Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i hope Yasmeen Couser is going to be at this hearing else their WS is totally inadmissible.   dx  
    • Government launches call for evidence on video game loot boxes     READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-call-for-evidence-on-video-game-loot-boxes
    • They can still write to you after the 14 day limit but they can only pursue the driver as they have lost the ability to chase the keeper.   I hope that you have not divulged who was driving. Never talk to these guys on the phone. They lie and harass as well as taping conversations.   Only write and do not appeal as they never agree that the motorist is right.   Please reply to the questions on post 2 so we can give you the best advice to avoid paying these crooks.
    • Hi   I think you also need to send this company a Subject Access Request (SAR) simply asking for 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whichever format they hold it in whether it be written, email phone recording etc.   They then have 30 Calendar day to respond only once they have acknowledged receipt of your SAR request. note a SAR if now Free   As for them stating they don't have to stop processing your data they need to comply with the General Data Protection Regulations 2018 (GDPR) which is now part of Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA)   This link breaks down the GDPR so its easier to understand your rights:  https://www.privacy-regulation.eu/en/index.htm    
    • There is so much wrong with their WS.   You stopped for a very short time yet she seems to equate that as being parked! That flies in the face of what parking means.   There have been several cases in Court where Judges have defined the meaning of parked. Not one of them describes it as stopping for a few minutes with the engine running and the driver remaining in the vehicle. And why on earth is POFA being included on s28? The airport comes under Byelaws and that land is specifically not covered by POFA.   Then on s30 she cites Parking Eye v Beavis talking about establishing a contract between the parking company and the motorist to park!   then from s33 to s40 they are trying to bamboozle the Court by trying to minimise the effect of the Byelaws. It is the borough of Southend on Sea that decides the rules there- https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/sen-byelaws-1983-297c76b8.   S12 and s13 confirm that the signs erected by the Council are the ones to be observed.   You can also use the Forum search box and cases that have been won against VCS above.   s46 The claimant submits the signs are not prohibitive!    The dictionary description of" Prohibitive"- (of a law or rule) forbidding or restricting something.  If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...Is she dumb or what. s47 Further misdirection-this is nothing to do with parking s48 refers to the" lawful occupier" not the landowner which is Southend Council.  I end up going back to s5 which gives the impression that VCS complies totally with their Code of Practice and therefore you, the motorist must be guilty. yet Time and time again VCS loses in Court because they have not complied with their CoP.   The Parking Prankster indicates some of them.  http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/02/   and in the case below they took someone to Court knowing that they did not have the right to take this person to Court at all. http://nebula.wsimg.com/e3da92cb966c72de63ec1f98605c2954?AccessKeyId=4CB8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1   VCS v Ms O C8DP9D8C Birmingham 1/8/2017 this was taking a motorist to Court  when the contract for the car park was down to Excel. VCS have lost many cases in Court knowing that they did not have the right to sue as there was no contract between them and motorists-total breach of their CoP and should have put their ability to access motorists data  were it not for the weakness of DVLA and the IPC. VCS v Ms M. 3QZ53955 25/01/2016 Claim discontinued. Costs awarded to motorist. as above-masquerading as Excel yet again.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Suspended possession order


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3701 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

Hi My lender has informed me that they are going to seek a suspended possession order on my property to ensure I maintain my repayment plan. Over the last 2 years there have been 5 such agreements which basicaly lapsed due to being on a horrendous fixed rate deal (my monthly repayments dropped by more then 60% when the fixed rate deal ended earlier this year. I am devastated at this as the order will mean cost of £350 will be applied to my account just at a time when starting to get back on on our feet. I have read on the law society web site about offers under civil proceedings rule 36. Does any one have comments on this if I make an offer under rule 36 will this strengthen my case. The fact that they have now decided to push for a court order is so frustrating as we are now finally in an excellent position to maintain arrears repayments of £500 per month (arrears total £7500).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...