Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks @lookinforinfo.   The text is updated:   1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest. Furthermore, VCS has been running the parking business at airports over the years it would be expected that they would become familiar with the Airports Act. Unfortunately, they choose to neglect and deny the Act in their Witness Statement.
    • Hi Mango,   Please don't post in large blocks of text as it's far harder to read. Spacing added for you in the post above.   Please give brief answers to UncleB's Q's above so we can better assess your case, thanks.
    • "These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.   I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.   By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.    
    • Hi,   Still no response. I have my Liability Order hearing in a few days time, I was hoping I might have been able to receive a response from either my local councillor or the leader of the council before then. I wonder if they are just going to ignore my email?   Walshy    
    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of.   My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using.   Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose.   Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process.   To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Aktiv,Kapital,Portfolio,Z ug,Branch,to,Ross


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2605 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

Have no idea were this debt has come from it was £70 now Rossendales have it,it is now £361.65, this debt is at least five years old ,(4 years)because we have been out of the country. Plus we no longer live at the address that the debt letters are been sent to, saying we need to get in touch in 7 days or else. Not sure I want this bill to get bigger and bigger, but thought it was a con of some sort in the beginning. But feel like getting in touch now is pointless and will fuel there debt collecting fire:!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your current address is showing on your credit record, they will contact you directly in due course.

 

You can check for any CCJ using http://www.trustonline.org.uk/

 

You can check your credit record using Noodle or Experian, but you will have to give your current address, which would guarantee your current address being known to all who might want to contact you.

 

Rossendale also do standard debt collection and it may not be in a capacity as bailiffs.

 

If there is no CCJ and you are not worried about it, then you don't need to do anything.

 

What was the type of original debt ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

No idea, as I thought it was a [[problem]], it was originally 361.65, they offered 70 to get rid of the debt, without understanding what it was for,

so thought it was a random letter,fishing?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...