Jump to content


Surfer01

Vehicle Control Services vs HMRC

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2470 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I came across this thread which I found to be very interesting. probably has been posted previously but a search never brought up anything. Click here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

para.39

We find that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.

 

para.40

In our judgment that was an error of law. On the facts of this case we do not

consider that any offer was made by VCS that was capable of forming the basis for a

contract between it and the motorist.

 

Oh dear.

 

Oh dear oh dear

 

Looks as if people should go and get their money back from Simon Rickshaw-Smith


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although its quite lenghthy, its a good and informative read.

Thanks Surfer01 for the link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the MD actually appear before the judge as ordered? Does anyone know the outcome?


Frederickson - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Lost - Claiming back from post office

Connaught Collections - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Lowell - CCA sent 11/4/07 - No agreement - returned to client

Moorcroft - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - No Agreement - returned to client

Red Castle - CCA Sent 11/4/07 - Copy returned but no T&C's

Robinson Way - CCA Sent 16/5/07

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the MD actually appear before the judge as ordered? Does anyone know the outcome?

 

I think this was VCS V Ibbotson, however I have never heard the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also see here for more info on Bill.

 

 

The document clearly shows on the flow chart that only the landowner can recover damages and not the PPC. Secondly there is no law that obliges the RK to supply the driver's details. Thirdly it states quite clearly that the landowner must be a member of ATA. Somehow I doubt if many landowners are ATA members.

Any one want to add anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also see here for more info on Bill.

 

 

The document clearly shows on the flow chart that only the landowner can recover damages and not the PPC. Secondly there is no law that obliges the RK to supply the driver's details. Thirdly it states quite clearly that the landowner must be a member of ATA. Somehow I doubt if many landowners are ATA members.

Any one want to add anything?

The flowchart states that the "landholder" can recover damages.

The landholder can be an agent of the landowner provided he is "properly authorised" according to the document definitions.

However it does not define "properly authorised" anywhere in the document.


hello all:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The flowchart states that the "landholder" can recover damages.

The landholder can be an agent of the landowner provided he is "properly authorised" according to the document definitions.

However it does not define "properly authorised" anywhere in the document.

 

The PPC is not a landowner as they do not lease the land in almost all cases. They are agents of the leaseholder i.e. the retail store therefore cannot do court as the law specifically refers to landlords/leaseholders/landowners. The law also quite clearly defines the damages which is the parking charge plus an admin charge. So if you over stay 20 minutes and the charge is £1 per hour maximum damages would be £1 plus admin charge i.e. £25 for computer generated letters and DVLA check. This should be payable to the landlords/leaseholders/landowners. and not the PPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"However it does not define "properly authorised" anywhere in the document." It cannot, in each case that is a matter of the substance of the contract between the landowner/occupier and the PPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can the defendant request to see a copy of the contract between the PPC and the landlord if the PPC took a motorist to court?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think , however, that the Dft should have a definition "properly authorised" in their document.

Without a definition "properly authorised" (in the context of the Dft guidelines) , means nothing at all!


hello all:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do think , however, that the Dft should have a definition "properly authorised" in their document.

Without a definition "properly authorised"; (in the context of the Dft guidelines) , means nothing at all!

 

It cannot, in each case that is a matter of the substance of the contract between the landowner/occupier and the PPC. I refer you to the Law of Agency. It means exactly what it says, they must be properly authorised. As for Contract disclosure start with CPR part 31 http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part31#IDACBSBB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...