VCSL Successfully Appeal the Strike Out Orders

Coupon-mad

Lamilad said:

It's not necessarily a bad thing that more of these cases may now progress to full trial rather than being struck out as it's clear there are numerous judges up and down the country who DO believe the additional charge is unenforceable. 

And, whilst they may now be more reluctant to strike out, it's obvious they don't like the charge and this allows Ds to make a more persuasive argument for unreasonable behaviour costs after the Claim is dismissed - which is usually the case in properly defended claims, especially against Excel/ VCS.

On top of that, it's far more costly for the PPCs to lose at trial rather than have their claim struck out.

The case I will be Lay Rep for later today is against Excel (though judging by the Cs evidence you'd be forgiven for thinking it's against VCS) and includes the additional charge. I am very much looking forward to advancing the argument that the charge IS an abuse of process and the Britannia v SJ appeal does nothing to change that fact

Come back here tomorrow night, JB111, for the court report. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. 

I think this might be the one:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6222982/court-report-excel-vs-mr-c-excel-lose-another-sd-gym-claim-at-skipton-woeful-evidence-bundle/p1?new=1

Thoughts, @JB111 ?

What about the other thread this week about the lady who has just defended and lodged a £900 counterclaim, in a superhuman effort the day before she's being admitted to Hospital for a series of surgeries, because VCS didn't discontinue your hopeless, discriminatory claim?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6149245/90-seconds-part-two/p1

Thoughts, @JB111 ?

It's not been a good year for the private parking industry, in many ways, has it?

Snakes_Belly

"It's not been a good year for the private parking industry, in many ways, has it?"

I can't see that 2021 will be any better for the parking companies. People will be wary of booking up to go abroad. Some businesses will come back quickly but it will take a long time before the travel industry gets back to what it was before Covid if it ever does.  Airports will not be as busy.

High street is suffering badly (was before Covid) and more people are buying online and making less trips to shops.  More people are working from home and friends of mine have now been given the option of home working permanently as their employers are reducing the number of offices.

Then there is the impact of the new CoP. Whatever the outcome of this I hope that it results in some respite for the people that have issues with residential parking. That must be the worst scenario as they have no choice as to where they park and it is their right to park in their allocated space.     

bargepole

Snakes_Belly said:

High street is suffering badly (was before Covid) and more people are buying online and making less trips to shops.  More people are working from home and friends of mine have now been given the option of home working permanently as their employers are reducing the number of offices.

Indeed. My son runs a Digital Marketing Consultancy, helping companies to improve their engagement with online customers. He has calculated that the trend towards online buying has been accelerated by some 3 to 5 years by the pandemic. 

His own company, with 17 employees, has now terminated the lease on their London offices, and they all now work from home permanently, through a secure intranet connection. This is saving around £14k a month, with no downside.

Many other firms are taking a similar view, and High Streets across the country are becoming a deserted wasteland of charity shops and estate agents. Slim pickings indeed for private car park operators.

beamerguy

It's obvious what is going to happen.  We are now watching a massive game of monopoly with the millionaire guys trying to keep the big names going but the likes of Amazon will grow and grow leaving hundreds of landlords with empty properties 

The fact is that is that before covid I hardly purchased anything from the internet, much prefer to go to the shops ....... no longer, I trust myself to be secure, stay my distance masked up but am horrified by others who seem oblivious to the virus

I am delighted there is a vaccine, in my age group it will be months before I get it as with millions of others ......  so I have placed myself in a mini lockdown, will not go in into majot supermarkets or big stores.   Apart from protecting myself, I am protecting my car from the other virus .. parking companies

I am more than happy to see parking firms go bust and that will help kill off the idiotic debt collectors and in turn the pretend dodgy legals who copy the Kray Twins

Redx

VCSL lose again !!!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6212400/vcs-no-stopping-at-bristol-airport-witness-statement/p1

It is good that VCSL claim ms get heard in court , and then lose as should happen in any dubious sc@m claim

No £60 unlawful additions plus £95 to the defendant !!

Fruitcake

With the drop of in retail and travel industry parking, I fear the *scammers will target more and more residential properties until the new CoP starts to bite.

I note that the OP hasn't posted for several days, but has still been otherwise active viewing threads. I wonder if MSE Towers has told him not to post unless/until he declares that he is acting on behalf of an unregulated private parking company.

*Description used by UK MPs in open Parliament.

Snakes_Belly

Fruitcake said:

With the drop of in retail and travel industry parking, I fear the *scammers will target more and more residential properties until the new CoP starts to bite.

I note that the OP hasn't posted for several days, but has still been otherwise active viewing threads. I wonder if MSE Towers has told him not to post unless/until he declares that he is acting on behalf of an unregulated private parking company.

*Description used by UK MPs in open Parliament.

I hope that the new CoP gives residents some protection against the PPC's. It IMO is the worst scenario because they have to park there. I had a choice to avoid the car park where I was ticketed.

It also can impact on the sale of a property. There has got to be a better way than introducing a PPC. 
   

bargepole

Snakes_Belly said:

I hope that the new CoP gives residents some protection against the PPC's. It IMO is the worst scenario because they have to park there. I had a choice to avoid the car park where I was ticketed.

It also can impact on the sale of a property. There has got to be a better way than introducing a PPC. 
   

This is what I said in the response to PAS232:

Where car parking is restricted to certain authorised persons (e.g. residents’ car parks, staff car parks) it must be remembered that the purpose of a permit is merely to provide immediate proof of such authorisation, as an aid to the operator. Thus, where a parking invoice has been issued for failing to display a permit, and the motorist is subsequently able to demonstrate that he was entitled to park, the operator must cancel the charge.

In car parks, or parking areas, assigned to residential property (e.g. blocks of flats, estates where the roads are unadopted by the Local Authority), where an Operator wishes to enforce a permit-based scheme, such a scheme will have no effect, and will be unable to bind residents to any contractual terms, if the Leases or Tenancy Agreements under which the properties are occupied, grant an unfettered right to park. In such cases, the landowner and/or managing agents must first execute a variation to the terms of the Leases, which must be approved by at least 75% of the residents, pursuant to Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1967

Fruitcake

I did something similar, and said that the list of applicable references/acts of parliament etcetera should include Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1967.

Uptown_Boy

bargepole said:
the landowner and/or managing agents must first execute a variation to the terms of the Leases, which must be approved by at least 75% of the residents, pursuant to Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1967

The bit you missed (I think) is that the L&T Act also says that no more than 10% should reject the proposal ... so if 80% were in favour, 5% abstained and 15% voted against, the proposal cannot go ahead. (And I believe the votes should be counted per all entitled votes, not just votes cast ... but I think your wording captures that already).