Excel (VCS) in another bit of trouble!, Judge mentions contempt of court. |
Helping the motorist get justice 
Helping the motorist get justice
Excel (VCS) in another bit of trouble!, Judge mentions contempt of court. |
 Sat, 19 May 2012 - 10:54
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 431 Joined: 10 Apr 2011 Member No.: 45,808  |
Seems interesting
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...d=1#post3839732 I under if this District Judge has read the VAT tribunal judgement? Either way it might be worth keeping an eye on! |
 |
 
|
 |
| Advertisement |
Sat, 19 May 2012 - 10:54
Post
#
|
 Advertise here! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat, 19 May 2012 - 11:16
Post
#2
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 126 Joined: 9 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,619 |
Be worth seeing that judgement when its published,,
Wll support my claim for sure. |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 19 May 2012 - 11:21
Post
#3
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
QUOTE (stu997 @ Sat, 19 May 2012 - 12:16)  Be worth seeing that judgement when its published,, Wll support my claim for sure. Lets wait and see if it's genuine first. |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 19 May 2012 - 11:55
Post
#4
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 12 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,581 |
QUOTE (Broadsword @ Sat, 19 May 2012 - 12:21) QUOTE (stu997 @ Sat, 19 May 2012 - 12:16) Be worth seeing that judgement when its published,, Wll support my claim for sure. Lets wait and see if it's genuine first. Should be easily checkable. CAG item gives a court name and a date and the defendant's full name. Seems to have got the judge's name slightly wrong. The correct judge would be District Judge Lee McILWAINE. He's even on LinkedIn. |
|
|
|
|
Sat, 19 May 2012 - 11:59
Post
#5
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
QUOTE (WageSlave @ Sat, 19 May 2012 - 12:55) QUOTE (Broadsword @ Sat, 19 May 2012 - 12:21) QUOTE (stu997 @ Sat, 19 May 2012 - 12:16) Be worth seeing that judgement when its published,, Wll support my claim for sure. Lets wait and see if it's genuine first. Should be easily checkable. CAG item gives a court name and a date and the defendant's full name. Seems to have got the judge's name slightly wrong. The correct judge would be District Judge Lee McILWAINE. He's even on LinkedIn. I agree, it's just that the actual case was won on the 16th but wasn't broadcast until last night well after close of business for the weekend. I think it could well be genuine but we had another spoof one not so long ago so I'm just urging a little bit of caution until it's checked out and verified rather than popping the champagne corks now. |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 20 May 2012 - 15:28
Post
#6
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 10,460 Joined: 8 Sep 2008 Member No.: 22,424 |
The link in the first post goes back to a thread in 2011 :/ nothing recent on there
|
|
|
|
|
Sun, 20 May 2012 - 16:04
Post
#7
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
That's because the claim that was posted has been suspended pending 100% clarification that what was alleged to have occurred did occur.
|
|
|
|
|
Sun, 20 May 2012 - 20:30
Post
#8
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 358 Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Member No.: 11,703 |
QUOTE (instrumentsofjoy @ Sat, 19 May 2012 - 11:54) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum...d=1#post3839732 I under if this District Judge has read the VAT tribunal judgement? Either way it might be worth keeping an eye on! If this turns out to be genuine then it seems that nothing in the shiny new Protection of Freedoms Act would alter the situation. Keeping everything crossed... |
|
|
|
|
Sun, 20 May 2012 - 22:11
Post
#9
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,979 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
This judgement if true will also blow a hole in those being done under Railway Byelaw 14 if only the landlord can take action! the option I can see is Byelaw 14 only and PPC pi55 off!
|
|
|
|
|
Sun, 20 May 2012 - 22:17
Post
#10
|
|
 Member  Group:  Life MemberPosts: 3,737 Joined: 23 Sep 2006 From: Way, way off-shore Member No.: 7,833 |
QUOTE (roythebus @ Sun, 20 May 2012 - 23:11) This judgement if true will also blow a hole in those being done under Railway Byelaw 14 if only the landlord can take action! the option I can see is Byelaw 14 only and PPC pi55 off! Sadly, Roy, I disagree. There is a specific provision for the use of "agents" in the R'way BL's. The reason for the judgment in the VCS tax case was that VCS did not have sufficient interest in the land such as would permit them to be able to contract with motorists for them to park. An agent, such as Meteor, need no interest in the land to pursue matters in respect of the alleged breaches of BL's. Furthermore, in such cases as those we've seen from Southeastern where they have issued what appear to be standard PPC invoices these are actually followed up by the landowners in such a way as would conform to the judgment. -------------------- “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a tu.rd by the clean end.” - R.J. Wiedemann, Lt. Col. USMC Ret.
|
|
|
|
|
Mon, 21 May 2012 - 12:34
Post
#11
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,553 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 From: London Member No.: 3,246 |
It's 100% genuine.
|
|
|
|
|
Mon, 21 May 2012 - 12:46
Post
#12
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 1,769 Joined: 7 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,505 |
From CAG:-
Before District Judge Mcllwaine sitting at Scunthorpe county court, Scunthorpe Court Centre, Laneham Street, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, DN15 6JY. Upon hearing the authorised officer of the Claimant company and the Defendant in person And upon the Claimant having issued proceedings in their own name And upon it being conceded that contrary to the British Parking Association Code of Practice contrary to same, the Claimant has no contractual authority to issue enforcement proceedings before the County Court either in the Claimants name as in this matter or the name of the land owner IT IS ORDERED THAT 1) The claim is struck out. 2) The order of District Judge Stephenson dated 3rd March 2012 is rescinded and the Claimant shall pay to the Defendant the s um of £42.50 w ithin 21 days of today. 3) The managing director for the Claimant named as Mr Simon Renshaw Smith is ordered to file at Court by 4.00pm on 29th June 2012, a statement containing an explanation as to the manifest discrepancy namely the bringing of an action in contract and the tort of trespass in the companies name with no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so. 4) A copy of this order shall be served on the British Parking Association for information. Dated 16 May 2012 This post has been edited by DBC: Mon, 21 May 2012 - 12:47 |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 21 May 2012 - 14:26
Post
#13
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 11,094 Joined: 24 Aug 2007 From: Home alone Member No.: 13,324 |
I think a Good Luck card might be in order like this one - as some of the strokes they've pulled certainly takes the biscuit.
|
|
|
|
|
Mon, 21 May 2012 - 15:55
Post
#14
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 12 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,581 |
I wonder if the learned District Judge might have read some of Simon's less than tactful comments about the judiciary from the last time or two he had cases go against him?
The entire ticketing wheeze is, of course, predicated upon so much nonsense but it has, nevertheless become something of an industry. All those requests for RK info from the DVLA at £2.50 a pop must add up to a great deal of money. Can a humble District Judge tear it all down . . .? I don't know if there's scope for contempt of court but I wonder if the judge is thinking about making a civil restraint order. As a DJ he can only make a very limited form of CRO but I suppose he might refer it up to the designated civil judge if he thought that a general CRO was the thing required. |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 21 May 2012 - 17:38
Post
#15
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
QUOTE The managing director for the Claimant named as Mr Simon Renshaw Smith is ordered to file at Court by 4.00pm on 29th June 2012, a statement containing an explanation as to the manifest discrepancy namely the bringing of an action in contract and the tort of trespass in the companies name with no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so. SRS will be paying out for lawyers for that. I wonder if it will be same he used in the VCS tax tribunal... Director and company in the DJ's cross hairs. -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Mon, 21 May 2012 - 17:59
Post
#16
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 2,332 Joined: 10 Mar 2007 From: Midlands Member No.: 11,071 |
Have a giggle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBl1tnIxJnU SRS's new single, even mentions VAT!!!! Even the words are in PPC gobledygook This post has been edited by axeman: Mon, 21 May 2012 - 18:02 -------------------- NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved" and do not constitute legal advice. Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2012 - 13:57
Post
#17
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,887 Joined: 12 Sep 2011 Member No.: 49,581 |
QUOTE (bama @ Mon, 21 May 2012 - 18:38) QUOTE The managing director for the Claimant named as Mr Simon Renshaw Smith is ordered to file at Court by 4.00pm on 29th June 2012, a statement containing an explanation as to the manifest discrepancy namely the bringing of an action in contract and the tort of trespass in the companies name with no lawful contractual assignment of authority to do so. SRS will be paying out for lawyers for that. I wonder if it will be same he used in the VCS tax tribunal... Director and company in the DJ's cross hairs. I think that in the VAT case their barrister Tim Brown was instructed directly by a firm of accountants rather than by solicitors. Presumably Mr Ibbotson would know if Excel had solicitors acting for them when they sued him. I would not be entirely surprised if Excel were unrepresented on this matter - although maybe they did have a local solicitor instructed to attend as an agent. Not always wise: agents are often instructed at the last minute and don't always care that much about the outcome. Some firms will even send their trainees out to do agency work. I think that Simon (being a Yorkshireman?) is always keen to save a few bob. As far as I know he's not instructed solicitors to act in the matter where VCS are being sued by Stu997. If that one reaches court I rather expect that he'll be in for another pasting . . . |
|
|
|
|
Wed, 23 May 2012 - 17:08
Post
#18
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
The interesting side to the VCS/VAT thing (to my mind at least) is when will HMRC shift its VAT focus to Excel. VCS is a tiddler.
This post has been edited by bama: Wed, 23 May 2012 - 17:09 -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2012 - 05:35
Post
#19
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 6,979 Joined: 19 Dec 2006 From: Near Calais Member No.: 9,683 |
QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Sun, 20 May 2012 - 23:17) QUOTE (roythebus @ Sun, 20 May 2012 - 23:11) This judgement if true will also blow a hole in those being done under Railway Byelaw 14 if only the landlord can take action! the option I can see is Byelaw 14 only and PPC pi55 off! Sadly, Roy, I disagree. There is a specific provision for the use of "agents" in the R'way BL's. The reason for the judgment in the VCS tax case was that VCS did not have sufficient interest in the land such as would permit them to be able to contract with motorists for them to park. An agent, such as Meteor, need no interest in the land to pursue matters in respect of the alleged breaches of BL's. Furthermore, in such cases as those we've seen from Southeastern where they have issued what appear to be standard PPC invoices these are actually followed up by the landowners in such a way as would conform to the judgment. You may well be right there HO87 regarding Bye-Law14 etc. There's a number of other suggestions here about what to do, so, pun intended, let's not derail this thread! |
|
|
|
|
Fri, 25 May 2012 - 06:37
Post
#20
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 28,931 Joined: 29 Nov 2005 Member No.: 4,323 |
18 posts and over 1100 views.
this is a popular subject... -------------------- Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.
Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Tuesday, 16th April 2024 - 11:04 |
