Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • 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. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Please help with next step re: Bryan Carter/ Arrow Court Proceedings


OHW
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3204 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 all,

B Carter are acting on behalf of Arrow Global, who have for some time alleged I owe them over £350.

 

a few weeks ago BC sent me an offer saying they will knock £50 if I pay immediately.

 

I have now received court papers from Northampton for this alleged debt and bizzarely the court and solicitors fees add up to the original amount.

 

What is going on here?

 

They are also not claiming statutory interest, why not if they think I owe this debt?

 

This allaged debt is from 2006 and yes, it shows on my credit file (until 2007).

 

I dont really know how to proceed.

 

Its all CC charges and interest on charges (CC is not from Arrow either). Really annoyed by whole situation.

 

Anyone any advice or similar experience?

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks so much for replying,

 

POC:

 

The claimants claim is for the balance due under an agreement which is now all due and payable

 

The defendant agreed to pay monthly installments under account numer xxxxxxxx but has failed to do so.

 

and the claimant claims the sum of xxxx

 

The claims also claims interest thereon pursuant to s.69 count court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% per annum amounting to 0.00

 

The amount claimed is xxxx + court fee (£15) plus solicitors costs. Which amount up to original amount owed before they knocked money off.

 

Looking at on my credit file I originally opened account in 2005 and its marked as defaulted the beginning of 2007. No payments recorded on the account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was CC agreement. About 2/3 is charges. Id be happy to pay the original amount owed although I guess if I counterclaimed then it would be wiped out with stat interest. I dont know how things work really and this is all new to me. Im guessing they are randomly doing this either because its about to drop off my credit file or that I recently got a job (at last).

Link to post
Share on other sites

send the letter below by recorded delivery to brian carter on monday, i take it the claim is from Northampton CCBC so have you acknowledged online. on the claim form will be a password

 

we will prob end up getting a 28 day extension to file a defencelink3.gif as to CPR 15.5 but please acknowledge the claim on line and send to uncle bryan what i have posted below by recorded delivery first thing monday

 

DO NOT TOUCH THE DEFENCE OR SUBMIT ANY DEFENCE (MOST IMPORTANT) until advised

 

if uncle bryan fails to come up with the documents, we file an application noticelink3.gif to strike out the claim

 

 

PLEASE CONFIRM THE CLAIM IS BELOW £5000

 

Re: (Claimant's name) v (Your name)

 

Case No:

 

CPR 31.14Request

 

On (date) I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the(Name) countycourt.

 

I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court inwhich I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim.

 

 

Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR31.14 for the disclosure and the production of averified and legible copy of [each of the following / the] document(s)mentioned in your Particulars of Claim:

 

1 The agreement.

 

You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reasonof the provisions of CPR PD 16 para 7.3, where aclaim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constitutingthe agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim andthe original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any generalconditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached.

 

2 The deed of assignment.

 

3 The notice of assignment including proof of service.

 

 

4 The default notice.

 

5 The termination notice. (not mentioned in the POClink3.gif but no harm asking just might not get)

 

 

Although your claim is for a sum which is not more than £5,000.00 and willin all likelihood be allocated to the small claims track for determination uponmy delivering a defence, at this moment in time I have not delivered my defenceand the case has not been allocated to a track. In consequence the provisionsof CPR 27(2) are of no effect and you should not seek to avoid compliance with your CPR 31 dutiesby claiming otherwise

 

You should ensure compliance with your CPR 31duties and ensure that the document(s) I have requested are copied to andreceived by me within 7 days of receiving this letter. Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable andproportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, thebetter for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provideme with a legible copy. Further, where I have requested a copy of a document,the original of which is now in the possession of another person, you will havea right to possession of that document if you have mentioned it in your case.You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose ofthis case.

 

Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more thanone version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration orother marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you mustprovide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making areasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligationto recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of athird party.

 

In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake tobe responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying withthis CPR 31.14request.

 

If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tellme in writing. You must tell me before the time for compliance with thisrequest has expired. In telling me you require more time you must tell me whatsteps you have taken and propose to take in order to comply with this requestand also state a date by when you will comply with this request. In additionyour statement must be accompanied with a statement that you agree to anextension of the time for me to file my defence. Your extension of time must benot less than 14 days from the date when you say you will have complied with myrequest and you must state the new date for filing my defence.

 

If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you willnever be able to comply with this request you must tell me in writing.

 

Please note that if you should fail to comply with this request, fail torequest more time or fail to agree to an extension of time for the filing of mydefence, I will make an application to the court for an order that theproceedings be struck out or stayed for non-compliance and a summary costsorder.

 

I do hope this will not be necessary and look forward to hearing from you.

 

yours faithfully (print name)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, this is great, Ill up date you as I go along. I did file acknowledgement yesterday. Will the court tell me when i need to do each step?

 

Oh and my name has changed, what kind of issues will this entail? (do you know)?

Edited by OHW
added question.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, this is great, Ill up date you as I go along. I did file acknowledgement yesterday. Will the court tell me when i need to do each step?

 

 

AFRAID NOT

 

we have to abide by strict time tables now

 

if uncle bryan has not contacted you by 6 august by letter we go for a strike out, but knowing him, he will agree to a 28 day extension

 

let me know when you get a reply or if not, update your thread on 6 august

 

keep your original name for now

 

uncle bryan normally withdraws the claim if any sort of defence is submitted

 

he likes the easy life "judgement by default"

 

he is hoping you will just ignore the claim

 

no chance of that happening

Edited by squaddie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I would update as I think I know why he has knocked off money and then added it on (and charged no interest). Its so he can pay less fees! So what hes actually done is reduced it so he can get a discount on the fee, and I guess hoping I will panic and call them up. Well, considering I disagree with the whole process and the amount, and well, everything, I dont really care for these tactics. Its strange they are trying to take me to court for a debt of less than £300 now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Can I just clarify, BC only mention an 'agreement' and none of the other documents, am I able to request the other doucments purely because they relate to the agreement? Will they send me a statement with how they come to this figure I allegedly owe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I remember that I had to register while acknowledging. Do not lose your log in/ registration details. If you still cannot gain access you will need to call them up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...