PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Excel (VCS) in another bit of trouble!, Judge mentions contempt of court.
instrumentsofjoy
post Sat, 19 May 2012 - 10:54
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 430
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!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 19 May 2012 - 10:54
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stu997
post Sat, 19 May 2012 - 11:16
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 9 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,619



Be worth seeing that judgement when its published,,

Wll support my claim for sure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WageSlave
post 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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
glasgow_bhoy
post Sun, 20 May 2012 - 15:28
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,455
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Johnxxx
post 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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Sun, 20 May 2012 - 22:11
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,293
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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hotel Oscar 87
post Sun, 20 May 2012 - 22:17
Post #10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Broadsword
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DBC
post Mon, 21 May 2012 - 12:46
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,767
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
emanresu
post Mon, 21 May 2012 - 14:26
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,019
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
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.



--------------------
Where there is a claim - there is a counterclaim.
Are Parking companies misusing your personal data or interfering with your lease? Counterclaims are only £25. Makes them sit up and take notice. For leaseholds, join in the Managing agents too. Since the purpose of these claims is to frighten you, give them something to be frightened of.
Subject Access Requests to the DVLA?Find out who accessed your data and when. Try SubjectAccess.Requests@dvla.gsi.gov.uk. [Apologies if it does not work]
Double Dip / ANPR FaultsThe BPA Report on ANPR Double Dips is here. Ideal case for a counterclaim (see above).
Daily Court List. See who is doing what and where here
Printing and posting Witness Statements. Easy and cheap way DoxDirect
What is court like. A District Judge's view
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WageSlave
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Mon, 21 May 2012 - 17:38
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,904
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
axeman
post Mon, 21 May 2012 - 17:59
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,329
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WageSlave
post 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 . . .

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Wed, 23 May 2012 - 17:08
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,904
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roythebus
post Fri, 25 May 2012 - 05:35
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,293
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!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Fri, 25 May 2012 - 06:37
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,904
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 10th December 2018 - 00:59
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.