Appeal refused what next?

The_Deep

County Court judges have been known to take a Mickey Mouse IAS adjudication at face value


I very much doubt if this is still the case. If a CCJ is ill-informed enough to believe that, then the matter should be brought to the attention of his/her superiors.


Always appeal to the IAS, it costs the PPC money, and it further devalues their decisions.

MyUsername

Is it worth writing to the BPA as VCS have broken their policy on appeals and also are demanding money for a car park that the site owner says VCS don't have permission to operate on.

pappa_golf

vcs do not use the BPA for appeals or code of practice


think micky mouse think IPC and gladstones

MyUsername

IAS rejected appeal but they did mention I should speak to a solicitor about the fact that the land owner and the supermarket both said they don't manage that car park. Both the IAS and VCS said I was wrong for contacting the landowner and the supermarket for some reason.

Anyway I wrote to the supermarket again who then said they would this time speak to VCS Parking about it all and I haven't heard from VCS Parking for 3 weeks, should I take that to mean they are taking me to court or that they have given up because of what Supermarket and the Landowner have both said.

Umkomaas

Can you show us a redacted copy of the IAS letter which said you were wrong to contact the landowner/supermarket please?

I haven't heard from VCS Parking for 3 weeks, should I take that to mean they are taking me to court or that they have given up because of what Supermarket and the Landowner have both said.

Sorry, we don't have a crystal ball!

The_Deep

If you have an anonymous unfavourable decision from the IAS, that could be the end of the matter, apart from a few threats some bullying. and much huffing and puffing from the PPC and their poodle solicitors.


I say this because I very much doubt if they would want you to show the anonymous travesty of an adjudication to a judge, who when told the PPC does not offer na viable appeal system, would throw the case out.t

MyUsername

The line the IAS used is "The driver should also appreciate that only the parking operator should be consulted and relied upon if there are any problems arising.".

I think that the IAS were responding to the fact that both the landowner and the supermarket have said they don't operate the car park.

beamerguy

MyUsername wrote: »

The line the IAS used is "The driver should also appreciate that only the parking operator should be consulted and relied upon if there are any problems arising.".

I think that the IAS were responding to the fact that both the landowner and the supermarket have said they don't operate the car park.

What rubbish the IAS state, you are entitled to ask whoever you want.

And to say the parking operator should be consulted and relied upon.

WHAT A JOKE :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Rely on a PPC in the IPC/IAS/GLADSTONES SHAM ????

In your dreams IAS

Half_way

I think that the IAS were responding to the fact that both the landowner and the supermarket have said they don't operate the car park

They could be technically correct, however many things can operate in a car park, thieves, drug dealers, con artists, PPCs the list is endless.
What you should be asking is who owns the car park, and who has allowed the PPC to operate there?

Coupon-mad

MyUsername wrote: »

The line the IAS used is "The driver should also appreciate that only the parking operator should be consulted and relied upon if there are any problems arising.".

I think that the IAS were responding to the fact that both the landowner and the supermarket have said they don't operate the car park.

That's just drivel isn't it, trying to gag people from complaining, it seems?! They do HATE people complaining to landowners.

Of course you have the right to complain to the principal/landowner about their apparently rogue agent. The IAS show themselves for what they really are, again! Obviously of a MERE AGENT was harassing you, your beef is mainly with those who contracted them - e.g. if a security guard tried to charge you £100 for his time holding the door open at the retail shop's entrance or a cleaner 'fined' you for dropping your receipt in the car park, you wouldn't only take the matter up with the security guard or cleaning contractor firm, you'd march over to the Customer Service desk of the store and raise merry hell!

SOMEONE contracted VCS there. Which Supermarket is this? I suspect it is the landowner or their site agent who contracted VCS, not the shop.

Sit tight and see if you get letters from BW Legal. This is defendable but you will need to let us help with the defence wording in good time.

Settling would be POINTLESS because BW Legal escalate the sum to over £230, whereas even if you faced VCS in court with a decent defence and still lost, you'd pay far less, more like £175 tops!

Search this forum for 'BW Legal' to be forewarned about the threatogram letters which you have to fight off and complain about, to try to avoid court papers. But even if they arrive, don't pay their £230+ but instead come back here at each BW Legal stage and read all the zillions of other threads ahead of you in this little game.

I'd recommend you get photos of signs, look for any EXCEL ones in particular, and get pics because they are a completely different firm. If not, get close-ups of the VCS wording and show us.