Jump to content

jcbkabs

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    192
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jcbkabs

  1. Ok I’ve found 8 different issues between Lowell in two letters and these are different to the letter that I received for EE(orange) this morning. action plan letter to ICO, ofcom ombudsman and am I right in thinking the FSO lowel have put doubt in my mind with this one?
  2. Lowell have said I can’t take it to FOS a it’s a communications debt and FOS have no authority over Lowell on this matter? had a full and final response from EE(orange) but I’m even more confused as they now claim both are iPad data accounts. they also claim the one account was cancelled March 2015 but Lowell claim one was cancelled may 2015. Also both Lowell and EE(orange) neither have provided a copy of any contract of any sort or invoices/bills. Lowell have said they don’t have to supply the contract? so now I’m stumped can I go to FOS? what do I do now?
  3. Dx100uk. I have dyslexia and some other issues so sorry if my English isn’t to your approval lowell stat they purchased the account from orange before the default was placed on the account so that is why I want to sue them. Your attitude isn’t very pleasant towards people and not very helpful
  4. I’ve found a basic bank account opened in my name that I haven’t opened? Lowell is my main worry I want to prepare the ground and am I’m to sue for extra costs I’ve incurred and one of my business has incurred a higher interest rate on the equipment lease because or me acting as guarantor. So thinking sort personal clam first then get my company to sue as well. But don’t know how to approach it first as no info around about the rules they are using with regard to mobile phone defaults?
  5. Orange wasn’t on my credit file ever had an account with them then in March 2017 Lowell appears on my credit file with a default for jan/2016 I’ve written to Lowell and orange both refuse to supply contract it’s not in the SAR requests of both companies.
  6. Is there any thing I can do with this? as I need a new van for my trade even tho I’ve over paid and never missed a payment current finance company won’t accept me for finance on new van with me trading in my old van and clearing outstanding and putting down more than is required for deposit. The on contract I’m on has a age limit on vans mine is now over that age and they have informed me I have 21 days to change it or they will no longer supply me with work. so I need to sue Lowell to get this sorted or is there a easy solution?
  7. Update I’ve managed to get over half wiped and had a fair bit of compensation back due to irresponsible lending
  8. Hi Guys lowell have placed a default on my credit file for a mobile phone/iPad 30 day contract they claim it to be a mobile contact but then next letter it’s a iPad 30day account in the next letter there are two contracts the sort code matches mine but bank account doesn’t match (I’ve found out the account is for a dissolved business) the agent advised you that this would be actioned as requested taking into account 30days cancellation notice they have stated in letter that line was disconnected as requested orange have advised Lowell payments made a month after cancelation lowell have also closed the account as a good will gesture but won’t remove default and aren't chasing it but it’s not marked as closed on credit files the sum claimed I owe and the default sum is different no default received default placed in 2017 for jan 2016 on my credit file showing a default had been place 8monthes after payment(out side guide line). Lowell I have a letter from 2016 saying Accout was cancelled early April 2015 and a payment taken early may 2015 (I don’t have bank statement as it not my bank account the payments where made from and I’ve never been with orange in jan 2017 they register a default for jan 2016 I’ve written to them many times since 2016 when I received a letter and sent the prove it letter they send a unreadable contract I had a letter saying it’s for the iPad 30day account but (if it’s a 30day account and you don’t make payment wouldn’t this terminate the contract? Or would arrears build up for a few month then default and they and a early termination fee?) I’ve today had a letter stating it’s for the mobile telephone which they claim had been cancelled by giving orange the required 30days notice which I have I gotta writing from them??? as this has prevented me getting fair finance deals on both my car and van can I sue them for the extra it’s cost me? my limited company has also just looked to trade the pickup in with same finance company all payments are up to date intact we have made over payments they checked my credit file and rejected the application this default is the only negative on my file all payment up to date and on time and most paid off early since this has been on file our equipment lease with our other company will end up costing thousands more. Would take it if I had had accounts with orange but orange doesn’t even work in my house I’ve always be with o2, Tesco’s and now sky all on o2 platform. its probable cost me over £20k so far but our new business will need to borrow heavily over the next ten years I’m frightened we may get refused because of this
  9. Hi guys thanks for all your help I won and had £103 awarded in costs. The pcn had the wrong address and also £90 on the pace then on the photos of the signs it stated £100 Jude was very helpful in picking theses up
  10. I hearing 14th September Witness statements 19th July, Aug for them to pay the £25
  11. I forgot that I had to have witness statement in today meeting over ran and traffic coming home
  12. I've missed dead line sorry has witness statement of bwlegal Theses 17 mins between in photo and out photo They are claiming 100 but on the letter they say they sent it says £90 The letter from land lord is from 2014 not 2011 when alleged parking happens Advocate will be at court witness
  13. I I have searched but using a iPad at present and can't seem to find any. Also need to know how to get the cases I have quote so I can print hard copies for ref. Paper work not my thing
  14. 1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2. The defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of any liability for the sum claimed, or any amount as defendant was not the driver at the time. 3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car, as ltd company was the owner there is no individual responsibility and in any case any corporate responsibility has now gone Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved. 4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14icon request made on 10/03/2017 requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners at the time of the alleged offence that allow the claimant (Excel) to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county courticon, before DJ Osborne. 5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time* so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true. As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon. 6. The claimant hasn't provided any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred. ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving. All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured). All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed. 7. Ive not received evidenced of photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed? Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days? They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 8. I Cite and example of parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases. One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016. The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC. In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly. The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissedicon. 9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN. As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter. The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
  15. 1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2. The defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof of any liability for the sum claimed, or any amount as defendant was not the driver at the time. 3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car, as ltd company was the owner there is no individual responsibility and in any case any corporate responsibility has now gone Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved. 4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14icon request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners at the time of the alleged offence that allow the claimant (Excel) to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county courticon, before DJ Osborne. 5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time* so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true. As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon. 6. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred. ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving. All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured). All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed. 7. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Excel should have evidenced of that, Excel have failed to provide photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed? Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days? They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 8. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases. One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016. The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC. In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly. The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissedicon. 9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN. As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter. The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated.
  16. 1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2. The defendant is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as filed. 3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car. Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved. 4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14icon request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county courticon, before DJ Osborne. 5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time* so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true. As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon. 6. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred. ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving. All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured). All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed. 7. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Excel should have evidenced of that, Excel have failed to provide photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed? Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days? They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 8. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases. One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016. The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC. In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly. The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissed. 9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN. As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter. The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated.
  17. is this better:- WITNESS STATEMENT _________________________ _ 1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2. The defendant is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as filed. 3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to the claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car. Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which everything was lost company is now dissolved. 4. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14 request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the defendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county court, before DJ Osborne. 5. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. this cannot be the case as the law didn’t exist at the time* so claimant is misleading the court in asserting things they know cannot be true. As Claimant did not produce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissed. 6. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred. ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving. All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured). All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed. 7. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Claimant should have evidenced that, of course. Where are the photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed? Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days? They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 8. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases. One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016. The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC. In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly. The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissed. 9. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN. As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter. The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated. Regards John
  18. WITNESS STATEMENT _________________________ _ 1. The facts in this witness statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge there are true to the best of my information and belief 2. The defendant is not liable to the Claimant for the sum claimed, or any amount at all and this is my Witness Statement in support of my defence as filed. 3. Defendant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question in this case. Defendant was not the driver. As informed to th claimant the vehicle was owned by a limited company and used as a pool car. Due to a fire in the yard in early 2016 in which every thing was lost company is now dissolved. 4. Claimant claim to have issued a NTK that they claimed was compliant with POFA. Was this correctly worded? As In a recent case at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016 the judge made a finding of fact that the Claimant wording does not comply with the mandatory requirements of POFA to invoke keeper liability. As Claimant did not adduce evidence of the driver, and as Elliott v Loake is not persuasive and can be distinguished, the claim was dismissedicon. 5. I also point out to the presiding Judge that the Claimant has not supplied any evidence at all that the alleged contraventions even occurred. ANPR camera photos merely show a vehicle arriving and leaving. All vehicles will have been recorded thus (assuming their VRNs were captured). All vehicles, including those whose drivers paid and displayed. 6. In order to demonstrate that the driver(s) on these occasions failed to pay & display, the Claimant should have evidenced that, of course. Where are the photos of the dashboard showing no P&D ticket displayed? Failing that, as this is an ANPR site, where are the system records showing no payment made on these days? They have not even supplied lists of the VRNs input by drivers on those days, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 7. There is a well-known history of the parking ticket machines of the claimants failing to record a VRN and this has been recorded in two recent cases. One mentioned above, at Stockport CC in Excel v Mr C C8DP37F1 Stockport 31/10/2016. The other being Excel Parking v Mrs S. C8DP11F9 on 09/09/2016 at Oldham CC. In this case the defendant purchased a ticket, but the machine was faulty and did not print her VRN correctly. The judge ruled in favour of the defendant on the balance of probabilities that she bought her ticket and entered the VRN correctly, only for the machine to erroneously mis-print it. The case was dismissed. 8. The driver maintains that a ticket was bought and displayed on the vehicle during the stay at the car park, however, as this was the first use of a pool vehicle, the VRN may have been incorrectly entered, albeit still a valid VRN. As stated in point 6. Above, no pictures of the vehicle without a valid ticket have been produced by the claimant. There are no system records showing no payment made, nor has there been any lists of VRNs input by drivers on that day, e.g. showing a mismatched payment, wrong VRN or no entry at all that corresponds with this vehicle. 9. The NTK was dated and sent out on 06/01/2012 Which a reply was sent back to claimant informing them registered keeper wasn't the driver at time, thereby NOT complying with POFA paragraph 9 sub (5). There is no cause for action against the defendant as there is no keeper liability under the POFA as the claimant failed to follow the protocols of the act to create one. 10. The claimant`s Particulars of Claim states that the PCN was issued on 11/12/11 which is incorrect. It was issued on 06/01/2012 as stated on their own PCN letter. 11. The claimants have failed to respond to my CPR 31:14 request made on 10/03/2017 by Royal Mail recorded delivery postal service requesting any documentation or relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowners’ behalf. The Court is invited to dismiss this Claim, and to allow my wasted costs which will be submitted separately and in a timely manner, depending upon whether a hearing takes place. I firmly believe that to pursue me as registered keeper when the Claimant admits they have no such right, and to submit such incoherent particulars and lacking ‘evidence’ is wholly unreasonable and vexatious. And a breach of DATA protection can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over inflated charge, or both and the devfendant believes this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 v Mr B Bury county court, before DJ Osborne. The contents of my statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I will need to get this sent off tomorrow to comply with the dates set by the court, so any helpful comments would be appreciated. Regards John
  19. What type of things you putting in your witness statement cutty shark I've got to submit it by 19/6/17
  20. I've got them as they haven't complied with their licence I've got it in writing that the debit is now £0.00 (zero) but I know it costs them when I take this to the FSO so should be interesting would be easier for them to remove all records of the debit from wife's file all the others have agreed to this so why shouldn't these
  21. Is this any good to start with for witness statement I've still not received a response to my CPR31.14 request dated 31/03/2017. All tho I was the registered keeper at the time of the alleged offence I wasn't the driver the veichel was owned by a limited company which had a fire in the building in 2016 and all record lost. I have previously informed to The claimiant that I wasn't the driver band as them to prove the I'd of the driver as this dates from 2011 it is outside of the I would also like note that a data protection breach can occur when a parking company pursues a charge which is not valid, or an over-inflated charge, or both and I believe this has happened and use this case as ref case D6GM2199 CEL v Mr B, Bury County Court, before DJ Osborne
  22. Thanks they are all now with the FSO adjudicator had a letter off the freemans Gratton yesterday saying the have written account balance off but won't remove the default any ideas if this is possible in negotiation if I take thiis all the way or just take their offer?
×
×
  • Create New...