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!
Vehicle Control Systems lose claim ... usual tripe from BWLegal
 
            
                
                    beamerguy                
                
                    Posts: 17,587 Forumite
         
             
         
         
             
         
         
             
         
         
             
                         
            
                        
             
         
         
             
         
         
            
                    Vehicle Control Systems lose claim ... usual tripe from BWLegal
VCS v Mr W C7DP4Q93, 22/2/17 Bradford.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-systems-lose-claim.html
As Mr W was not the driver and keeper liability was not invoked, he was not liable to the charge.
VCS disagreed and engaged a bottom-feeding law firm, BW Legal, to issue a claim.
The Judge clearly knew his stuff and had done his homework. The poor young lady from BW Legal was ripped apart and the Judge handled the hearing beautifully.
PE v Beavis, Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films were not relevant
                VCS v Mr W C7DP4Q93, 22/2/17 Bradford.
http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/vehicle-control-systems-lose-claim.html
As Mr W was not the driver and keeper liability was not invoked, he was not liable to the charge.
VCS disagreed and engaged a bottom-feeding law firm, BW Legal, to issue a claim.
The Judge clearly knew his stuff and had done his homework. The poor young lady from BW Legal was ripped apart and the Judge handled the hearing beautifully.
PE v Beavis, Elliott v Loake and CPS v AJH Films were not relevant
0        
            This discussion has been closed.
            Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
 
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards