light of the document which claims to be their standard contract they cannot possibly win the argument.
I've also noted that their signage claims 'privater property",which in the areas seen is clearly not true as the land is owned by the local council,therefore public land.
There must be a case for pursuing VCS for criminal damage as they erect their errant signage without gaining the appropriate planning permission.Plus where placing signs on building which they do not own and have permission to do so must be able to be considered as a wilful act of vandalism/ criminal damage.
I'm not a legal expert but I will be making these points to my local MP and challenging him to notify the relevent local council to act against a private company using publicly owned property for its own business purposes.

Coupon-mad

For a rebuttal, see my post #30 here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4925895

Would work for Excel too, plus anything else people can add as I skim-read the tedious piece of spin.

HO87

One can almost feel the Cheshire Cat grin the author of that overblown puff-piece has written.

The fact - as opposed to "interpretation" - that VCS and their fellow travellers still fail to confront is that whether one calls it a genuine pre-estimate of loss, a fluffy pink, polka dot rhino or, in the case of Simon Renshaw-Smith, a nice shiny yacht, and whether one justifies it as "commercially justified", the legal purpose of the payments they seek to enforce is to return them to the position they would have occupied had there been no breach in the first place.

VCS - like all of the others - make a substantial profit on the back of the PCN's they issue and enforce.

Is it equitable for a company that, measured by any business - even accepted social - norms, effectively sets itself up to fail and then expects the courts to support it when the inevitable happens so that it can profit?

bazster

But if a PoPLA assessor did conclude that a VCS charge was a legal penalty, based on Moloney's extraordinary attempt to rewrite the law from the County Court, the assessor would also be concluding that VCS had breached the BPA AOS Code of Practice! And any breach of the CoP is breach of the KADOE contract...

Custard_Pie

We shouldn't be suprised. GPEOL is the bane of every PPC's life. It costs them money and puts their whole business model in jeopardy if at some point it gets properly tested in Court. If they get a GPEOL ruling against them that sets precedent, then the whole invoicing scheme becomes worthless.

So, we should expect this and we should expect at some point a turn in the number of GPEOL wins at PoPLA.

Umkomaas

Musings: this seems too detailed and too well expressed to have been drafted internally. I wonder whether this is a joint venture between some of the PPC heavyweights and this, under the VCS banner, is a tracer to ascertain future strategy?

It may also be why there have been so many PSDSUs where GPEOL has been cited - thereby preventing more recent GPEOL losses to rack up in POPLA records?

Custard_Pie

Umkomaas wrote: »

Musings: this seems too detailed and too well expressed to have been drafted internally. I wonder whether this is a joint venture between some of the PPC heavyweights and this, under the VCS banner, is a tracer to ascertain future strategy?

It may also be why there have been so many PSDSUs where GPEOL has been cited - thereby preventing more recent losses to rack up in POPLA records?

A no-show is a loss though as PoPLA list it as a cancelled invoice.