Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My almost ready witness statement ...    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.   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.   Conclusion: 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.
    • I have read that thread. I will need to wait for last date of deferral to get key information to go back to Drydens.   I already asked for them to set aside, they refused but they have sent a message to court suspending warrant of control and put account on hold whilst they answer my SAR. I have also requested SAR to SLC.    
    • you do NOT need to pay it and anyway that would not remove the ccj, its there on your file paid or not for 6yrs, a paid ccj even with a cert of satisfaction is as bad as a non paid one.   the ONLY way to remove it is to set it aside.   sadly you the very worst thing you could have done with ANY debt on your credit file or not that you last used or paid or wrote about to the debt owner in the last 7 yrs....you ran away,,,moved without informing the debt owner of your correct and current address.   erudio and drydens are masters at doing backdoor ccj's. they are ofcourse totally wrong that the defaulted date is the sb date...well not when your last written/signed ack of the debt was more than 6yrs before the claimform date.   now how do you remove it....go read that thread ...carefullly then comeback here and lets see if you understand how.   dx  
    • Thanks, having to move house and discovered this. It's causing a nightmare in trying to rent somewhere and mortgage was also refused by the bank.    Shortly after requesting info I got a warrant in the post from bailifs. Managed to halt that and pause any action till I get key dates to try and get this removed.   Not wanting to avoid paying it, just need the CCJ gone.   Appreciate your help. Will read fully although I am not great with law.
    • Write the letter. It's important that you put this in writing so that you have a paper trail. Send the letter by recorded first class delivery. Explain that because of the defect in the bundle which has manifested itself within 30 days – always refer to the bundle – you are now rejecting it under the consumer rights act 2015 and that you require a refund and you want to know what their arrangements will be for providing you with this. You can also send this by email – but do it straight away. This reserves your rights and after that you have some flexibility as to how you want to act. I understand that they are uncooperative. No surprises. Don't imagine either that they will be fazed by your letter – but the important thing is that you are able to show that you are asserting your rights. After that, they are acting unlawfully We will help you make a claim against them and I suppose that will involve threatening to sue them and maybe even going on to sue them. You will find interesting and you will acquire some transferable skills which will enable you to sue anybody else who gets in your way with a degree of confidence. However, it might be a good idea to mitigate your loss and I would suggest that you accept the money that they have put on the table but make sure that they understand that you are accepting it and you are happy with it and you consider that they still owe you the outstanding £70. If you are asked to sign anything then you should decline and then we will help you claim for the whole lot. However if they don't ask you to sign for anything, then make sure that they have a letter from you at the same time saying thanks very much do for the £250. You are accepting it but this should not be taken as an indication that you are now relinquishing your claim to the rest of the money. Tell us what you want to do – with you want to take the 250 or whether you want to simply reject the lot and claim for the lot. If you want to take the 250 – which I suggest that you do – and if they will give you the money despite the fact that you are still reserve your rights in respect of the balance, then come back here when you have that money and we will help you with the rest. If they refuse to give you the money unless you agree that it is in full settlement, then that becomes very interesting because it becomes very clear evidence that they are beating their obligations under the consumer rights act – and this gives you even greater leverage over them when you decide to confront them. The advantage of mitigating your loss is that there is less to sue for and that means that your court fees will be less – although you will get these back anyway when you win. Also, because they are only fighting to hang onto £70, they are more likely to put their hands up once they know you're serious. There is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking the money that is available on the table subject to the reservation which I've indicated above.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Recommended Posts

They're welcome to him, HB :lol:

  • Haha 1

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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now what did the brexiters say about EU and British VAT?

 

The reality:

"EU firms refuse deliveries to UK

A growing number of specialist retailers in the EU have decided they won’t deliver to the UK because of the new costs involved in sending packages.

 

Bicycle firm Dutch Bike Bits, for instance, said: “We are forced by British policy to stop dealing with British customers.”

The Belgium-based company Beer On Web said it would no longer send to the UK “due to the new Brexit measures”. And Scandinavian Outdoor said: “No delivery to UK just now.”

 

It follows Brexit-enforced changes to VAT – which is now being collected at the point of sale rather than at the point of the goods are imported.

It means that overseas retailers who wish to send goods to the UK have to register for VAT here and account for it to HMRC if the product is less than £135."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-latest-updates-boris-johnson-sunak-b1782440.html

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh

and for those who think brexit + thin deal is done

Think again.

 

Its yet to be ratified in the EU and many expect Johnson to breach the agreement before its actually even fully approved by the EU

 

https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/news/article/eu-member-states-and-european-parliament-provisionally-approve-brexit-deal

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who isnt is perhaps a more pertinent question?

 

NI is likely first, but anything that doesn't suit him in the agreement he agreed - which will be loads of it once someone explains to him what he agreed in his great deal - just like last time

 

 

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about the Internal Markets Bill/Act?  I don't blame the EU for trying to button it down given what he did last time but if he tries anything now, he could find himself slapped with tarriffs or in dispute with the EU.

 

And the UK could find it very hard to sign further trade deals because no one else will trust us. It's no way to run a country.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes - exactly

 

Could all start kicking off as early as next week

(look at whats happening now with shipments going over without the proper docs)

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/397253-article-50-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=5088191

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries

Great minds and all that :-)

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

and the trashing of regulations begins in earnest

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bees-kill-pesticide-insect-sugar-neonic-b1784693.html

 

A bee-killing pesticide so poisonous that it is banned by the EU may be used on sugar beet in England, the government ('Environment' secretary George Eustice ) has announced .

 

  • Sad 1

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hannan is an outright charlatan, a real unadulterated 1720's style Fwee Twader.  the GDPR provisions very difficult to remove, as it would likely result in  a complete ban on Data Transfer of EU nationals to UK, among other big problems for the City Traders.

  • Like 1

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, honeybee13 said:

I've been meaning to post this which is just as bad as your link, TJ. Daniel Hannan who is intrinsically linked with Brexit now wants to scrap worker protections, GDPR, consumer protections, you name it.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-consumer-worker-protections-brexit-b1783331.html

 

Which will of course trash the level playing field agreements with the EU

- UK sugar looking at an EU ban if they go ahead with the banned  pesticide - which also perhaps trashes the level playing field agreements

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems it was Johnsons man that caused all the problems with artists and EU tours, not the EU as Johnson and crew have lied - what a surprise

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html

UK ‘rejected offer’ of visa-free tours by musicians in EU, despite blaming Brussels for permit blow

 

"A “standard” proposal to exempt performers from the huge cost and bureaucracy for 90 days was turned down, The Independent has been told – because the government is insisting on denying that to EU artists visiting this country."

  • Like 2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-food-exports-scotland-fisheries-red-tape-b1785205.html

 

"The opportunity for the UK to continue to trade with the continent w?as touted as a key upside of the PMs Brexit deal in the run up to December 31st - with Boris Johnson saying the accord “will if anything allow our companies and our exporters to do even more business with our European friends”.

 

However 10 days into the year food and drink firms including those exporting seafood have been left with no way to transport their goods across the channel after a number of haulier firms decided to stop any groupage transport - which allows companies unable to fill a full trailer with their delivery to share the journey with goods from others."

 

 

Good job most of the UK fishing rights are owned by the darned foreigners anyway eh (well apart from in Scotland and NI)?

 

_112286502_optimised-fishing_quotas-nc.png.469f33ac753e0356ae8d81fe6d5e89f7.png

 

 

 

https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2018/10/11/fishing-quota-uk-defra-michael-gove/

"As Unearthed’s investigation reveals, this would leave the bulk of UK (England) fishing rights in the hands of a small domestic elite and a handful of foreign multinationals.

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unison leading the way with sensible op;tions as always

Corbyns candidate just 11%

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/unison-keir-starmer-christina-mcanea-b1785494.html

 

Unite next

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exports fell in the months leading up to the end of the transition period. Perhaps covid had something to do with it, but as the article says, if things are disrupted is it really the time to be signing a new trade agreement?

 

This quote from a government spokesperson is singularly lacking in insight.

 

A spokesperson said: “The deal will help unlock investment and protect high-value jobs right across the UK, from financial services through to car manufacturing.

 

https://bylinetimes.com/2021/01/11/bumps-to-overcome-uk-eu-exports-fell-by-39-8-billion-in-months-before-brexit/

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Issue is why were they surprised that these barriers would be there, Richard North was shouting about it sine the Referendum

https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-counting-the-costs/

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you rate Richard North very highly, BN, but reading him recently I have to say he seems to be more keen on saying that all and sundry don't know what they're doing thn on offering solutions.

 

Looking at his and his son's tweets not that long ago, they seem to be quite hardline Leavers who aren't averse to violence to get what they want.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

and they are likely to get it

 

I can easily see that Johnsons 'grate deal' wont be ratified by the EU parliament in March sue to extensive breaches of the agreement before its even properly ratified

 

NI customs agreements are already on the brink as are UK financial institutions who are already trying to bypass EU agreements and law regarding touting customers they no longer have any legal right to approach.

 

Car manufacturing is in reverse

 

Food deliveries, especially fresh fruit and veg, is already being seriously impacted

 

and Johnson just carries on BS lying.

 

 

I think the following defines it quite well

'48% of Turkeys didn't vote for Christmas and 60% of those who did thought they were voting for cake

"vacuous and economically illiterate" "Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

“veil of ignorance” "unrepentant and inveterate liar" 

Boris Johnson Mendex est

 

“The failure of the cheerleaders of Brexit to acknowledge the consequences of Brexit as due to Brexit remains remarkable.” - David Schneider

Link to post
Share on other sites

NI was sold down the river for sure.

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...