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

beamerguy

Leviathan747 said:

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"

Your journo will no doubt be talking to his editor.   This is history coming alive again where they are blaming the judge with "a technically incorrect decision"


What are they appealing, ?    the judge made it very clear ...
"companies were distinct legal persons and there is no signed agreement between the landowner and Excel to transfer duties to VCS. Judge Rose also said that sending out misleading documents had criminal consequences.

This is all schoolboy stuff about legal entities, it's not a technical error, it is pure incompetence from Excel/VCS 
There is not a judge in the land who would not understand this.

It really does remind me of the song "Your daddy ain't your daddy but your daddy don't know"

Has the journo got a link to this thread ?   and this forum.  ?

 
This vindictive attitude will be part of their downfall, 
The story must be copied to the National press 

And the Judge said "misleading documents had criminal consequences" .... and they going to appeal ?????

If the journo feels threatened, then he must contact the police
If they attempt to sue the paper, that is the best way to expose themselves nationwide .... prime meat for Fleet Street

Leviathan747

beamerguy said:

It really does remind me of the song "Your daddy ain't your daddy but your daddy don't know"

  Hilarious 

Coupon-mad

The journo will run away, local papers always do when PPCs threaten them.

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.

No, the Supreme court didn't.

This 'double recovery' was an absolute scam

Yes, true!  

Leviathan747

Coupon-mad said:

No, the Supreme court didn't.

Supreme court in Beavis?

Castle

Leviathan747 said:

Phew! Just finished interview with paper guy. Got in a) Invoice not fine b) SRS multimillion owner of Excel & VCS c) Clamping king d) double recovery e) separate legal entities, cannot sue on behalf of each other f) that MP & Trading Standards had been informed g) new government regulation of this cowboy industry planned f) amazing support by your good selves at money saving expert.  Let's see what gets printed!! Fingers crossed!! I tried to stay unemotional...am hoping he doesn't just print my furious outbursts at what crooks these people are lol.

Apparently Excel had accused this journo of 'picking on them', as he's done several stories.  He explained that people come to him, as the problem is ongoing & they know he knows about it! He also asked why they have separate companies suing to the ones in charge of car parks. I hazarded a guess that it must be due to liabilities, but that I didn't know.

One possible theory is that business rates for car parks are based on the income of the car park. Pay & Display ticket income goes to Excel and income from PCN's go to VCS; Question is; are both figures disclosed to the VOA or just one? 

beamerguy

Leviathan747 said:

Coupon-mad said:

No, the Supreme court didn't.

Supreme court in Beavis?

Barry Beavis v Parking Eye in the Supreme Court.

Barry claimed the charge of £85 was unfair.  (the scammers then increased it to £100)
The judges said the charge was fair because it included the operational costs.

That is significant for the fake add-ons of £60 plus.   

Of course after the case, the judges did not look into the future and failed to grasp that this would throw the doors wide open to bombard the county court system with thousands of claims and ever since the code of practice(s) who said they could add debt collector costs, the claims thereafter became fake claims.

Both the BPA and IPC have gone behind the ruling of the Supreme court which was the brainchild of a BPA director to make more money for the PPC.
The joke of this is that both codes of practice are no different to a fairytale book which ONLY applies to a member of the ATA .... the PPC.  

This is an unfair clause as the motorist does not know about the code of practice until they get a ticket


VCS and Excel have had their fair share of court spankings about this as you can see here >>
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6103933/abuse-of-process-thread-part-2/p1?new=1

The EXCEL v WILKINSON case is a prime example.

As far as the entity goes, either Excel or VCS signed a contract with the landowner.  Whoever it was must follow through with that entity .... signs ... tickets ... letters and eventually going to court

If the landowner allows a signed contract with one company and allows another entity to enforce, it's no different to a contract being signed by Reggie Kray and enforcement by Ronnie Kray

I think your journo and the newspaper should consider the actual facts

Snakes_Belly

Case which defines a company as a separate legal entity. 

If VCS went down the pan I don't think that the creditors could claim from Excel unless personal guarantees had been signed by the directors. Unsecured creditors would have no claim at all against Excel. You can't have it both ways when it suits your purpose.

Saloman was a sole trader and also had a company so same principle.


https://www.ivoryresearch.com/samples/explain-and-discuss-the-importance-of-the-house-of-lords-judgment-in-salomon-v-salomon-co-1897-in-developing-the-principle-of-separate-corporate-personality-and-the-exceptions-to-th/#:~:text=The landmark case of Salomon,business as a sole trader.

Coupon-mad

Leviathan747 said:

Coupon-mad said:

No, the Supreme court didn't.

Supreme court in Beavis?

Of course.  They didn't decide any of the things you said, that's the issue, none of that is true.  The decision was diabolical and anti-consumer and Mr Beavis lost (and there were lots of findings) but not what you said there.

Snakes_Belly

Castle said:

Leviathan747 said:

Phew! Just finished interview with paper guy. Got in a) Invoice not fine b) SRS multimillion owner of Excel & VCS c) Clamping king d) double recovery e) separate legal entities, cannot sue on behalf of each other f) that MP & Trading Standards had been informed g) new government regulation of this cowboy industry planned f) amazing support by your good selves at money saving expert.  Let's see what gets printed!! Fingers crossed!! I tried to stay unemotional...am hoping he doesn't just print my furious outbursts at what crooks these people are lol.

Apparently Excel had accused this journo of 'picking on them', as he's done several stories.  He explained that people come to him, as the problem is ongoing & they know he knows about it! He also asked why they have separate companies suing to the ones in charge of car parks. I hazarded a guess that it must be due to liabilities, but that I didn't know.

One possible theory is that business rates for car parks are based on the income of the car park. Pay & Display ticket income goes to Excel and income from PCN's go to VCS; Question is; are both figures disclosed to the VOA or just one? 

There is a theory that originally it was something to do with one of the companies being BPA and the other IPC  There is something about this on the Parking Prankster's web page. 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/12/excel-parking-services-ltd-try-one-two.html

Snakes_Belly

More from the Prankster.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/12/vcs-spend-over-1000-chasing-bogus-100.html