Gan
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 12:27
This young lady was fortunate to have the resources including a father who was a solicitor
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-41...s-firm-VCS.htmlA VCS spokesman said: 'We are currently considering our position in relation to the decision made by the court and in view of this it would be inappropriate to comment further as we would not wish to prejudice our case.Note that Ms Corrigan still employed a barrister to argue the case but only recovered the maximum £95 for a day's lost work plus her travel costs
Jlc
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 15:01
You can see why some companies actively avoid residential locations... And indeed it appears to be backfiring for some.
Once any miscreants have gone the residents are the only people to extract cash from.
What amazes me most is that they still seem defiant... I presume there's a lease term involved here which may well have primacy. But they claim the IPC 'approved' signs are binding.
freddy1
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 15:12
the signage must have been flawed , they took £112 for each charge
Gan
Thu, 19 Jan 2017 - 17:56
Accounts are always incomplete if not actually wrong
If this was a set-aside hearing, VCS would be deciding whether to continue
The publicity gives them a problem
If they don't continue and win at least a substantial part of the claim, the residents will know to ignore their parking notices in future
Lynnzer
Mon, 27 Mar 2017 - 11:45
So is there any further news on this?
I could use a transcript if the case did indeed get continued then allowed the appeal.
I have emailed her father today to ask but most solicitors wouldn't get a transcript for themselves anyway.
Just a court name, a case number and the name of the judge would be a start.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.