Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sunak tried to stop the public seeing this report. Rishi Sunak ordered to publish secret analysis showing Universal Credit cut impact - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK As Chancellor, Rishi Sunak ignored pleas from campaigners including footballer Marcus Rashford by scrapping the £20-per-week Universal Credit...  
    • A full-scale strike at the firm could have an impact on the global supply chains of electronics.View the full article
    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
  • 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
      • 161 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

Vodafone Incorrect Default *WON-out of court settlement*


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2209 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

Just to update:Was offered a goodwill gesture by Vodafone at the eleventh hour of the 8 week deadline yesterday which seriously under-values the cost of compensation I feel is due. Vodafone also offered no apology or no acceptance of fault in the matter.Have now emailed them back giving them 3 days to re-consider their goodwill gesture before I take the case to Otelo or pursue it through court myself.philharg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just to update:Was offered a goodwill gesture by Vodafone at the eleventh hour of the 8 week deadline yesterday which seriously under-values the cost of compensation I feel is due. Vodafone also offered no apology or no acceptance of fault in the matter.Have now emailed them back giving them 3 days to re-consider their goodwill gesture before I take the case to Otelo or pursue it through court myself.philharg

 

Hi philharg,

 

As per my email yesterday I'll be coming back to you by Tuesday next week in regard to this.

 

Kind regards,

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo get a letter back today from Vodafone's privacy team with regards to my subject access request. Apparantly I didn't provide them with enough information even though I met everything on their form...

 

O Yeah... Except for the mobile phone number of course because their isn't one!!

 

Plus they added 4 days onto the apparant date they received my request, even though I have a royal mail recorded signed for delivery confirmation.

 

Now have to post them everything back again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can safely say that once you have jumped through VFs hoops they still won't send you everything so be prepared for a slog.

 

My formal complaint was received by VF on 1/6 and they are still to acknowledge the complaint. The clock's ticking :x

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not just hoops set up by VF, they are blazing on fire and you are on a one wheeled motorbike.

 

They have already passed the 8 week offical complaint date now... I just need all this documentation to potentially prepare for court / Otelo.

 

More work for me, not that life as a teacher isn't busy enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

More work for me, not that life as a teacher isn't busy enough.

 

Well. if you weren't grey before this-you will be soon.....or bald :-)

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, give me Year 9's last period on a Friday anyday over this!

 

Strangely enough, It was in my third year at senior school (todays year 9) that I turned into a little g*t :lol:

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo get a letter back today from Vodafone's privacy team with regards to my subject access request. Apparantly I didn't provide them with enough information even though I met everything on their form...

 

O Yeah... Except for the mobile phone number of course because their isn't one!!

 

Plus they added 4 days onto the apparant date they received my request, even though I have a royal mail recorded signed for delivery confirmation.

 

Now have to post them everything back again.

 

Hi philharg,

 

Further to my update last week you should now have received an email from me as promised.

 

Although I wasn't aware that you'd submitted a SAR I'm happy to liaise with our Privacy Team should there be any further problems with this. Just let me know if you'd like me to do this on your behalf.

I think I can safely say that once you have jumped through VFs hoops they still won't send you everything so be prepared for a slog.

 

My formal complaint was received by VF on 1/6 and they are still to acknowledge the complaint. The clock's ticking :x

 

Hi Silverfox,

 

Thanks for the update on this.

 

On the basis that it was received nearly two weeks ago I would've expected a reply to be received by now.

 

If you'd like me to follow up on this just let me know.

 

Kind regards to you both.

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hi Silverfox,

 

Thanks for the update on this.

 

On the basis that it was received nearly two weeks ago I would've expected a reply to be received by now.

 

If you'd like me to follow up on this just let me know.

 

Kind regards to you both.

 

Lee

 

Web Relations Team

 

Vodafone UK

 

Strangely enough, a response turned up this morning-by Recorded Delivery no less. Once I have digested the info, I will update my thread

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philharg, Please will you contact me by email about this on our admin address.

 

I think that Vodafone's behaviour has been very serious and very shocking. I have seen the correspondence they have sent you and I think that their offer is derisory and insulting to you and shows a complete lack of responsibility.

 

I think that we need to raise the profile of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you sent complaints to the Information Commissioner and also to Trading Standards? I think that you should do.

 

These are very serious breaches. I can't imagine for a moment that you are the only person to have suffered this kind of thing. There are probably hundreds of others living with damaged credit reputations and who haven't had the good fortune to find this website.

 

I think that these breaches need to be brought to the attention of the authorities. Clearly with their offer to you of a mere £100, Vodafone isn't taking it very seriously. I think that their attitude tends to suggest that this is not the first time that this has happened.

 

Write careful, detailed - but not too wordy, letters of complaint and send them off immediately.

 

I understand that you have sent an SAR to Vodafone. When is the time limit for them to comply? We will want to look very carefully to see that it is complete.

 

Also, have you sent an SAR to Experian?

It seems that Vodafone are blaming Experian for the second entry on your credit file and so we had better find out what that was about. I suggest an SAR to Experian and say that you want all data but specifically your historical data entries and also all data relating to the recent entry on your file dated XXXX and data related to the subsequent removal of that entry. Tell them that you want data which they hold in any form including screen notes, phone records, correspondence - internal and external. If it is true that Experian are at fault then they should also be made the subject of a complaint.

I think that you are entitled to a full explanation as to how your credit reputation has been so unfairly handled. If it doesn't stack up then you may need to ask for some help from the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So to update everyone:

 

Email from Vodafone received Monday:

 

"

clear.gif

 

Hi Phil,

Further to my email of 9th June 2011.

As a matter of law, an individual is not entitled to compensation for a breach of the Data Protection Act unless they have suffered damage as a result of the breach. In this context, 'damage' has a specific legal meaning and refers to a direct financial loss (for example, any bank fees associated with closing a bank account in the case of bank details having been disclosed) and not to a loss of opportunity. Further, English law on damages requires that you quantify your losses i.e. if you were to take legal action you would have to demonstrate to the court what financial losses you had suffered as a result of this matter. As you have not yet provided evidence of direct financial loss, we are not prepared to offer you compensation in the amount of £500 as you have requested. If you are able to provide evidence of direct financial loss, we will be happy to reconsider our position.

Nonetheless, Vodafone understands that this has not been a positive customer experience for you and that this matter has naturally caused you much concern. In recognition of this, we are happy to offer you a gesture of goodwill to bring this matter to a close. Consequently, our offer of £100 compensation still stands, should you wish to accept it.

 

If you are not prepared to accept this, you are of course able to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office about our processing of your personal data. The Information Commissioner's Office provides a free complaints and advisory service on data protection matters. Their contact details can be found at: ICO WEB ADDRESS. We would of course be happy to cooperate with any investigation that the Commissioner may choose to make into this matter.

 

Kind regards,

Lee

Web Relations Team

Vodafone UK"

May I take this opportunity to say that I was not a customer of Vodafone so their was no customer experience to start with. I have never had any custom.

 

I shall continue to post update over the coming weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, well sorry Lee. We appreciate your goodwill on this forum and the help you have given to some people - but this is not a true assessment of UK law in relation to damages - and in particular in relation to compensation for breaches of statutory duty under the DPA. I suggest that you back to your in-house lawyers for clarification. They may well end up getting involved anyway.

 

As it happens, there was a case in 2008 or 2009 - possibly in Scotland in which the court awarded a claimant £116,000 for exactly the kind of DPA errors which Phil has experienced here and the award included sums for loss of opportunity on the housing market.

I hope that one of the team will be able to find the case and link us to it here.

 

I understand that Vodafone prefers its email to its customers to remain private but when that privacy is used to hide this kind of misinformation then I think that it is better for all of us if the material is put out in public.

 

If Vodafone believes that its best interests lie with the best interests of its customers then I expect that you will agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I hope that Vodafone read point 70 of that case....

 

"

70. The documentation which had been lodged by the pursuer in support of the claim for interest paid was at best incomplete. The entries from the credit card accounts were selective. In addition, the premise upon which the pursuer proceeded, namely that all of the interest which he paid would have been on a zero per cent basis was not supported by the evidence as to how the zero per cent schemes worked. He referred to the evidence of the pursuer himself and to the evidence of Mr Clark. It was apparent the balance transferred from one credit card to another which attracted zero per cent rates. Any purchases made on a credit card would attract interest. In addition, if the pursuer was transferring credit card balances there would be a fee, usually two per cent, which would be added to the balance and in due course that would have had to been paid by the pursuer making transfers he save the transfer fee of two per cent. The pursuer had accordingly failed to prove exactly what his alleged loss was. The pursuer had put forward no calculations which would assist in making the proposed finding in fact."

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I think this point raises how much an injustice of credit is worthy of without having to provide evidence of damages:

 

117. Had there been no finding of specific loss in this case, I would have had no hesitation in finding that an award of damages for the mere injury to credit was appropriate. In modern society credit plays a very big part in the conduct of the daily lives of a significant portion of the population. The financial services industry is constantly advertising loans, credit cards, store cards, mortgages, consolidation accounts etc. To have one's credit worthiness impugned so that one is at risk of being unable to obtain credit on the grounds that he is not credit worthy is, if anything, a more significant matter for the individual than it would have been at the time of King, over a hundred years ago. Mr Beynon has submitted that a figure of £10,000 would be appropriate. The figure of £100 awarded by the sheriff and left standing by the Inner House in King v British Linen translates, according to the Office of National Statistics Publication "Focus on consumer price indices" 2008, table 5/3, to £9,975 in the year 2008. The figure of £5,500 awarded to an individual in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society 1996 4All ER 119 was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, in today's figures, would be worth £8,215.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest that you do a very careful chronology of everything that has happened. Detailed but in bullet-pointed form.

 

Separately will you list out in the same manner what this has all cost you and your family in terms of actual expense, time spent sorting it out, loss of opportunity on the market - insurance, new mobile phone etc and also stress, distress and inconvenience.

 

You must be able to explain each bullet point - even though you may not have direct evidence, a full rational and moderate explanation will be very helpful.

 

You have the Durkin judgment to refer to and that will help you to organise your thoughts and your style of presentation.

 

Have you posted of your SAR to Experian yet?

 

Can we see your SAR to Vodafone please.

 

I'm pleased to say that a series of cases including Durkin, Harrison and very recently Ashbourne Management show that the judges are very intolerant of Data Protection abuses.

These companies have direct and privileged access to the Credit Reference Agency register. It is a subscribers' club but they seem to have lost sight of the gravitas of their privileged access and the responsibilities which come with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received my SAR information from VF today.

 

One telling line that I have picked out so far from internal communication Vodafone have made:

 

"It looks like this account shouldn't have been connected at all back in August 2009 and as such all charges have now been adjusted."

 

Well, they said it finally.

 

Disconnection happened on 6/11/2009 when it should of happened on the 2/08/2009.

 

VF then deleted a £532.00 dis-connection charge which was immediatly deleted.

 

They then issued a DCA Default Notice for £107 on the 9/11/2009 and placed it with a debt collection agency

 

Have then later removed this default after my request logging the reason as "Keying Error"

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this mean?

VF then deleted a £532.00 dis-connection charge which was immediatly deleted.

 

What was the date of the internal note?

 

Why should disconnection have happened at all when you should never have been connected.

 

"Keying error" is load of opaque nonsense. It is at best lazy record-keeping by someone who couldn't be bothered to make a proper entry. At worst ....

 

What is the real reason?

 

As they have breached their statutory duty and have caused you this damage, you are entitled to know precisely why it all happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, please incorporated the events revealed in the SAR within your chronology as well.

 

Also, is there anything missing, do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will try and put down a chronology now of VF's dealings as best I can. Obviously it is hard to de-crypt what they send you! So I will try and keep it to the main points.

 

Did they not send you a code sheet? I had to ask for one as some of the codes on the screenshots are very confusing.

 

Do your screenshots actually say 'default'?

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes one part of the account history specifically says "DCA1 Default Notice DCA"

 

Do you know what the following codes mean then? "CTN, BAN, WAS, BDR, ADDACS, CDTN,"

 

Would be a great help for my de-coding :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...