Claim Form received - VCS - WON - For the second time!

beamerguy

95Rollers said:

I can't understand why VCS are such sore losers!?  They have wasted far more money and time than they were ever set to make! It's actually rather perverse and vindictive.  They are like a dog with a bone and can't let go.  It's strange and they would make better time binning it off, cutting their losses and processing other PCN threatagrams as the majority of people pay without contest! They must be desperate or spiteful or petty - or all the above! They has a hissy fit about the parking bill on their Excel website and it is their attitude and behaviour which is bringing on the much needed changes! 

 Well done Lyndon

It all goes back the days Excel/VCS were called "CAPTAIN CLAMPIT LIMITED"
Even then, SRS thought he was the Captain ... that ship sunk

That shows his mindset now, and his hate for people, his hate for judges and the law

It is companies like Excel/VCS that brought about the new code of practice. 
When the new appeals service comes, SRS will lose all the protection of the IPC/IAS

If the new appeals service operates like the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, SRS will be in for a shock ?

Umkomaas

Jenni_D said:

Pedant alert - the bill is already passed; it's just awaiting the finalisation of the Code of Practice and setup of the new appeals body. So it's basically waiting to be enacted.

Optimist alert - little chance before 2022. 

Coupon-mad

And we still have the hoop to jump through, of the new 'extra' public consultation in the Summer (not yet announced in detail) first, about the level of parking charge:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-technical-consultation-on-fairer-parking-charges

...which must surely see us showing evidence of the false 'debt recovery' costs by showing from saved screenshots and evidence, that the likes of DRP do this on a no-win-no-fee basis but then PPCs retain the false add-on and keep it bolted on in court claims (except ParkingEye). 

Thus, it is in my opinion, blatantly just added for enrichment of either DRP or the PPC, or roboclaim solicitor, or all three.  And eve if I am wrong in that, the costs are already within the justification for the high parking charge, otherwise why is it £50 - £100 at all?  

Let's not forget that although Beavis as £85/£50, the first twenty-odd PCNs paid per month at the discount provided nothing for ParkingEye because they paid the landowner an average of £1000 per month (this was openly stated in court during the Cambridge stage of Beavis) for the right to 'fine' and sue their own slowest customers for daring to be delayed in Staples by a faiulty printer (or daring to be disabled or pregnant or slower due to shopping with children/babies or being elderly). 

That is the biggest farce of an incentivised model you'd ever care to see.  Protection racket stylee, some might say.  That approach has to end in today's society.  It is high time the less rogue firms made contracts whereby they are paid, like here:

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2014/04/bristol-eye-hospital-is-this-how-paid.html

Not difficult, is it?  Car parks can be managed, not rinsed.

lyndonp59

Coupon-mad said:

Let's not forget that although Beavis as £85/£50, the first twenty-odd PCNs paid per month at the discount provided nothing for ParkingEye because they paid the landowner an average of £1000 per month (this was openly stated in court during the Cambridge stage of Beavis) for the right to 'fine' and sue their own slowest customers for daring to be delayed in Staples by a faiulty printer (or daring to be disabled or pregnant or slower due to shopping with children/babies or being elderly). 

That is the biggest farce of an incentivised model you'd ever care to see.  Protection racket stylee, some might say.  That approach has to end in today's society.  It is high time the less rogue firms made contracts whereby they are paid, like here:

I've always thought it an odd business model in how a company like VCS can make money in a free 2hr car park like Berkley Precinct. The only way they can make money is by dishing out PCNs. If everybody left within the 2hrs PLUS grace periods(!) then they would actually lose money. No wonder they never specify grace periods when they send out the PCNs.

If they operated with barriers in and out and you had to get a ticket validated to exit, and if you are over the 2Hr plus grace periods as in this example you pay the additonal amount of say £5/£10 etc. depending how much over you were, then they could easily manage it without resorting to PCNs, but there would be no easy, additional money in it for them! I suppose they would say barriers are not practical.........

lyndonp59

The Judgment - will have to see if they decide to appeal. Wouldn't seem worth their while to me, especially having effectively lost twice and been told by the district judge there were no grounds.

Coupon-mad

lyndonp59 said:

Coupon-mad said:

Let's not forget that although Beavis as £85/£50, the first twenty-odd PCNs paid per month at the discount provided nothing for ParkingEye because they paid the landowner an average of £1000 per month (this was openly stated in court during the Cambridge stage of Beavis) for the right to 'fine' and sue their own slowest customers for daring to be delayed in Staples by a faiulty printer (or daring to be disabled or pregnant or slower due to shopping with children/babies or being elderly). 

That is the biggest farce of an incentivised model you'd ever care to see.  Protection racket stylee, some might say.  That approach has to end in today's society.  It is high time the less rogue firms made contracts whereby they are paid, like here:

I've always thought it an odd business model in how a company like VCS can make money in a free 2hr car park like Berkley Precinct. The only way they can make money is by dishing out PCNs. If everybody left within the 2hrs PLUS grace periods(!) then they would actually lose money. No wonder they never specify grace periods when they send out the PCNs.

If they operated with barriers in and out and you had to get a ticket validated to exit, and if you are over the 2Hr plus grace periods as in this example you pay the additonal amount of say £5/£10 etc. depending how much over you were, then they could easily manage it without resorting to PCNs, but there would be no easy, additional money in it for them! I suppose they would say barriers are not practical.........

There's an article about PPCs and VAT in this month's Parking News (a BPA news publication linked on their Twitter) that says that something like 92% of VCS' income was/is from PCNs.  

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/408/36/

Clearly a society that allows that sort of business model in car parks where the public are invited, has a problem.

ignavia

Seems PPCs want to be treated the same as Local Authorities in terms of VAT. Maybe they should be treated the same in terms of ANPR as well.

Castle

Coupon-mad said:

There's an article about PPCs and VAT in this month's Parking News (a BPA news publication linked on their Twitter) that says that something like 92% of VCS' income was/is from PCNs.  

http://portfolio.cpl.co.uk/Parking-News/408/36/

Clearly a society that allows that sort of business model in car parks where the public are invited, has a problem.

The 92% figure was provided by VCS when they appealed against a VAT assessment to a Tribunal back in November 2014.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5768837/vcs-vs-hm-revenue-the-sequel
(It would actually be higher if they collected all of the PCN's which they issue, since the "Pay & Display" ticket revenue goes elsewhere!).