Jump to content

Number6

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Number6

  1. I need to apply to the court for an order to require that a debtor attends court for questioning about their financial means.

     

    I understand that I need to complete a form N316, send this to the court following which I will receive the actual order. Apparently I must then serve this order upon the debtor personally.

     

    The original claim was issued via CCCS - should I send the N316 to them or to the local court?

     

    Once the order is issued there is the option of having the order served by a court bailiff but I can't find any indication of how much this is likely to cost or how I ask for this.

     

    Does anyone know?

  2. Hi Number6,

     

    Please be assured that your case remains in hand and I'll endeavour to get back in touch with you during the course of today?

     

    Kind regards,

     

    Lee

     

    Web Relations Team

     

    Vodafone UK

     

    Thanks Lee.

     

    But the situation is now way beyond a joke. I am £150 out of pocket and have a handset that hasn't been usable for three months on an airtime contract that I'm paying £40 a month for.

     

    I want the handset back in working order now, as it was when I bought it plus recompense for my out of pocket costs.

  3.  

    One option which I am pursuing is to raise a compliant with Checkmend- they were the first people to understand my situation and have put in some intelligent effort to help find out what has gone wrong. They need confirmation from the network that the block is in place correctly so that they can follow it up. No idea if this will offer a solution for me but at least someone is finally trying to help.

     

    How did you get Checkmend to get involved? I'd like to follow this up as well.

  4. The situation is ridiculous and totally wrong. Companies like vodafone really think they can simply trample roughshod over ordinary folk and then give ****e customer service.

     

    I bought this phone fair and square for £200. It was working fine and it hasn't been reported lost or stolen. Vodafone assured me (eventually) that the bar had been lifted; phone still wasn't working so sent it to Samsung for repair. Samsung say it's still blacklisted and are charging me £100 before I can even get it back. Vodafone have no right to do things like this, neither does any other provider. With my other out of pocket costs I could have bought a brand new handset!

     

    As things stand I want my phone back and £150 from Vodafone to cover my out of pocket costs that have been caused by their "couldn't care less" attitude. If they don't offer it freely I'll sue them for it.

     

    I am coming across more and more people affected by this unacceptable behavior and it's time Vodafone was made to answer for it in public.

     

    BBC Watchdog and a complaint to Ofcom for starters methinks.

  5. Maybe the question should be re worded.

    Something like " In light of the appeal court judges comments from case xxxx ect. What would your (DVLAs) legal requirement be in order for a registerd keeper to notify you of a change of keeper? "

     

    From the comments in my case it would be to send by registered post or take it to a DVLA office.

  6. Hi Number 6

     

    Just been reading about your problems with DVLA

     

    Quick question - did you sell you car privately or to a dealer?

     

    The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 Section 22 applies only if you sold privately

    and states

    22 (2) The registered keeper of the vehicle -

     

    (a)if the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, shall deliver to the new keeper that part of the document marked as the part which is to be given to the new keeper; and

     

    (b)shall forthwith deliver the remainder of the registration document to the Secretary of State, duly completed to include the following—

     

    (i)the name and address of the new keeper;

     

    (ii)the date on which the vehicle was sold or transferred to the new keeper;

     

    (iii)a declaration signed by the registered keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraph (i) are correct to the best of his knowledge and that the details given in accordance with paragraph (ii) are correct; and

     

    (iv)a declaration signed by the new keeper that the details given in accordance with paragraphs (i) and (ii) are correct.

     

    If you sold to a dealer section 23 applies

     

    23 (2) The registered keeper shall forthwith notify the Secretary of State, on that part of the registration document which relates to the transfer to a vehicle trader, or otherwise in writing, of the following—

    (a)the name and address of the vehicle trader;

    (b)the date on which the vehicle was transferred to the vehicle trader;

    ©a declaration signed by the registered keeper that he transferred the vehicle to the vehicle trader on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b); and

    (d)a declaration signed by the vehicle trader that the vehicle was transferred to him on the date specified in accordance with sub-paragraph (b).

    (3) If the registration document issued in respect of the vehicle is in his possession, the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

     

    In sectin 22 it states notification must be delivered to the Secretary of State but in section 23 it states the registered keeper shall deliver to the vehicle trader those parts of it not required to be sent to the Secretary of State under paragraph (2).

     

    It's ridiculous that these two sections have different requirements.

     

    Hope this helps with you and others who are being pursued by the DVLA

     

     

    Private buyer.

  7. Sorry for lack of response from me, I've only just seen the new posts as I'm not being notified by email even though I'm subscribed to the thread.

     

    I'm just checking whether there is any prospect of taking this further as per post #82?

     

    If I'm going to continue to fight then I need some input. If it's not going to go any further then I need to draw a line under it.

     

    Let me know and I'll prepare accordingly.

  8. The status of a blocked mobile phone is an attribute of the phone and not personal data relating to the previous owner. Vodaphone should have no trouble telling you what the status is.

     

    Just to reiterate, it was the police that originally told us that it was Vodafone who blocked the handset. Neither the police nor checkmend have any record of the phone being reported lost or stolen. Vodafone eventually confirmed to me that they blacklisted it and that they had no record of it being reported lost or stolen. When I asked then why they blacklisted it they couldn't, or wouldn't say.

     

    Lee confirmed to me that it had been unblocked but Samsung now say it is still blacklisted.

     

    When I bought the handset it was working fine, and for some weeks afterwards.

     

    I'm just incredibly ****ed off about the whole situation.

  9. I'm sure that the account holder would be in that position

    But since the handset is not contracted to you, Vodafone cannot just give out the details of why it was barred as it would entail giving you details regarding the account holders vodafone account which would be a breech of the data protection act. It's extremely hard work going through the network in these cases. I'd recommend giving the independent seller a hard time. It sounds like they have made an insurance claim and sold their old phone on to make some money.

     

    But according to Webmend and Vodafone the handset has never been reported lost, stolen or subject to an insurance claim.

  10. Is Lee still around? I've just tried to send him a PM and it's bounced!!

     

    Vodafone simply don't seem to care about anyone but themselves and I'm royally ****ed off with all the runaround they are giving me and all the misinformation they're feeding me with.

     

    I am now £100 out of pocket + the £200 I paid for the phone originally + all the travelling to shops, phone calls etc. IMO Vodafone should now simply replace the phone for me.

     

    Lee, get back to me asap please.

  11. @ Lee Vodafone Company Rep

     

    Well, my phone is back from the Samsung repair shop today after FOUR WEEKS and they say it's still blacklisted despite Lee assuring me it is no longer blacklisted.

     

    I'm being charged a fee by Samsung now as this is the second time it's been back to them for this same "repair" and I'll be looking to Vodafone to reimburse this.

     

    I'm now thinking enough is enough, I want this sorted and at Vodafone's expense.

     

    Lee, call me please asap to get this sorted.

  12. Hi

     

    Sorry for the delay in posting further information. I wasn't minded to do so on Friday as I was a little depressed about the whole thing. Yesterday and most of today I've been very busy with work and other pressing matters.

     

    At my appeal hearing the Judge was only interested in hearing submissions concerning pure issues of legality so that boiled everything down to "did I send it or didn't I?" Sounds simple yet I was in court for the best part of two hours.

     

    I presented witness evidence that I had indeed posted the document as well as a statement from me affirming that I had done so. I then invoked Section 7 of the Interpretation Act.

     

    I'll state at this point, and this might be useful for future cases, that the judge did not not have any copies of my submissions from the Magistrates hearing so it's best if you take everything along with you. Also he did not have a copy of the Interpretation Act with him, neither was he aware of what it said. This surprised me.

     

    He was presented with a copy of the Interpretation Act, a copy of The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002 Section 22 and a copy of a V5.

     

    His judgement was that as section 7 of the Interpretation Act states "Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post...." and that Section 22 of the Road Vehicles ... Act makes no mention of "service by post" then Section 7 did not apply. I vehemently stated that the V5 is what everyone sees and that the V5 says to send it to a postal address; as the DVLA is an executive agency of the Dept of Transport then that constitutes provision for service by post. This was dismissed by the Judge who said that only the wording of the Act itself was important.

     

    The judge awarded costs against me and contemplated increasing the severity of my sentence (he didn't in the end but his attitude made it clear to me that he thought my appeal was frivolous)!

     

    This next bit may sound harsh and somewhat ungrateful, it's not meant to be, it's just the reality as I see it.

     

    I know that this is important to lots of people who have been and potentially will be affected by DVLA tactics. However, I have now attended two stressful hearings expecting to win but losing both. This has cost me in terms of a conviction on my previously clean record, in terms of a bellyful of stress for both me, my partner and my children, in terms of a lot of time (approx 12 hours of court/travel/waiting time and probably 10 or more hours of research etc) and in terms of financial cost.

     

    I am prepared to continue to fight this but only as a figurehead. I'm not prepared to lay myself open to any further stress or financial cost.

     

    If this is going to go any further then it's axiomatic that it needs proper legal council to look at every aspect to see if there's a basis upon which to fight. It then needs a barrister + team to actually present the case at the Court of Appeal. This is serious money and if I were to lose again then, even if my own legal representation was free of charge I'm thinking that potential costs awarded against me could be very considerable.

     

    I simply don't have the financial resources to risk even if I were minded to do so. The only way that I could take this forward is if my legal representation were completely pro bono and if I had guarantees that any costs awarded against me and expenses would be paid on my behalf.

     

    Well, those are my initial thoughts. As I said, sorry if they seem harsh but I have to face reality.

  13. Would it be quicker to go to my local vodafone store and show them proof of purchase (my receipt) so that they can unblacklist the phone ?

     

    I've also found out that it's not been reported lost or stolen but more likely the previous owner has not paid his contract off and it's probably been disconnected (IMEI blacklisted)

     

    I've since discovered a number of others in this very same position. Not reported lost or stolen but blacklisted. Always by Vodafone. Not found any instance of any other carrier doing this. Vodafone CS will tell you till they're blue in the face that they only blacklist if lost or stolen but the evidence shows otherwise.

     

    I've had to send mine back to Samsung yet again as it still won't make calls since Vodafone blacklisted it for no clear reason that I've been told. Once it comes back from Samsung I'll report back on this thread with an update.

     

    Samsung have told me that if it is still blacklisted they will charge me 100 quid and I'll certainly be looking to reclaim this from Vodafone. Let's hope it's ok.

×
×
  • Create New...