Help, got until 24th November to submit Defence for VCS

beamerguy

Umkomaas said:

Now might be an opportune moment to remind any newbies, reading about debt collection admin charges, of their origin. They are the brainchild of the owner of ZZPS (debt collectors) Gary Osner, whose further claim to fame is that he sits on the BPA board of directors!

I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all. 

https://parkmaven.com/news/gary-osner-zzps-interview

BPA rogues gallery Board of Directors.

https://www.britishparking.co.uk/board

Thanks for that. I knew Osner was on the board of the BPA but never knew he was the creator of such rubbish.  His little wheeze does not go down well with judges as they see through his scam ?

I have often wondered who writes the rubbish that the BPA put out .... must be him.

I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all. 

All cloud dreaming stuff that makes the BPA part of the scam industry.

Snakes_Belly

Some people go to court without really understanding the legal principles and how to defend their case. 

Snakes_Belly

"I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all." 

It will be interesting to see what the CoP says about the point at which debt collection should start. When does the speculative invoice become a debt? IMO when it is proved in court.  

D_P_Dance

It is only a debt if a judge says it is

Coupon-mad

Snakes_Belly said:

"I created the model of ‘admin fees’ for debt recovery because ticket value was so low that nobody would make any money. Parking is business and business is about money, after all." 

It will be interesting to see what the CoP says about the point at which debt collection should start. When does the speculative invoice become a debt? IMO when it is proved in court.  

So far, the MHCLG update published on 20th March, is silent about that aspect of the decision-making.

Leviathan747

My Peeps!!

Can you believe it - Excel lawyers have been in touch with journo & warned him off running this story!!!!! They said that they were going to appeal our case & going to win, as they had done so before & the court had agreed that VCS did have the right to sue. Excel lawyers said that he could run the story, but they didn't want him to mislead readers into thinking VCS had no grounds to sue & give them false hope of winning court cases (!).  Spoke to journo earlier & he seemed quite shaken up!  He's quite young & was pretty spooked!!  Last week he was up for outing SRS a bit & the fancy house he has in S17. Today, he was toning it right down & said what could I tell him that were verifiable *facts*.  

I said that the Supreme Court had ruled that parking companies could not ask for more than was stated on signage, That even if people lost in court with a judge lottery, they wouldn't pay more than the £100 invoice amount. This 'double recovery' was an absolute scam. That Sir Greg Knights Code of Practice for rogue parking operators, was going to regulate this cowboy industry. I also told him not to let them bully him!!!  Let's see what ends up in print!

KeithP

That sounds good.

Ask your journo to be sure to cover the appeal hearing.
In due course you will be advised of the exact hearing details.

Snakes_Belly

They have been reading this thread then, obviously.  I thought that the OP's case was not subject to appeal.

Leviathan747

Got sight of the email:

"The primary issue common to both cases is the authority of Vehicle Control Services Ltd to issue parking charges at this car park (on behalf of Excel Parking Services Ltd). We therefore maintain our stance in relation to what we set out in section A, and, we reiterate our concerns that an article based on a technically incorrect decision, that is currently under appeal, will mislead your readers and is likely to cause more damage than good. 

We would strongly advise that you refrain from publishing an article until matters have been finalised by the court"

Leviathan747

They have actually threatened him!! 

"If you are still minded to publish the article then you will leave us with little alternative but to pursue matters with respect to unfounded statements published. We state from the offset the we are not discouraging you from writing an article, we are just merely informing you as to the true position of the matter and to refrain from leading motorists to thinking they have a Defence with respect to authority."