Vehicle Control Services LJLA

DisruptiveLad

The IPC allows mitigating circumstances. VCS don't appear to know the word exists.

1505grandad

Perhaps VCS can only read a certain number of words and therefore cannot get to the last part:-

IPC CoP V7 PART E Schedule 6

"4. The IAS will not consider the merits of any mitigating circumstances which do not

compromise the lawfulness of the charge but the Adjudicator, in their reasons for

disallowing an appeal, may advise the Operator to review an otherwise lawful charge

where there are exceptional circumstances for doing so."

Although the IAS Annual Report 2017-2018 states:-

"If the role of the IAS is to adjudicate on the lawfulness of a parking charge

and the veracity of evidence, mitigation is all about customer service and

public relations for a parking operator. In the words of the Roman writer

Publilius Syrus: “A good reputation is more valuable than money.” "

Whilst the 2019-2020 states:-

"It is only within a parking operator’s internal appeals service and under the purview of customer

relations that mitigation has a role to play in private parking appeals. Indeed, we already

know that parking operators routinely cancel copious numbers of parking charges under

the ambit of customer relations.

Furthermore, if the IAS were to accept mitigation it would potentially distort the lower

levels of the judicial hierarchy in England and Wales. As the county court similarly does

not accept mitigation, any move by the IAS to admit mitigation as evidence would

essentially usurp the power of the county court.

Another likely consequence of this would be that parking operators would be more

inclined to take more cases straight to county court in search of judicial certainty,

resulting in higher volumes of cases with accompanying litigation costs for motorists.

Accepting mitigation would also increase the average cost of an appeal to the IAS

through the increased logistical challenges of storing evidence. It would also raise the

spectre of having to hear live evidence which would also come at an increased cost.

DisruptiveLad

Apparently Elms Legal and VCS have parted company. I wonder will Ed step down as inhouse solicitor/consultant at VCS? I also wonder what prompted this split.

Umkomaas

DisruptiveLad said:

Apparently Elms Legal and VCS have parted company. I wonder will Ed step down as inhouse solicitor/consultant at VCS? I also wonder what prompted this split.

We've seen a number of posters receiving letters to the effect that Elms Legal are no longer dealing with their case, then new posters, with later LBC/court claim dates, are receiving paperwork from Elms, only, further down the line, being sent a letter from Elms notifying their withdrawal from the case. 

Do you have specific information that all ties with Excel/VCS have been totally and completely severed, or have you had a similar, individual letter from Elms from which you are taking your information?

It has all been a bit messy. 

DisruptiveLad

A guy has posted on another thread, saying VCS told him they were no longer represented by Elms.

Umkomaas

DisruptiveLad said:

A guy has posted on another thread, saying VCS told him they were no longer represented by Elms.

Yep, same, same. 

DisruptiveLad

I don't understand why people are allowing themselves to be taken to court by VCS following incidents at LJLA. If they send you a notice for something OUTSIDE a car park, they are breaching the airport's own parking Ts and Cs. That is also false representation under the 2006 Fraud Act. Report them to www.actionfraud.police and stop all this nonsense about filling in this form and that. They are breaking the law. Why would you allow them to defraud you? 

BelladonnaTook

DisruptiveLad said:

A guy has posted on another thread, saying VCS told him they were no longer represented by Elms.

When was this? I'm about to file my defence for a VCS claim that has Elms involved (claim 'signed' by Ed). No letters from any of them, withdrawing.

KeithP

BelladonnaTook said:

DisruptiveLad said:

A guy has posted on another thread, saying VCS told him they were no longer represented by Elms.

When was this? I'm about to file my defence for a VCS claim that has Elms involved (claim 'signed' by Ed). No letters from any of them, withdrawing.

Until you hear otherwise, you are right to continue to deal with Elms.

Over the last year or so it appears that VCS are playing about as whether or not Elms represent them.
To me, this just looks like VCS trying to confuse people.

go-on-then

I have also seen the threads with the VCS / Elms thing.... can't for the life of me find them...🙄