Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well.   But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them.   If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction.   Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

lonestardavid

chesterfield Council security staff attack shoppers

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1423 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

Since 8-8-2013 I have been in a constant battle with chesterfield borough council over the actions of council employed security guards in the council run shopping centre on this day.

 

My disabled partner and special needs son had gone into poundland and on-going to the checkout to pay for their items they were confronted by a security guard who demanded to search their bags.

 

They refused and went on their way, however they had only gone a few yards from poundland when my son was set upon bythe guard who had come up behind him grabbing him by the arm and then by the neck and dragging him backwards down the shopping centre back into poundland where he was held in the front of the shop while all the time being taunted by the guard stating in a loud voice that he was a shoplifter and a thief, my son had asked the guard to identify himself and he refused.

 

During this time my son had tried to get away to go to his mother and he was attacked again and dragged around by his lapels. This abuse went on for around 20 mins until the police arrived.

 

My son was then subjected to a stop search which proved he had done nothing wrong, he reported to the police that he had been assaulted by the guard and they took no action.

 

The police did instruct my son to not to go and wait outside the shop for another guard to come and speak to him, my son

thought this was so the guards could come and explain their actions, however when the guards manager arrived he handed my son a six month ban from the shopping centre, an act which i consider was out of spite and vengeance for being innocent.

 

During this time my partner who had witnessed the attack on her son decided to go into the library which is next to the shopping centre and go downstairs to use the public phone to ring me as she entered the lift she saw a guard go running downstairs, on exiting the lift she was immediately set upon by one of two guards, who forcibly grabbed her and forced her into an alcove (so it would be out of view of the cctv camera pointed down the corridor) and pinned her up against a wall, when my partner was searched by the police she was also found to have done nothing wrong.

 

As a result of the above i placed an appeal for witnesses on a local forum, and one person contacted me stating that his girlfriend who worked in the shopping centre had seen a security guard dragging a long haired young man backwards down the precinct towards poundland however this witness would not come forward i believe out of fear of retribution from this team of abusive guards.

 

At one point a post appeared replying to my appeal which released private information concerning the complaints I had made to the police, council and other bodies about the above attacks the post also included details of complaints i had made to the police two years earlier on an unrelated incident. As a result of the negative post i wrongly assumed that this post was posted by a policeman

 

I contacted the police professional standards and the matter was investigated by the police counter corruption unit, as a result of this investigation it was found that this post had come from a Chesterfield Borough Council computer and the post was made by the very same team of guards who had attacked my son and partner in a blatant attempt to discredit

us, rather tellingly the police did not investigate further,

 

I believe this inaction was prompted by the fact that had they done so they would have found that the guards were

fed this information by a member of the police as certain information they had posted was only available from police files.

 

As a result of the assaults the police became involved and on taking statements from these guards told us that their

statements corroborated my partner and sons account of the attacks, and the two guards who had assaulted my son and

partner were charged,

 

However the guards were by this time claiming that they had been told by the poundland manager that my son and partner had stolen something (a fact refuted by the store manager) as a result they had reasonable grounds though at no point have they stated reasonable grounds for what,

 

the CPS bought the case to the magistrates court in December 2013 were not prepared and did not take the cctv footage to the court they were criticised by the magistrates for being unprepared and the case was adjourned until January, three days before the case was due to be heard we received a letter from the CPS stating that they were discontinuing the case as the guards had reasonable grounds,

 

We appealed this decision under the VRR right to appeal however this is just a rubber stamp exercise and since

then they have flatly refused to relook at this decision.

 

We have complained to the council under the councils three stage complaints procedure and two years and four months later we are at step two and no further forward,

Edited by citizenB
tidied up formatting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By saying that they had reasonable ground to suspect theft and lying about the manager pointing this out to them, the guards got away with it.

They were very lucky because they probably got a tired, lazy cps officer to deal with this case.

 

It is frustrating for you and the police officer who has spent hours preparing a case that it's then cocked up by cps.

that's the past and can't be changed.

 

As the council have been giving you the runaround for so long,

have you tried getting a name of the person in charge of your complaint?

If not you should do so and email them directly.

 

Also, you can write to your local mp; most times they're very good at moving things forward, at least mine is.

It's disgraceful that people are treated like this without consequences

and even worse that nobody present during this incident intervened or came forward to give evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i had an appointment arranged for yesterday afternoon with the executive director who is dealing with the complaint

to see the footage of the attack on my son.

 

 

the reason for this being that the cctv footage we have been given is heavily pixilated

and does not show the full extent of the attack

rather tellingly the time stamp is also pixilated

 

 

at one point in the footage we have there is 20 or so mins of the camera looking at poundland

you can only tell it is is poundland by the colours as this is totaly pixilated,

 

 

needless to say on arrival at the council we were told that the executive director was off due to "illness"

needless to say after all the lies we have been told we do not believe this to be the true reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Words like 'attacked' make this sound as if it has been 'sexed up' (whatever that means).

 

Why not park yourselves outside Poundland and discreetly film all that goes on and then you will have evidence and can take real action against them.

You could even send it to the tv news channels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i had an appointment arranged for yesterday afternoon with the executive director who is dealing with the complaint to see the footage of the attack on my son. the reason for this being that the cctv footage we have been given is heavily pixilated and does not show the full extent of the attack rather tellingly the time stamp is also pixilated and at one point in the footage we have there is 20 or so mins of the camera looking at poundland you can only tell it is is poundland by the colours as this is totaly pixilated, needless to say on arrival at the council we were told that the executive director was off due to "illness" needless to say after all the lies we have been told we do not believe this to be the true reason

 

And you're not wrong.

Councils tempt to sweep any wrongdoing under the carpet and give complainants the runaround hoping that they get fed up and go away.

Do not desist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As above, 'Do not desist'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As above, 'Do not desist'.
you are aabsolutely right rather tellingly while googling a related item i have found out that chesterfield police safer neighbourhood team are working closely with the team of guards that attacked my son and partner and broke the law by breeching the data protection act surely this is even more absurd than making tony blair middle east peace envoy, oh irony of ironies, i wonder who is in whos pocket it seems police corruption is alive and well in chesterfield Edited by lonestardavid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Words like 'attacked' make this sound as if it has been 'sexed up' (whatever that means).

 

Why not park yourselves outside Poundland and discreetly film all that goes on and then you will have evidence and can take real action against them.

You could even send it to the tv news channels.

i understand your point, and my answer is how else can i descibe an innocent person being grabbed by the arm and being turned around and dragged backwards by the neck for about 20 yards down a shopping precinct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By saying that they had reasonable ground to suspect theft and lying about the manager pointing this out to them, the guards got away with it.

They were very lucky because they probably got a tired, lazy cps officer to deal with this case.

It is frustrating for you and the police officer who has spent hours preparing a case that it's then cocked up by cps.

Anyway, that's the past and can't be changed.

As the council have been giving you the runaround for so long, have you tried getting a name of the person in charge of your complaint?

If not you should do so and email them directly.

Also, you can write to your local mp; most times they're very good at moving things forward, at least mine is.

It's disgraceful that people are treated like this without consequences and even worse that nobody present during this incident intervened or came forward to give evidence.

on talking to a polceman one day about this case he told us of the name that the police use for the CPS it is "couldn't prosecute s**t"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

consider suing for flase imprisonment. Long winded but it is a civil case heard by a jury so it will be viewed in the light of ordinary people's experiences of life rather than the CPS's bet on the result

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
consider suing for flase imprisonment. Long winded but it is a civil case heard by a jury so it will be viewed in the light of ordinary people's experiences of life rather than the CPS's bet on the result

 

yes you are right however

we are not a rich family and we could not bear the cost

also most of the no win no fee lawyers are only interested in injuries,

 

i had a most interesting conversation today with the Labour leader of the council

who stated that these guards had commited no wrong doing as they had not been found guilty in a court of law,

 

now if we follow this to its logical conclusion, anyone who gets a ticket for littering or overstaying parking

should refuse to pay on the same grounds,

 

however as we all know these are Labour polticians and as always it is do as i say not as i do.

 

obviously false imprisonment, (cat sitting on my desk)

 

 

at the time i looked up the law relating to kidnap and it seemed to me applicable in this case,

 

 

however the police were not prepared to investigate,

the police do not appear to want to put their marriage to these guards in je pardy,

 

 

it seems to me that both the police and the cps are prepared to ignore the laws put in place to protect innocent people just to persue their own agendas,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are broke then it wont cost you as you can get legal aid. Anyone who earns money or has assets is basically stiffed by the legal aid system, rich people dont need it and the poor get it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...