Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

VWFS and Equifax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2635 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I had car finance with VWFS,

in 2011 I wanted to sell the car and settle the finance,

I asked for a settlement figure which they provided.

 

 

I paid the settlement figure and obtained a letter stating they had no interest in the vehicle.

 

On Equifax (via clearscore) it shows very oddly that I was a month behind from June 2011 until mid 2012,

I settled with them the day I sold the vehicle.

 

On Noddle it shows that there was a balance of 13 grand still during that period.

 

 

I have raised disputes with both agencies.

 

 

If VWFS fail to respond to the agencies do they have to remove the information?

(20 days in and nothing yet from VWFS)

 

Thanks,

 

Terry

Link to post
Share on other sites

send a copy of the letter to VWFS

give them 14 days to remove the incorrect markers

else you will escalate your complaint to the ICO

and also seek financial compensation for the damage these markers have caused.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your advice, VWFS have replied to Equifax and have simply confirmed the information is correct with no explanation at all :-(

 

I have replied as you suggested and also sent a copy of the letter/attached it to the dispute on

 

Noddle have come back and VWFS have given them the same one line reply that the information is correct.

 

I have also replied as per your advice to them, lets see what they come back with.

 

I'm going to try and ring VWFS and see how they can justify their claims, there is no way they would write a letter saying they have no financial interest in a vehicle with 13 grand owing on it, grrrrrrr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spoken with VWFS, and the finance department who deals with disputes are now off until January!

 

From the notes she can see I had settled,

they say I cancelled my debit after settling but there was a payment due hence showing a month in arrears,

she can't explain the balance of 13 grand.

 

Nowhere on their letter did it say I had to make further payments

nor was I advised of such at the time,

 

 

they admit they have never written to me about this outstanding amount which was £379 a single payment not 13 grand.

According to the notes they decided to write the amount off in 2012 hence ending the account.

 

I guess worst case if they amend it 379 looks better than 13 grand

but I feel its a bit unfair as it's their error really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems strange that when you asked for a settlement figure that any outstanding payments would have been included the figure owed.

 

 

Of course they may have done that at the time and not been picked up by Accounts.

 

You could also ask which payment was missing and then ask your bank for the statement for that month to confirm whether you did pay it at the time.

 

 

But if you still have the letter stating that you no longer owed any money that should settle things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have provided the letter to both equifax and callcredit,

 

in their e-mails to both agencies VWFS admit that the balance on the account is wrong yet they won't amend it,

 

I have pointed this out to both that the minimum that should be done is for them to correct the balance and prove that they have ever asked me for that payment,

 

I think it's a tad unfair that they expect me to be mystic,

I believed at the time that what I was paying was full and final settlement,

they didn't inform me otherwise so that's their mistake surely.

 

The credit agency says I should go to the financial ombudsman,

I have seen the ICO mentioned on here....which one should I go to?

 

Many thanks,

 

Terry

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS used to charge £550 back in 2014 to investigate complaints against companies.

I imagine that figure would be higher now.

 

I shouldn't think that VWS would be stupid enough to argue this case when they are obviously in the wrong so would probably amend your report rather than pay up.

 

Should they cave in it is up to you to decide whether to push to get compensation for their error and saying you owe £13000 when the figure at most is less than £400 is a big error.

 

Did you check with your bank to see if they had paid that outstanding amount since if you had that would compound their error.

 

On the other hand the ICO does deal with data protection and while they don't seem to charge companies for their investigations, they are pretty strong in dishing out fines

 

Whether they also suggest possible financial compensation I don't know but perhaps the threat of a large fine may be enough for CWS to settle with you.

 

Perhaps other with more knowledge of both organisations could also advise you.

 

I am bound to say that I am surprised that VWS have not amended your credit report.

 

It may be that Noddle are culpable too.

I don't see how they can just take the word of their client in the face of your evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

My bank didn't make any further payments to them,

it's all a bit odd as finance companies are normally quick to send you a reminder should you be behind,

 

I have put my complaint to the ICO and fingers crossed something might happen soon.

 

It would be interesting to know when they entered this data as maybe they have done this long after the event after realising an error by their accounts team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...