Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. 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;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 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 in 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 be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement 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 recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye 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…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  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).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. 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;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Little Devils Direct - Wheel fell off pram - They refuse refund


cherry14
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1451 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

Hi, I need an advice if it is possible to get a refund and a reimburesement of costs of postage for returning a faulty item to the seller.

 

One week before the end of the warranty (12 months warranty)

while having a walk with my baby the buggy broke in serious and dangerous way:

the aluminium frame got ripped around the front wheel and the wheel fell off.

We had a narrow escape from an accident, as the buggy dangerously tipped.

 

A couple of months earlier I had an email exchange with the retailer when I felt that the pram is visibly leaning to one side

and one of the wheels seemed to be higher than the 3 others.

 

The company said that they will attempt a repair

but I was expected to be with no pram for 2 weeks and to pay for postage

(with 9 months old baby these were impossible conditions, so I resigned and hoped that the pram will not deteriorate).

 

Obviously the fault was more serious than I have anticipated and it led to the accident.

What's worse the accident happened while abroad.

 

I have immediately contacted the seller with the photographic evidence.

The seller was unhelpful demanding that I send the pram over on my own cost from abroad

(refusing to even meet the British part of the courier cost),

 

they also said that they are not obligated to help anyway as my warranty was over (not true),

they told me that they will weld my pram (which I find impossible, unsecure and unfit for use of any baby).

 

They were very argumentative or non responsive for many days,

which was terrible as I was stranded abroad only with email contact with the seller.

 

At the end I had to purchase a stroller to be able to return to the UK.

 

Seller says that it was my choice (not a necessity due to unresolved issue and lack of communication);

after several emails they have agreed to loan me a pram,

delivered to my uk address and only if I pay for a postage for the loan (both ways).

 

They cannot replace the broken part of the pram as they do not produce this model anymore.

 

I demanded initially a new pram but they said a firm no,

so I purchased a pram abroad and now I want my money back.

 

I absolutely would never put my baby in a welded pram!

(I asked while abroad, everyone refused a repair due to liability over a child's safety).

 

How would you go around this case?

Do you think it's reasonable to ask for money and postage back?

How should I respond to the seller if they said they have repaired the pram?

Link to post
Share on other sites

what pram - where brought?

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry i was a bit blunt before

 

what i was double checking was that it wasnt one with a known issue

 

would agree with rebel SOG is your friend

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well, not suprisingly I have received very abrupt email from Little Devils saying that I might quote the correct legislation, but I don't understand it (nice).

 

They are refusing to refund the purchase and although I said that 6 weeks without baby pram is surely unreasonable amount of time

and unreasonable inconvenience, they happly said that it is a "grey area" (any parent of a baby under 1 would comment on that???).

 

They refused to refund my shipment costs as well.

 

I called the CAB and they have opened the case, but they said that my next step is to try through my credit card company.

 

I'm not only insulted - in writing - by those people, very angry and really worried,

as it seems like they keep selling unsafe products and other kids might be in danger.

 

Maybe I actually should report their products as unsafe?

 

As they obviously are ... I just went through all correspondence with the company to prepare a case for my bank

and I discovered that within 10 months of use I had 5 faults including permanent damage of the brake and it is a THIRD! chassis they are offering me....

 

If you have any thoughts, would appreciate it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cherry

 

If there are 'Health & Safety' Issues with the pram, then contact your local Trading Standards. Link below:-

 

http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/

 

I'm not sure your Credit Card company can help, but it's worth a shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason they have said its a "Gray area" is that the Sale of goods act doesn't say what length of time is unreasonable

 

i would try a letter on the lines of

 

Dear sir

 

in reference to your previous response:-

 

although the reasonable length of time is not stated and therefore is a "Gray area" in the sales of goods act it is widely accepted by most retailers that loss of use for no more than 28 days is reasonable therefore your suggestion of 6 weeks (42 days) is far beyond this

 

therefore i require that you meet your obligations under the sale of goods act and either repair the product in a reasonable length of time (under 28 days), replace or refund the product

 

if you fail to meet your obligations under law then i will be forced to under take further action

 

this may include:-

 

Applying under section 75 of the consumer credit act to my credit card for a full refund of the purchase

Issuing a N1 through the fast tract court for your breaches this would include other charges such as court cost, attendance fees and may be higher than the cost of replacement

 

i look forward to your response detailing how your are going to resolve these issues

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hello,

Well here I am again - just an update.

 

In response to my email written in a way as advised above, the seller very rudely replied that he challenges me to go to the court.

He said that I'm completely unreasonable, and justified his rudeness by me being "difficult".

 

I have passed all the correspondence and photos of the damage to my credit card company.

Actually when writing a little summarise to my credit card,

I have counted (and added all emails and photos) that the wheel was a sixth fault developed within 10 months of use.

There were 5 others before!

- Although minor faults, yet still needed repairs, small replacements and new parts.

 

Just for a record I will report on the progress, as I've stopped correspondence with this company from hell,

as soon as I passed the case to my credit card. I guess this is the right thing to do?

 

Thank you for all your help!

I'm really impressed how knowledgeable my readers, especially Labrat, are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, just learned that:

 

1. cannot proceed under section 75, as in the payment third party (PayPal) was involved.

So credit card claim is no good. PayPal no good as well, as it's beyond their time limits.

 

2. cannot win in the court as I have no independent expert opinion that the pushchair was defected

- the pushchair is still with the horrible company and surely they have discharged the broken part.

 

Seems like I have to accept that broken pushchair back, and if it breaks again get the independent opinion,

but than I will still not get any money back, as it would be far too long after the purchase and damage could occur naturally....

 

If you have any advice I'm all ears as I feel right now that there is no justice for me.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive flagged the thread to site team as i will be honest i have no idea how the paypal issue does effect a S75 refund, as far as im aware its still possible

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they have had problems with this type of pushchair.

 

What they say in their ebay account.

We offer our customers the following security:

 

Our Personnel Pledge - 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed / Money Back Guarantee

 

PayPal Buyer Protection - PayPal is owned by eBay / Very Safe and Reliable

 

1 year Warranty With Every Product - Providing Piece of Mind

 

Excellent After Sales Service - We'll be here for years to come

 

What they say on their web site

Exceptional customer service is our primary goal. We want your shopping experience with us to be enjoyable and easy. We value your custom and hope you return to our store time and time again.

 

Maybe you need to remind them what they have stated in their web site and on ebay, because thats NOT what you have experienced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hello,

Apologies for my yet again delay update. I have just received in writing a reply from my credit card (MBNA) why they are not going to do anything. It says:

"On review of the documentation you have provided, it appears that you have paid Little Devils Direct, who in turn used the money transfer company called Paypal. When a claim is assessed through Section 75, it is considered whether the parties involved formed part of a debtor (customer) - creditor (card issuer) - supplier (merchant) agreement. The agreement outlined above was between MBNA and PayPal. We believe it was Little Devils Direct who breached their contractual obligation to you, therefore there is no debtor (customer) - creditor (card issuer) - supplier (merchant) agreement. "

I have looked at the reviews as mentioned, they were written shortly after my purchase! Sounds like a "batch" of prams was all damaged... I have contacted the company before I purchased the pram and all seemed ok. I even talked to them before purchase about warranty.... And yes, I reminded them about their T&C and all those nice slogans about customer care, well their response was that "we could be even more difficult".

I still don't have a pram, because the company pretends they don't know if I live in England (where I live) or in Poland (where accident happened during holidays), and I'm too upset and frustrated to explain to those malicious people...

I spoke to the layer and he said that without an old broken frame checked by an independent body I hardly stand a chance in the court.

Please, any ideas? Do I really have to comply to this horribly company? Is my case lost?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi cherry

 

That is disappointing, here's is some interesting info:- http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/sale-of-goods/your-rights-when-paying-by-credit-card/cca-section-75-problems/

 

You need to find out if there is a 'Commercial Entity Agreement' between 'Little Devils Direct' and 'Paypal', if this is the case and there is a 'Commercial Entity Agreement', go back to MBNA with this information. If MBNA still won't look into the matter, then you need to file a complaint with the FOS.

https://cms.paypal.com/uk/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/Legal_Hub_full&locale.x=en_GB

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I have had the same problem with this pushchair. had mine for 18 months and the wheels snapped on saturday while my daughter was in the pram. The company has refused to give me a new pushchair even tho there is a fault with the frame. I have found other reviews on the pushchair that have the same problem. I have contact trading standards and they have advised to write a letter a saying I want a new pushchair, they have 14 days to respond to my letter after that I have to contact trading standards again for the next step. I have also thought about going to watch dog because this is not how you run a company. Very dissapointed in little devils and there lack of concern regarding safety!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

thread closed to stop newbie postings

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...