VCS in the news again

D_P_Dance

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/

Please no complants against the F & P  words, they carry far more weight with the great unwashed than the word invoice. 

Ralph-y

I can not see anything re VCS ?

could you check the link please

Ralph

D_P_Dance

Sorry wrong link.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8065277/Driver-fined-185-pulling-41-seconds-East-Midlands-Airport-adjust-wing-mirror.html

beamerguy

D_P_Dance said:

Sorry wrong link.  

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8065277/Driver-fined-185-pulling-41-seconds-East-Midlands-Airport-adjust-wing-mirror.html

The Daily Mail should be told that £185 is unlawful, VCS adding their scam amount

D_P_Dance

I think that we should post this link into our replies to every VCS post.  

Coupon-mad

It's not relevant to other VCS cases, only no stopping ones, and people need to know that:
(a) she has not won or lost in court yet, but
(b) she might win based on the Airport byelaws allowing stopping in an 'emergency', but
(c) don't forget VCS v Ward.

VCS v Ward is the single most shocking & clueless appeal or higher judgment in parking cases, IMHO, that we've seen since P/Eye v Beavis (The Supreme Court was shamefully utterly taken in and clueless about the industry, the intention to penalise and 'rape & pillage' drivers, and the role of the BPA CoP). 


Mr Ward stopped for EIGHT SECONDS due to the emergency safety issue of checking a car warning light and switching the engine off and on again...(see below - read it and weep for the judiciary if this is what an appeal ends up with, a Judge being steered by VCS, as their rep stole the floor and took advantage of Mr Ward not appearing at the appeal).

VCS v Crutchley is also ludicrous.  

Both examples of how a parking firm can lead a fairly clueless Judge around the corner and up the garden path, given the chance.  Apparently, the Judges in Ward and in Crutchley, managed to swallow the spurious drivel that the Beavis case (where the signs were seen by a parked driver, and were brief and in large letters) is the same as a 'no-stopping zone' where the signs can only be seen and read, if you stop. 

And they actually believed that a driver ''could have'' got out of the car before entering the 'zone' (leaving the car where?!) on the off chance that there might be signs that would onerously catch him/her in a concealed pitfall or trap.  

''Ludicrous'' doesn't begin to describe some judgments.

Half_way

The irritating thing about these media stories is that there is no way to get the victim to post on here - or elsewhere for real help.

And the comments sections are full of the usual clap trap

 

D_P_Dance

It's not relevant to other VCS cases, 

I agree, but it is relevant to the MO of VCS   and to their lack of integrity.  If a judge reads it it may help our cause, (It is certainly unlikely to do us harm). 
 

John464

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

D_P_Dance

I like the Daily Mail, it reinforces my prejudices.