VCS lose again

Bananasparking

I wanted to come in here and thank everyone on the forum. Thanks to those who have put the content of the newbies thread together and all the helpful replies to all the posts.

Thanks to reading all of that and following the excellent advice I was able to win against VCS.

My defence was sparse because I hadn't done as much reading as I should have but had the key points about keeper liability and PoFA timescales that were the core points. My witness statement was much better.

Good old Mr Wilkes was there for VCS in front of judge Josling who had narrowed the arguements down before we got in to whether vcs could rely on the law of agency when they haven't followed pofa. Mr Wilkes agreed that was the key point.

Vcs tried to rely on Jennings in their witness statement. Judge josling made it clear that was none starter and asked Mr wilkes for his authority. Of course he had none. There was nice circular arguement which Mr wilkes came out worse from and then judge josling flicked to excel vs Smith in my evidence and made a laboured point about how helpful a proper bundle was and that it was amazing someone representing themself can do it when the claimant can't.

Then he made his judgement that vcs have no basis for their claim so it is dismissed. I asked for costs for half a days pay and mileage. Mr wilkes studied my costs schedule it for a very long time and then agreed.

Mr wilkes asked to appeal on the basis he wanted the law of agency to apply. There was another back and forth with the judge saying that if you want to hold the keeper liable you have to comply with pofa and he refused the request for appeal.

It all took about half an hour.

Now I wait for my cheque

Another one bites the dust!

The_Deep

They have wasted your time, now waste theirs, complain to your MP.

The whole industry is a scam, relying on threats of court, and the public's ignorance of the Law, A bill is currently before parliament which will regulate the scammers, many of whom are ex-clampers.

This is an entirely unregulated industry which is scamming the public with inflated claims for minor breaches of alleged contracts for alleged parking offences, aided and abetted by a handful of low-rent solicitors. Is has been suggested by an MP that some of these companies may have connections to organised crime.

Parking Eye, CPM, Smart, (especially Smart}, and others have already been named and shamed in the House of Commons as have Gladstones Solicitors, and BW Legal, (these two law firms take hundreds of these cases to court each week), hospital car parks and residential complex tickets have been especially mentioned. They lose most of them, and have been reported to the regulatory authority by an M.P. for unprofessional conduct

The problem has become so widespread that MPs have agreed to enact a Bill to regulate these scammers.

Sir Greg Knight's Private Members Bill to curb the excesses, and perhaps close down, some of these companies passed its Second Reading in the Lords this month, and, with a fair wind, will l become Law later this year..

All five readings are available to watch on the internet, (some 7-8 hours), and published in Hansard. MPs have an extremely low opinion of the industry. Many are complaining that they are becoming overwhelmed by complaints from members of the public. Add to their burden, complain in the most robust terms about the scammers.

beamerguy

Well done Bananasparking :beer:

Wonder why VCS use old Wilkes ....... another failure

Simon Renshaw-Smith will be spitting hot coals and probably throwing more toys from his pram:rotfl:

Oh dear .... never mind SRS ..... BOOM BOOM

BrownTrout

Trouble these victories are so minor given the huge numbers we see each day through the courts . Look at the likes of UKCPM

Snakes_Belly

Well done Bananasparking. There is a lady in a similar situation with VCS and they are citing the same case. I hope that she reads your thread.

Snakes_Belly

I guess many do not follow through when it starts to get serious. Every one that goes to court whether they win or lose must waste a lot of the PPC's time.

MistyZ

Bananasparking wrote: »

judge josling flicked to excel vs Smith in my evidence and made a laboured point about how helpful a proper bundle was and that it was amazing someone representing themself can do it when the claimant can't.

Congratulations! I love the bit above. In fact I love it all! You write a cracking account of court proceedings, very clear and accessible. I'm going to keep this in case I or someone I know ever takes a PCN that far.

beamerguy

BrownTrout wrote: »

Trouble these victories are so minor given the huge numbers we see each day through the courts . Look at the likes of UKCPM

So negative old brown trout ..... you would be no good in running your own company on the subject

BrownTrout

beamerguy wrote: »

So negative old brown trout ..... you would be no good in running your own company on the subject

No your right , !!!, negative but realistic. These stories are indeed good to read but given the daily court listings they are such a tiny amount

MistyZ

BrownTrout wrote: »

No your right , !!!, negative but realistic. These stories are indeed good to read but given the daily court listings they are such a tiny amount

Encouraging to others though.

It is infuriating that the scammers rely on points of law, even though they can barely apply them themselves, and many honest people don't know they have to fight fire with fire ... unless they come here or to pepipoo. But when they do truck up here, they need to see that there are very good chances of winning.

I'd encourage everyone who wins, by whatever route, to make a big noise about it.

Coupon-mad

There was nice circular arguement which Mr wilkes came out worse from and then judge josling flicked to excel vs Smith in my evidence and made a laboured point about how helpful a proper bundle was and that it was amazing someone representing themself can do it when the claimant can't.

Loved it! :T