Won in court: East Midlands Airport / Vehicle Control Services (yet again!)

g0wfv

beamerguy said (in t'other thread!):

g0wfv said:

What does this mean for those of us still waiting to go to court (in a few weeks!) that have used Abuse of Process as part of the defence?

How do I go forward when the PPC's advocate inevitably brings up this case?  What do I say in response?

Shall I ask this question in my thread and continue the conversation there?

#Confused

Best to keep in your current thread.
In your claim, how have BWL described the fake £60 ? ..... answer on your thread please

So, over here now ....

It's obviously not a BWL case, but a VCS one, however there is a direct read-across to the added on £60 which they describe as "Debt collection costs".

beamerguy

g0wfv said:

beamerguy said (in t'other thread!):

g0wfv said:

What does this mean for those of us still waiting to go to court (in a few weeks!) that have used Abuse of Process as part of the defence?

How do I go forward when the PPC's advocate inevitably brings up this case?  What do I say in response?

Shall I ask this question in my thread and continue the conversation there?

#Confused

Best to keep in your current thread.
In your claim, how have BWL described the fake £60 ? ..... answer on your thread please

So, over here now ....

It's obviously not a BWL case, but a VCS one, however there is a direct read-across to the added on £60 which they describe as "Debt collection costs".

g0wfv said:

beamerguy said (in t'other thread!):

g0wfv said:

What does this mean for those of us still waiting to go to court (in a few weeks!) that have used Abuse of Process as part of the defence?

How do I go forward when the PPC's advocate inevitably brings up this case?  What do I say in response?

Shall I ask this question in my thread and continue the conversation there?

#Confused

Best to keep in your current thread.
In your claim, how have BWL described the fake £60 ? ..... answer on your thread please

So, over here now ....

It's obviously not a BWL case, but a VCS one, however there is a direct read-across to the added on £60 which they describe as "Debt collection costs".

Reference was made to BWL as it is their appeal you are worried about.

Such an appeal was of no surprise considering BWL keep getting beaten up in court.

VCS will no doubt try and use it but it is not important . Your case rests on what you have said already and abuse of process fake add-ons is a separate issue which could well destroy the VCS claim, or it might be the judge deducts the fake amount as most do. . Understanding the appeals judge decision is important because the judge ruled that automatic strike outs without proof was wrong without proof. The appeals Judge praised both Judges Taylor and Grant 

Courts around the country all agree and VCS have suffered, just as they did using BWLegal

The appeals judge mentioned the Beavis case but stopped short on so called debt recovery charges. That is probably because a higher court, the Supreme Court said ....198. ''...The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables the managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme...'

The Supreme Court is the ultimate decision maker and that was their ruling, not be overridden by the ex clamper VCS
The parking companies tend to reply on the COP's of the ATA, in your case the IPC. 
But, who is the IPC, they are just a members club who CANNOT create a law.  They suggest a fee for debt collection which goes against the Supreme Court, POFA2012 and the courts own ruling of double recovery. Even your Judge could not be bound by the rules of a members club

Then there is the "so called debt recovery charge"
This is what VCS claim, is that true, very doubtful. Given the number of cases passed to debt collectors, it would cost a fortune ... we do know that these idiotic debt collectors don't charge for failures and your case has gone to court because the debt collector failed. ???? 

So, can VCS prove to the court they paid a debt collector  ???
VCS needs to be very careful as false accounting is a criminal offence and HMRC can go back years once alerted

Getting the picture, this all goes far beyond the silly article you read by BWLegal

g0wfv

So, can VCS prove to the court they paid a debt collector  ???

I very much doubt they could, as all the debt collection letters are automatically generated templates in their own name ....

Thanks for the explanation - I wasn't too sure when I read the other thread if things had been scuppered on the abuse of process front!

beamerguy

g0wfv said:

So, can VCS prove to the court they paid a debt collector  ???

I very much doubt they could, as all the debt collection letters are automatically generated templates in their own name ....

Thanks for the explanation - I wasn't too sure when I read the other thread if things had been scuppered on the abuse of process front!

But they are claiming the debt collector fee so for a judge to believe them, they best prove it.

And, BWLegal don't scupper anyone or anything

Coupon-mad

Obviously nothing has been scuppered by that appeal.  The Judge stopped short of any finding of fact about adding £60.  Double recovery is still double recovery, of course = unenforceable.

g0wfv

Well, it was a rather easy win!

No technicalities needed - pure and simple that the PPC alleged pick up/drop off in a restricted zone and their own CCTV footage (which we produced in our defence) showed neither pick up or drop off occurred.

End of story.

It is rather nice when the PPC's advocate turns round at the end and says to us, "I thought it was going to go this way ...."

Le_Kirk

Well done!

nosferatu1001

Fab! Did you get your costs?

g0wfv

No costs.

I wasn't going to push it with the judge to be honest. He did ask about costs, but I didn't really know what to say to him. He didn't seem altogether familiar with what's allowable on the small claims track - he was standing in for the DJ who was "snowed under"! I'd be interested to see who he was tbh!

Suffice it to say he said allowable costs were very limited.  My sister was just happy she's not £185 out of pocket and VCS have been put back in their box. So I left it there.  It was all amicable - even the poor "solicitor's agent" that was representing VCS said, "she thought it was going to go this way" and "they usually have a stronger(!) case".  She was left scrabbling for arguments after the judge saw VCS's own CCTV footage of the event which thankfully my sister had kept and I'd introduced as evidence under the defence "Alleged act didn't occur" and agreed what VCS alleged didn't actually happen!

For the record, my sister pulled up beyond the fuel pumps in the vicinity of some barriers preventing the use of parking bays, had a short conversation with someone external to the vehicle (who neither got in or out of the car) then drove off - total time stationary, 16 seconds. Crucially foot on the brake all the time - so no handbrake which seemed to be this judge's distinction between "vehicle stopped" and "vehicle waiting to manoeuvre".

The Judge decided that as VCS wished to rely on the signage that forbade picking up or dropping off at the pumps, and my sister neither picked up, or dropped off and wasn't at the pumps either, that any alleged contract terms had not been breached! He went on to say that if VCS wished to litigate for "attempted" drop off/pick up, the signage would have to say as much.

There was brief discussion of No stopping signs, but as none could be made out in the immediate vicinity of my sister's car in any of the photos he disregarded them. (I did argue red zone didn't apply on forecourt anyway!)

So, panic over.

Thanks to all forumites for the excellent advice (as always!) and I will be watching events at this site with interest going forward.

Redx

excellent news , well done, another win against VCS

Another one bites the dust !!