Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Don't worry about the questions - that's what we're here for.   I'll try and flesh out the arguments and answer your questions at the same time.  Let's use "I" to refer to your mum as it's her WS.   1.  Sequence of events Describe briefly that the driver parked in the retail park and visited Citygate garage, thinking it was part of the retail park.  Upon return to the vehicle there was no windscreen ticket or indication of any infringement.  Later I received a PCN for parking in a restricted area, then various threatening letters, after a Letter Before Action which I replied to and finally a claim form.   2.  Locus standi VCS are not the landowner.  The contract they have provided is not with the landowner, it is with another company, it ran out in 2018, the company it is with went into liquidation in 2019, the contract cannot possibly be valid.   3.  No keeper liability VCS should be suing the driver, they have not established keeper liability under POFA (you know all about the 29-56 day stuff, quote it all from POFA).   (Yes!  Good find on their sign!  Include the sign and say VCS maintain they have images that can identify the driver and yet have not identified me as such).   (Yes, keep it vague as to who was driving, it's up to VCS to prove, not you.  They could easily have used POFA correctly but have complete contempt for the law so haven't).   4.  Planning permission VCS go to great pains in their WS to emphasise their signage, none of which I disagree with.  However I do not believe they have planning permission for these signs which is a criminal offence under Town and Country [Advertisements} regulations and means no contract could be formed.  I have requested proof of planning permission from VCS by means of a CPR request but they have not replied.  I have searched XXXXX council planning portal and I cannot find planning permission for the signs.  Their CoP incudes that they must obtain all legal permissions yet they have not done so (look up the bit on the IPC CoP):   (You can't prove a negative.  The work you've done here is more than enough.  They have to prove they have planning permission yet have not).   5.  Predatory practises These are forbidden by the CoP (again, look the section up) (a)  The driver did not find the Notice to Driver on their return to the car although it appears in VCS's photos.  As the car park is patrolled, it is unlikely that a member of the public removed it.  I believe the patrol officer photographed it and removed it.  This is a well-known tactic used by PPCs so that the motorist misses the chance to pay during the discounted period.  I enclose a statement by Mr XXXXX which confirms what i say. (b)  The driver visited Citygate garage which is a matter of metres away from the retail site, in fact the driver thought it to be part of the site.  The patrol officer could easily have mitigated the loss by informing the driver of their mistake, yet did not. (c)  The parking violation alleged was to have left the site, yet the PCN is for a completely different violation, parking in a restricted area.  The area was not restricted, there were no permits to show or payment to be made, it is a free public car park.  This error was made either out of incompetence or deliberately to confuse me and make it impossible to appeal.  In any case in their WS VCS are alleging a completely different breach of contract that that stated in their PCN and in all their previous correspondence I would point out that the patrol officer will not attend the hearing so I will not be able to cross examine him, and I am confident that neither will the WS author since from research I have carried out I have discovered that neither Ambreen Arshad nor Mohammed Wali (VCS's other paralegal) who always write the company's WSs ever attend hearings, presumably to avoid cross examination.  Its is especially easy to attend on-line hearings during the COVID pandemic as no travelling is involved.   6.  Unicorn Food Tax Easy, copy from Alaska 101
    • Good evening. thank you for the add. I have a problem with returning a Dell laptop within a 14 day cooling off period. I bought it online on the Dell uk website, and it was delivered to me on the 6th of September. I could not set it up because I was stuck at one of the steps (got the frozen screen and I could not get past it waiting for hours for something to happen). Then I contacted Dell Technical Support. I spent over 4 hours with their advisors on the phone and whatsapp and they could not help me to resolve this problem. So there seems to be a software( or hardware?) issue and I want to return it. I have tried to arrange a return thru the Dell website by picking the date, however, I did not receive any email confirmation of this and nobody showed up on the day. I phoned and emailed and they said I could not return it. Earlier this week I have contacted both their customer service and complaints emails with no success. They are not giving me their returns address. The guy in the 2nd email was trying to offer me a £130 off voucher but never got back to me with the returns address in the UK. I have used the Resolver  site yesterday to write another complaint quoting Dells own returns policy as well as the Comsumer Rights. My return window is running out. What can I do now?
    • FKofilee - thank you we got a fair deal if I am honest due to my daughters mental health issues it was better than I thought I would get because as was correctly pointed out to me as long as she is out of the toxic environment with a reference that is better than trying to prove bullying etc.    At least now we can move on.   To everyone, thank you for the comments about the reference think it was just the over protective Dad in me, I do not want any one to think ill of my daughter as her issues were caused by abusers who told her if she told me I would end up in prison not them which is something I will always feel guilty about as she suffered in silence. She knew I would have taught them that some people are capable of hitting back and may well not have stopped at simply giving them a taste of their own medicine. Unfortunately as a father of three girls I have found out the hard way I can not protect them from everything but we try to turn the page and move on.
    • Hi Dave, Hope you enjoyed the football and thanks for looking over the WS.   I have two questions:   1) Strategy - for my mum's car, considering 3 of us were insured on it before it was sold (me, mum, dad) do you think it's worth just playing the 'sue the driver not me' and evade whether she was there or not? And then say POFA wasn't fulfilled so can't be held liable at keeper. I wanted to point out in the WS they should be able to identify the driver considering they had a patrol officer and their privacy notice on their sign says:    'These images will include the recording of the vehicle number plate and may also include images of any person(s) associated with the vehicle. Images are collected for the purpose of identifying the driver or keeper responsible for any charge arising from failure to follow the contractual terms and conditions of the site.’   Obviously in practice they won't have taken images cos that would be a GDPR/privacy nightmare to store. But its their threat, so why not ask them to produce it?   Or should you think its best to to make the statement as you suggested and say they were there and keep it vague about who was driving, like the wording you used suggests?   2) Planning permission: I can't find anything in the portal, I emailed the council and they sent me a booklet about advertising and signs and asked which ones I meant. So I'll reply with pictures. But aside from hopefully the council replying saying they don't have permission - I don't know how else to prove that they didn't have planning permission.    Sorry I have so many questions - writing two WS's (even if they overlap) is a bit of an undertaking!          
    • Well Ambreen is mercifully less repetitive than Wally.  However, the "meat" of her WS comes down to the same thing.  "We put up lots & lots & lots & lots of signs and the driver walked off site".  I don't think you need two threads and I think fundamentally your two WSs can be the same based on the arguments in posts 101-105.   As you're going to state you think the attendant removed the windscreen ticket and also failed to mitigate your mistake, I'm thinking it might be worth your parents backing each other up.  They could each write a short statement saying that on that day they were with "the driver and the driver's party", that they all visited the Citygate garage together which was a matter of metres off site, and when they returned to the car there was no windscreen ticket.   Have they got any other proof of visiting the Citygate garage?  Did they phone before or make an appointment for example?    It also crossed my mind to briefly acknowledge you agree with Ambreen about the signage so that argument can be got rid of (she hasn't got much else).  Then I thought, even better, say you agree about the number of signs but that they were erected illegally and go on to the bit about planning permission.   Regarding LFI's point 48.  Not only will Ambreen not be in court (VCS's paralegals never, ever are) and therefore unavailable for cross examination, neither will the car park attendant who engaged in predatory practises.   When you have time post up a draft of your WS and we'll help to tweak where necessary.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Help lowell ccj from old tsb account


sidvicious
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2547 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

did you receive a claim form, if so what action did you take

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you please provide further information

 

 

like,

 

 

when the account was started and

 

 

was there any charges added to your account.

 

 

 

 

Did you receive a default notice and the did DCA or Lloyds take you to Court themselves?

 

 

Why did you throw it away?

 

 

Since you didn't put in a defence you MAY be able to apply for a set aside

 

 

so can you let us know the rest of the details for better advice please.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for you help.

 

Defaulted 19/01/2009 £384

 

 

TSB sold it onto Lowell.

 

 

I had started to claim t back from tsb

 

 

has it was made up mainly by charges

 

 

but then there was a stay on bank charges and

 

 

I just forgot about it to be honest.

 

Lowell have taken out the CCJ.

 

I threw it away because it just didnt look right and the amount was £518 so I did not connect it with TSB.

 

I am funding 2 families at the moment and cash is really tight

 

 

so I just need to get this sorted out.

Ladyhawk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have much chance of a set aside.

 

 

A set aside application costs £155 (unless you can claiim exemption) ,

 

 

you have to make a full argument and

 

 

there may be a hearing where you have to explain to a Judge why it should be set aside.

 

 

I don't think you will have any success in arguing about charges in a set aside hearing.

 

If Lowells are hassling you for payment,

 

 

I would suggest that you enter into an affordable arrangement.

 

 

The CCJ is on your credit record for 6 years and will be on there even if you paid over a period.

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

Can TSB sell on a disputed account??????????????

 

Simply put...yes they can

If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can TSB sell on a disputed account??????????????

A skilled lawyer might be able to argue that an account that was not properly (lawfully) closed (if that was the case), that the account should still be open and therefore could not be assigned to Lowell because Lowell are not a bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...