Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


8 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks dx. Weird thing is, I don't ever recall receiving a default notice from MBNA, there's no default notice in the SAR correspondence from MBNA and there's no default registered by them on my credit file (only one from PRA). Whereas with some of the others, e.g. NatWest, there's a default registered at the date they sold the debt on (from NatWest) and then also one from Cabot Financial (who they sold the debt onto). My wife has a similar situation with a Barclaycard, according to her credit file they've never defaulted her, there's no default notice in the SAR correspondence, but this one is slightly different in so far as Link Financial (who the debt has been sold onto) have never defaulted her either (credit file shows a 'debt' that's being serviced). My frustration is that I specifically requested default notices in my SAR requests as I was confused by the dates of some of them on my credit file and wanted to x-ref...
  2. Started to receive some SAR's back , although NatWest are proving particularly problematic, I've made two requests, one for joint products taken out by my wife and I, one for products solely in my name. The response for the joint SAR has come back and only contains information relating to our mortgage and contains no details of a joint loan or joint bank account despite account numbers for both products being listed within their SAR correspondence (they literally appear on one page that details other account numbers, but there's no other information on any of them). I've heard nothing on the single application and it has now been greater than 30 calendar days, should I be reporting this to ICO? On another note, I'd appreciate some help with a default issue I'm a little frustrated I've not been able to figure out for myself. As per my original post I had a credit card with MBNA and the debt has been subsequently sold onto PRA. In my SAR response from MBNA, they never defaulted me on this debt before it was sold on to PRA, upon receipt of the debt PRA have automatically defaulted me, can they do this? I've never taken out a credit agreement with PRA so are they able to issue a default against me? If not, how do I get this removed? Is it a case of just contacting the credit reference agencies?
  3. Evening all, Some of you might remember me from my previous thread: VCS tried it on with me once before in 2016, back then I wrote them a snotty letter, ignored the deforestation that followed (claim form never issued) and that (so I thought) was that...until Saturday, when I receive a letter of claim from dcb legal, dated 6 July (which is coincidentally the very day after I won my previous claim against VCS) chasing me for £160 relating to an overstay in June 2016. Not sure what you do or don't need, but the sticky details from the original PCN are below and I've attached all correspondence (including the most recent letter of claim). 1 Date of the infringement - 11/06/2016 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 30/06/2016 3 Date received - No clue 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Y 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] N (sent them a letter - P2 of the attached - their response(s) follow) Have you had a response? [Y/N?] Y 7 Who is the parking company? VCS (Vehicle Control Services) 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] St Mary's Gate Retail Park Car Park, Sheffield, S1 4QZ I'll start to draft a response and will post for comment, it's likely to centre around being outside of POFA, no planning permission on site for cameras and signs and how I hope these are better than the last lot. As always, any and all advice gratefully received. VCS Docs.pdf
  4. So...received a letter of claim yesterday from a DC Legal dated 6 July relating to an overstay in the same car park from 2016... Looks like the funs not over yet
  5. I'm more than happy to help in anyway I can (it'll not even begin to chip away at the debt of gratitude I owe those on this board). I think my witness statement was okay, it was more likely my performance in court that would have risked me losing. I thought I was ready, but I don't think I was as ready as I thought I was. I was incredibly nervous and the judge deciding to only focus on specific parts of my WS really threw me, I'd rehearsed it like a script which flustered me. There were also some little things like calling the Judge Sir/Madam I hadn't expected (I'd presumed 'your honour'). I guess if I was going to give anyone doing this for the first time, it would be to understand each argument of your WS individually and be ready to lead with any one of them. Guess this is all part of the judge lottery I guess
  6. My stomach fell through the floor when the judge said it as part of summing up as I felt this was leading to a decision in favour of the Claimant. My gut feel (and I could be a million miles away here) was that the Judge had read the evidence and decided on the balance of probability that my story was likely the truth, so didn't want to go through the what she referred to as the peripheral issues. I think the reason it was accepted a contract was formed was because in my version of the story I parked within the terms of any 'contract', so it was easier to use that to rubbish the claimants case rather than going down the whole rabbit hole of whether or not a contract ever existed in the first place (if that makes any sense). Planning permission wasn't mentioned at all, again I think for the reasons outlined above.
  7. Sure, happy to. Walli didn't attend and VCS sent a representative (who I presume was from ELMS). The judge started by confirming she had all the correct documents, turned out she didn't as Walli hadn't sent his supplementary statement to the court so there was an amount of faffing whilst the representative sent the document through. Judge started by asking representative to confirm that he was happy that they couldn't rely on POFA and he agreed he was. Judge then outlined that she felt there were two main issues to discuss - was there a contract and did I breach it and was I parked in the car park when the claimant said I was. Claimants representative was asked to go first, basis of his argument was to point out all the signs etc. And that it was reasonable to expect I had accepted the contract etc. He then moved onto trying to discredit my Google location data as the times of my whereabouts were several minutes out of line with the time stamps from the ANPR cameras. There was also some fluff about it being reasonable to presume I was driving and a bit about having an opportunity to identify who, if I wasn't driving, was. The judge asked me if I was driving, I respectfully declined to answer and said it was the Claimants job to identify who was driving and I could find nothing in POFA compelling me to name the driver so wasn't going to. On the subject of discrepancies between my Google maps data and the Claimants ANPR cameras, I suggested that the accuracy of Google whose accuracy seems to be accepted the world over was likely to be better than some dodgy ANPR cameras for which the representative is unable to provide even the most basic of evidence as to when they were last calibrated. I also mentioned lookedforinfos bit about Brindley v Felt house which made the judge laugh as she said she hadn't heard that mentioned since her first year of law school (but she was familiar with it) and summarised by reiterating the point in my ws that surely I was either driving and parked within the rules or I wasn't and because of the acknowledgement the claimant couldn't rely on POFA I couldn't be pursued. The judge took a moment to gather her thoughts then delivered her summing up, she suggested she felt the claimant had done enough to establish a contract existed, but as they hadn't established who was driving couldn't prove who it was with. She then went on to say that if the claimant felt that was a bit light she felt that the slight discrepancy in the Google times and the ANPR times wasn't enough to warrant Google was wrong and she felt that my argument about double dipping was most likely what happened. She was then going to dismiss when I queried costs, mentioned the claimant being a serial litigant and asked for unreasonable costs. Made the mistake of admitting I'd used paid annual leave so the representative argued there was no financial loss. The judge suggested that the claim wasn't unreasonable and so she wouldn't award unreasonable costs and that was that.
  8. Won Judge didn't accept any of the Claimant's arguments, but also didn't believe I demonstrated they had acted unreasonably so made no award of costs :-(, but if that's the worst thing that happens to me today, I can live with that . Can I just thank everybody that took the time to respond and help me with this claim, it's very much appreciated.
  9. What would be acceptable here Andy? I can provide a copy of my contract of employment or a payslip, would either of these do? Issue I have is; I work for a large multi-national company, so can't just pop into the HR department and ask for copies of this sort of stuff. We have an online system that I can use to generate a pre-populated letter on headed paper, but that will only provide: - An employment reference letter - Accommodation reference letter - Mortgage reference letter - Visa reference letter
  10. That's disappointing, I wonder how much the judge earns per hour in that case I'll go with: Ordinary Cost Loss of earnings incurred through attendance at Court = £90.00 Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage = £15.00 Sub Total - £105.00 Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) Research, preparation and drafting of documents (5 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) - £95.00 £ Total Costs Claimed - £200.00 That's a nice round number...
  11. How does this look? Ordinary Cost Loss of earnings incurred through attendance at Court = £148.25 Stationery, printing, photocopying and postage = £15.00 Sub Total - £163.25 Further costs for Claimant's unreasonable behaviour, pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 27.14(2)(g) Research, preparation and drafting of documents (5 hours at Litigant in Person rate of £19.00 per hour) - £95.00 £ Total Costs Claimed - £258.25
  12. Looks like Monday's the day (as I've had no correspondence to the contrary), I've re-read my witness statement and feel I have my arguments clear in my head...is there anything else I need to be doing.checking/reading (I have the weekend to prep). One thing I wasn't clear on - I've had to take the day off work to do this, should I win, can I make any sort of claim for costs, if so, what's the best way to ask?
  13. SAR's have all gone to the original creditors, I will draft CCA's and get them sent to the current debt owners. I have been reading a bit, absolutely appreciate any and all guidance, but know you're busy people and don't have the time to do this for me so have tried to do as much as I can myself, now at a point where I'm fairly sure of the journey, just need a little guidance. Will keep you posted on what happens next...
  14. Thanks for the reply dx, I know I've been a total mug, but the plan is to try and put that right . I think the take out dates should be there, for clarity, the headers for the table in my first post are: Current debt owner; default date; start date; original debtors; remaining balance. I've asked for copies of the original agreements in my SAR requests, but will send formal CCA letters. Just to be clear I CCA the original debtors not the current owners?
  • Create New...