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

Leviathan747

Coupon-mad said:

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.

OK thanks CM. I had understood it that £100 was sufficient to cover costs, as this is the standard amount that PPC's threaten in the small print.

Umkomaas

£85 in Beavis. 

Leviathan747

Snakes_Belly said:

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

Very interesting!  No wonder Excel are getting worked up about VCS having no authority to sue at the Berkley Centre.  This being flagged as a thing in the local press, means they would be completely stuffed.  It's a direct hit!! 

Fruitcake

It looks to me that the scammers are getting frightened, why else would they lie and threaten the journo?

Snakes_Belly

Leviathan747 said:

Snakes_Belly said:

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

Very interesting!  No wonder Excel are getting worked up about VCS having no authority to sue at the Berkley Centre.  This being flagged as a thing in the local press, means they would be completely stuffed.  It's a direct hit!! 

I don't know if you have ever read the transcript of the case below. It's a bit dated now and a long read but worth it.

The trangression by the defendant was in leaving the site at a Wickes car park managed by VCS. There is much initial dialogue about leaving the car park and (before Beavis) "true estimate of loss." The case though turns on whether VCS had the authority to issue proceedings and the judge really drills down into this. 

If their reps come up against a judge who like the judge in the case above takes the time to really drill down VCS and Excel seem to slip up quite often.    

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=16231)

 

beamerguy

Fruitcake said:

It looks to me that the scammers are getting frightened, why else would they lie and threaten the journo?

I agree, what we have here is a very disturbed ex clamper who thinks he rules the world.

It must be a reality shock when he wakes up to discover ... he does not

Redx

I strongly suggest that you and the journo read this strike out order where all the references are mentioned

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6237724/parking-fine-from-civil-enforcement-ltd-letter-from-ccbc#latest

Including Beavis , the CRA , POFA etc

Fruitcake

There is no problem whatsoever with the journo using facts already in the public domain. This includes use of words such as cowboys, rogues, bloodsuckers, akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank, unregulated scam etcetera, because all of these expressions were used by MPs from all parties in Parliamentary Debate when discussing the private parking industry.

Leviathan747

Snakes_Belly said:

I don't know if you have ever read the transcript of the case below. It's a bit dated now and a long read but worth it.
 

Was there supposed to be a link SB?

Redx

Leviathan747 said:

Snakes_Belly said:

I don't know if you have ever read the transcript of the case below. It's a bit dated now and a long read but worth it.
 

Was there supposed to be a link SB?

Hansard has been quoted dozens of times on here

Read this thread for details on the £85 Beavis case etc too

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6143001/should-i-just-pay-bw-legal-intent-to-proceed-after-defence-submitted/p9