Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi BankFodder,        Thank you for your quick reply,  we feel a bit vulnerable living here with our two very little girls,   your reply is very much appreciated.   The Letting agent is Space4Living,  they say they wont do anything about it,   they only say it is a civil matter.   The landlord's name is on the Tenancy Agreement,   with the letting agent as a 'Care of' Address.   I have just sent an email to the local Environmental Health about everything,     and we will see what they say about it all.   Because the landlord seems not to be bothered about it,    if he does nothing or very little about it,    would he be in breach of our tenancy agreement ?   Cheers,    KFC  
    • Please advise if the following is ok to use?   I will say as follows:   It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of xxxxxxxx With recent dismissed claims such as claim no. Xxxxxxx it has come to light that the contract with the landowner stipulates 2 hours free parking at the Berkeley Centre car park and thus this case should also be dismissed not wasting valuable court time as the vehicle in question was parked for less than 2 hours.  The claimant in this case is not the proper claimant. As can be seen in their "contract". If there is a valid claimant at all it should be Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services.   Therefore, if any contract exists at all, the Landowner gave Excel Parking Services that contract. That contract is highly unlikely (although it cannot be proven as the claimant has not produced it) to give Excel Parking Services the right to assume the rights of the landowner and assign rights to another party.   While both Vehicle Control Services (Company number 02498820) and Excel Parking Services (Company number 02878122) have the same 'controlling minds',  & they are run as completely separate companies and cannot assign rights to one another on a whim and/or without the express permission of the landowner and even then, those rights can only be rightfully assigned by the landowner themselves and as that has not been produced as part of their witness statement one can only draw the conclusion that this is because that right (by way of contract of assignment) does not exist.   Further, while dealing with the so called "contract", it is not valid now and was not valid on the day that the event that brings us here today took place. As can be seen clearly on the contract, the contract was made for a FIXED PERIOD of 36 months from 25th November 2010. This means that this contract expired on or around 25th November 2010. As no renewed "contract" has been provided, again one can only assume that on the balance of probability, it does not exist.   In either case, as has been shown, Vehicle Control Services are not the proper claimant therefore there can be no cause of action as Vehicle Control Services has no Locus Standi to make or bring a claim and waste the valuable time of this court. If a contract existed at all (and there was a subsequent breach) it would either be between myself/driver and Excel Parking Services or myself/driver and the landowner. Vehicle Control Services are merely a third party and do not (as they have shown themselves in their own evidence) have a valid contract in place to manage the car park.   There is nothing said in the evidence to assert that Vehicle Control Services are acting as an agency on behalf of the actual contract holder therefore Vehicle Control Services cannot (and indeed do not claim to) have privity of contract. Dunlop Tyre Co v Selfridge [1915] AC 847, in which the action failed because although there was a contract, the plaintiffs were not a party to it and "only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it," (per Lord Haldane).     This position (Vehicle Control Services being the wrong claimant) is backed up by their own evidence bundle. I refer you to photograph 28, 29 and 30 in the claimant’s bundle which clearly shows a 'Car Park' sign. The logo in the bottom and top right of the signs is for Excel Parking Services and not Vehicle Control Services who are making the claim in this case.   Vehicle Control Services know this to be the case as there have been many dismissed cases and discontinued claims.   Vehicle Control Services -v- Ms A. C6DP7P37 at Birmingham County Court. Dismissed. Wrong Claimant. Vehicle Control Services -v- Unknown. C1DP3H5V at Birmingham County Court. Discontinued. Wrong claimant.   As well as all of the following Discontinued claims. A8QZ6666, 3QZ53955, C8DP9D8C, C2DP0H7C, C1DP3H5V and C8DP37CH et al, all discontinued when it was pointed out to BW Legal that VCS had no right to pursue the matter as they were not the rightful claimant.   It is denied that the Claimant has complied with Schedule 4, Protection of Freedoms Act 2012; see paragraph 5.1a (enclosed). The car park signs are owned by Excel Parking, see claimants bundle 28, 29, 30 photographs and I have not entered into a contract with VCS. Following receipt of parking charge notices and letter before claim, I wrote to the Claimant stating that the Berkeley Centre pay and display car park is not managed by the Claimant but rather another party and invited the Claimant to drop their claim. Upon receipt of County court claim form Under CPR 31.14 on 14th August 2019 I requested evidence of the Claimant’s contract between VCS and the landowner that assigns the right to enter into contracts with the public and make claims in their own name, and proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007.  The Claimant refused to comply with this request and have provided no evidence of their connection to Excel Parking. I have yet to receive any evidence of myself the Defendant entering into a contract with the Claimant (Vehicle Control Services) nor any evidence of planning permission granted for signage. It is denied that the Claimant entered into a contract with the Defendant. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. ‘VCS had no right to claim damages in trespass against motorists…and that the penalty charges did not constitute, in VCS’s hands, such damages (and) that there was no contract between VCS and the motorist.’ The Claimant did not evidence any contract by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the carpark is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. The proper Claimant is the landowner. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Thanks  
    • Latest info      Creditor Claims Of £535,636,017  This is the extent of the damage Wonga has caused... I hope this serves as a lesson to everyone. Please steer clear of PDLs.
    • Bad News - Is about 4%    
    • I hope you've CCA'd every single one of the debt owners before blindly paying up?   or continuning to blindly pay?   dx  
  • Our picks

nuclearshark

Amazon faulty laptop from USA - issing court claim under CRA

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 330 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

The courts directions should specifically state that either party that does not comply with directions will have their claim/defence struck out...save yourself £255 and push the court to impose their own sanctions.


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
save yourself £255 and push the court to impose their own sanctions.

 

I do qualify for Help with Fees so this isn't too much of an issue if it would save time.

 

I have now just sent the Court an email informally asking them to impose their own sanctions from the order and strike the defence out.

 

I'll keep an eye on my email and post the outcome.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An application could involve an hearing.....they may fight it....further costs..the court may allow them more time...too risky.

 

Let the court impose it of their own volition ...not yours.


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok just had an update. It appears the court have not applied sanctions at all and instead have chosen to do an Unless Order (N34) giving the defendant until 16:00 on 29/06/2018 to file their WS.

 

Is it just me or is that overly lenient? Their WS is currently almost 1 month late.

 

Should I just accept this or is it worth speaking to the court again?


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy. I'm glad it's not just me who see's this as lenient.

 

I have done some reading and found various examples in the High Court about failure to serve witness statements on time and the consequences...

 

29th June is less than 2 weeks before the date of the hearing... So it's likely that Amazon's sols will file now. I think the DJ knows this too but it goes to show the blatant disregard Amazon have for the process and the case.

 

But then I also see it another way, maybe the order was made this way as the DJ actually wants to hear the case and see what Amazon and their sols have to say for themselves.

 

I'll update the thread once I have / if I have their WS


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the order state it will be struck out without further notice if they fail to file and serve by 16:00 on 29/06/2018 ?


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does the order state it will be struck out without further notice if they fail to file and serve by 16:00 on 29/06/2018 ?

 

Hi Andy, Yes it does.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phone at the ready then for 16:00 on 29/06/2018


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and I've just received their witness statement 1 day short of 5 weeks late...

 

Looks like this is going to trial after all.

 

Further to the Order of District Judge dated 7 June 2018, we enclose the witness statement of of this firm, instructed by the Defendant, ASE.

 

As is confirmed in the statement of , the evidence on which our client intends to rely at the hearing on 10 July 2018 at 10:30am is exhibited to the Defence dated 19 December 2017, which was filed at Court on 20 December 2017. Accordingly, our client did not intend to file witness evidence, or any further documentation. For completeness, however, and in light of the Courts order of 7 June 2018, we enclose the witness statement of which confirms the position, and has been filed at Court today.

 

My emphasis in red. This just about says it all. They don't explain why they didn't file a WS. No mention of anything I had written in my witness statement.

 

1) I am an Associate employed by Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP, solicitors for the Defendant and have conduct of this matter dubject to the supervision of my principals.

 

2) I am duly authorised by the Defendant to make this witness statement on its behalf and I set out the facts herein from information acquired by me whilst acting in my capacity and from information provided to me by the Defendant.

 

3) I make this witness statement in support of the Defendant's Defence dated 19 December 2017 and further to the Court's order of 7 June 2018

 

4) All definitions contained within the Defence continue to have the same meaning in this witness statement.

 

Background

 

5) The Claim Form was issued on 17 November 2017, and the Defendant's Defence dated 19 December 2017 was accordingly filed on 20 December 2017. It is the Defendant's understanding that the Claimant is allegedly claiming 2,436.10 for an allegedly faulty item, which he purchased from a third party seller on the Marketplace of the Website.

 

6) As set out in the Defence filed on 20 December 2017, the Claim Form and all allegations contained therein are denied by the Defendant for the reasons set out in the Defence.

 

7) On 21 June 2018, Eversheds Sutherland received the Order made by District Judge dated 7 June 2018, which ordered the Defendant to send to the Court and to the Claimant the witness statements and documents, as ordered in the Order dated 11 April 2018.

 

8) In Summary, the Defendant's position is that it is not the correct defendant to this Claim, as set out in the paragraphs 6-10 of the Defence. Furthermore, and for the reasons set out in the Defence, any claim should be brought against HIDevolution UK, and not the Defendant, as the Defendant is not a party to the contract for the sale / purchase of the Goods which are the subject matter of this Claim. The Defendant therefore denies all liability to the Claimant.

 

9) The Defendant confirms that the evidence on which it intends to rely at the hearing listed on 10 July 2018 is as set out in and exhibited to its Defence. For completeness, a copy of the Defence and its exhibits is at exhibit to this statement.

 

10) In summary, the evidence on which the Defendant relies is as follows:

 

10.1) The Terms (please see pages 2-9 of the Defence Exhibit);

 

10.2) The Claimant's order summary, which confirms that the Claimant entered into the contract for the sale and purchase of the Goods with the Seller, and not the Defendant (page 11 of the Defence Exhibit);

 

10.3) The "About Marketplace Returns and Refunds" help-page (Pages 12-15 of the Defence Exhibit);

 

10.4) The A-to-Z Claim conditions (pages 16-17 of the Defence Exhibit); and

 

10.5) Correspondence between the Claimant, Amazon, and the Seller (pages 18-23 of the Defence Exhibit ).

 

Statement of Truth


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you submitted through MCOL Northampton...simply state the claim number in your application and as follows....

 

Complete the N244 Application Notice, with appropriate Court fee

 

ask for the Defendant's name to be amended, and

re-service of the claim form to be dispensed with at it was validly served at the correct address, and

ask for it ex parte (without a hearing)

On the front of the application notice type in the box asking what order you are seeking: "The Claimant respectfully requests that the Defendant's name be amended pursuant to CPR 17.1.(2) (b) an re-service of the Claim Form be dispensed with."

 

On the second page insert:

 

A claim was issued against the Defendant on XX/XX/XXXX in the XXXXXXX county court under claim number XXXXXXX for the recovery of monies owed.

Since that date the Defendant has changed their name and it is therefore incorrect on the Claim Form.

Therefore, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Claim Form be amended so that the Defendant's name reads "XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" pursuant to CPR 17.1 (2)(b). An amended copy of the Claim Form is included in this application.

 

We respectfully request that the need for re-service of the amended Claim Form be dispensed with as the claim form was validly served on the Defendant's address.

 

Did you do the above ?


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy,

 

Yes that was done a long while ago and the application was successful.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay......

 

So what are they referring to in the statement about the wrong name ?


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was an order placed on their website, but was for an Amazon Marketplace item. Amazon believe they are not responsible and that I should be claiming against the seller. The problem is they allowed the seller to masquerade as a UK company with the name "HIDevolution UK" but no such company exists. I later found this was a US company where CRA 2015 doesn't have jurisdiction. So I claimed against Amazon for allowing a contract of sale to be misrepresented and for failure to apply their own policies.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right Im with you...so they proceed to acknowledge service and submit a defence and now submit a witness statement denying any involvement but not offering any evidence in support of their defence.

 

If they are to be believed and hope a court will go along with their defence...as they being the wrong entity..the normal process would have been to make application to strike out your claim on those grounds and request summary judgment against you.......and yet they have failed to do this ...mmmmm?

 

I will run through your thread tomorrow with fresh eyes .

 

 

Andy


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hearing for this Tuesday has been vacated and rescheduled for 11th September 2018 due to Judicial Availability...


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Responding to your PM NS

 

Have you received anything further from the court or defendant since your last posting ?

 

Andy


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Responding to your PM NS

 

Have you received anything further from the court or defendant since your last posting ?

 

Andy

 

Hi Andy,

 

No I haven't. I called the court on Friday to make sure the case was still going ahead as it was vacated at the last minute in July and I was advised it was still going ahead.

 

No correspondence from Amazon or their solicitors either


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply be prepared then and have all your documents to hand and ready to refer to.....there is nothing further to add advice wise.

 

Best of luck...let us know how you get on...good or bad.

 

 

Andy


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update on this. The case was dismissed on a contractual law point that Amazon was not a party to the contract.

 

I'm slightly disappointed that the conduct of Amazon by not responding to the Orders and Pre Action Protocol was not mentioned. The Solicitor who wrote the witness statement did not attend but this was not raised either.

 

However the judge did offer some remarks in her judgement. She believed that any replacement item supplied by a market place seller would reset the 90 day clock for the Amazon A-Z guarentee. She also thought that although the seller was pretending to be a UK company that she was unable to do much about this. She was also "frustrated for the claimant" that this whole event has happened and various misunderstandings took place. Then went on to reassure me that I could not have done more.

 

Moving forward the judge advised me that I should file proceedings against HI Devolution, the market place seller themselves. She believes as I am in the UK, as they were selling goods on a UK website and pretending to be a UK company, that they accepted jurisdiction of UK Law.

 

So I have today sent of another LBA to HI Devolution and also emailed them a copy on their ticket system. I doubt I'll get a reply. I have also contacted Amazon again and requested what terms and conditions the seller is bound by and whether they have accepted UK Jurisdiction in their agreements or not.

 

On a side note I do want to sau I thought that Salisbury Law Courts accommodated my disability perfectly, they could not have been more helpful. The Judge requested that the Usher show me the inside of the court room and explain the process before the start of the hearing. Also showed me where the toilets were. The Usher also asked if she wanted me to sit in and act as a "go between" incase I needed to excuse myself from the room. I declined this. During the hearing which went on for about 90 minutes, I needed to excuse myself 50 minutes in and it was as if nothing happened.

 

Amazon also did not seek any costs.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frustrated with the claimant ? Surely defendant.

 

Andy


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She was also "frustrated for the claimant" that this whole event has happened and various misunderstandings took place. Then went on to reassure me that I could not have done more.

 

Frustrated with the claimant ? Surely defendant.

 

Andy

 

"frustrated for the claimant". So, “for” : claimant is correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BazzaS is correct.


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had an email from the distributor this afternoon. They are willing to pay the delivery fee of £91.10 but are now expecting any repairs to be paid for as the product is out of warranty.

 

They also stated that physical damage and defects are not covered under any warranty at all whether expired or not.

 

I wrote to them and gave them 14 days to respond, but as they have now responded in an unsatisfactory manner (Saw that coming!) could I fire off the claim before those 14 days are up? Or is it best to wait until then?


This is how I spend most of my life :ranger:

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...