Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

VCS ANPR PCN Claimform - overstay St Marys Gate, retail park, Sheffield **WON+COSTS**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1850 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

Op wasn’t driver. Too old an event. No idea who drove the car. Don’t know if someone drove without permission.

Demand original contract.. contract is a farce.

The judge didn’t care the contract was expired as the contract rolled over unless terminated.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Their witness statement and evidence came today.

It seems they have a employed a paralegal to deal with these circumstances.

I am just reading through it now.

They are pointing out that I did not attempt to appeal.

If they ask me this in court what do I say?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they know you are the driver, If not why would you appeal as Keeper? Is of little consequence, they are trying to be clever and failing.

  • 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

Well after reading that I feel like I haven't got a leg to stand on. I have received an email from "Moor management" (they manage the area of Sheffield that this occurred) as it is Moor management that deal with the theatre and Moor management who have arranged for customers of the theatre to park for free.

Shall I post their witness statement? Or at least the parts where they defend the points you guys told me to put?

 

They have sent photos of the signage, site maps etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be useful, so long as you redact all personal identifiers so the crew can see whats what.

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

Scan it up to one multipage off please inc exhibits

Read upload

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What legal cases have they used and quoted? to ground Keeper liability; Beavis in there somewhere, along with CPS v AJH films which is irrelevant, and the other old discredited chestnut that is not relavent to Private Parking as it is Criminal, Elliott v Loake?

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

Their witness statement defends the points I sent as my defence.

They are not relying of the protection of freedoms act 2012

-That I had opportunity to name the driver at the time of contravention

-The claimant relies on the law of agency and has quoted a number of previous cases to rely on.

 

1. The claimant cannot rely upon the POFA 2012 to create a keeper liability and the defendant denies being the driver at the time.

This means there is no cause for action by the claimant against the defendant.

2. The signage at the site entrance is not a contract but an invitation to treat so the claimant cannot rely upon it to create terms by which the driver would be bound.

3. In any case there was no breach of contract as no applicable contractual condition was offered to the driver at the time.

Thank you

ok?

Thornton and Shoe lane parking 1971

vine v waltham 2002

parking eye v bevies 2015

Excel parking service v Nick Jenning 2017

Chaplair limited v kumari 2015

The signs say "Customer parking" was a customer.

The theatre was brand new.

new attendees had to get refreshments from a local shop.

Tried to upload/convert but you can hardly read it.

Falling asleep now so i'll be back tomorrow evening x

@brassedneck did you see this?

Claimants witness statement attached

Exhibits to follow ...

Not sure if its my mac or was but its not uploading the file now. I'm getting so frustrated. Could you inbox me your email Perhaps please? x

saying file is too large- sigh. Bare with me

Hooray!

There is also the original PCN which I dated 29.11.17 (contravention was 24.10.17) I received it 6th Dec 17 (no envelope saved)

and final reminder issued 29/12/17 and photos of my car entering and exiting. It is dark and you cannot see the driver.

claimants ws.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

merged to one pdf for you.

 

what a shame that contract is dated 2012 and there no proof? that its been paid to date//

 

std VCS WS BTW

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Does that mean they have sent standard VCS witness statement by the way?

 

The Paul Curzon guy who has signed the contract is not listed on Company house as a director. I will print that off as in a previous thread. I have made a table of points to raise which I will attach. Please can you let me know if I am on the right track.

Link to post
Share on other sites

keep going

but with no proof the contract has annual payments..whose to say its still in force

 

if you look at other vcs/excel claimform threads..you'll see their claimants ws there and how people have countered them.

 

use the search CAG box of the top red toolbar

 

vcs excel claimant witness statement

 

or alike

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

let EB deal with the finer points

nice they've sent their a week before yours is due

EB should have real fun pulling it apart for your WS.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read your action plan, you are still misunderstanding the protocols of the POFA and also Beavis, whch has determined that £85 is not unconscionable. Now is £100 unconsionable? I wouldnt want to be the person challenging that unless i could guarantee to know how ther supreme court was thinking on that and I am not telepathic.

 

Doesnt matter about the person signing the claim form not being a ditector of the co as long as they are employed, dont get bogged down on things that are irrelevant or the rest of your evidence wont get listened to.

 

Pick up on their mistakes and use that to try and persuade the judge if they ahve got something importnat wrong then the rest of what they say is unreliable. It often comes down to whose story is preferred regardless of the truth or the correctness of law so make sure you have everything right and use the small points to create doubt about their version.

 

This means that when talking about sigange you dig out previous cases where it went in the defendants favour. Use the fact that the landlord has forced a system upon the parking co to consider cinema users and it doesnt matter that this was brought in after your event it is clear that the customer cant actually attend without breaching the made up rule so the contract was offered with the knowledge that it is impossible for the motorist to abide by it so an unfair contract.

 

As for ignoring all opportunities to appeal- well that cant be held against you and we have yet to see a case where the judge has brought this up. the same goes for who was driving, just say it wasnt you if that is the case and therefore force VCS to shwo they have sued the right person ( they havent as no keeper liability)

 

What will be hated is playing grandmothers footsteps with this matter by saying somehting like I an uncertain who was driving or it may ahve or may not have been me or whatever. State it wasnt you and the re is no obligation to name the driver, that is for VCS to know before they even ask for your keeper details if they arent using the POFA and they havent so a breach of the DPA/GDPR anyway regardless fo their claims on reasonable cause, again it might have been or probablywas isnt good enough and there is persuasive case history to support that ( VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016) and whio is suing you? they cant claim ignorance

Edited by honeybee13
Paras, typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

the proof of contarct mentioned above is somehting judges will take as read 50% of the time but the other 50% will demand to see the contract and if it is undated or open ended ask for proof of renewal. Cross your fingers on that but do raise the point that a contarct that is ended by notice by either party may well have been ended without some evidence it is still running and you want to see that proof.

 

you can repahrase it in your WS by saying the claimant has not produced any evidence to show a contract between themselves and the landowner etc. and you do not believe that there is a current agreement between them.

 

that puts the onus on then to furnish that proof

Link to post
Share on other sites

Echoing some of EB's points

- I think you may be placing too much focus on weak or irrelevant points, and certainly not focusing enough energy on your main strengths (their weaknesses).

This is understandable when faced with a load of legal waffle that tries to sound convincing, and often does to the lesser informed. Their WS is a complete pile of rubbish though.

If I were you, in addition to any points about proof of authority and planning permission for signage, etc. I'd be using their points on "the defendant was aware of signage...etc", where they imply that the defendant is actually the driver, to differentiate between 'driver as defendant' and 'keeper as defendant' and which one applies to you - i.e. YOU WERE NOT THE DRIVER.

Then point out that POFA is the relevant law in respect of transferring liability to the keeper in the event of a legitimate parking charge.

The claimant, in their submissions, accepts that the defendant was not the driver, and confirms that they do not rely on POFA 2012 as the basis of holding the keeper liable.

In the defendant's view, not only is this fatal to the claimant's case, but is likely to amount to a breach of GDPR, with potential damages due.

In any event, the defendant is confused about the relevance of the 'law of agency' which the claimant relies solely upon for creating keeper liability - particularly as they have not supported it's relevance and suggested application within their submissions.

That's kind of the angle I'd be taking it.

They completely skirt around the grounds for keeper liability.

Get the importance of that clear in your mind and go to town on it - make them squirm.

Focusing on points of little or no relevance just gives them scope to take the argument in a direction that suits them better then focusing on the need to demonstrate that you, as the keeper, are actually liable under relevant law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes assumption Keeper is Driver just by relying on Law of Agency and possibly justifying by reliance on some cases with no real relevance is a bit too vague

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

@ericsbrother. Ok I was going from another overstay thread in the exact same car park

@Blind7383 said in case ur wondering coz we lost..I’m 99% sure the contract is fake.

 The judge said he was satisfied by the contract . When I raised serious concerns and the fact that it’s a photocopy . He got upset. He also said that if I had brought a copy of my research that was the companies house beta page he would have accepted the argument. I said I could show him right now on my laptop. He said I’ve made my ruling. ??

I'm going to post the email that I have from the landlord. Can I have your thoughts on it please. I can't really say they have forced a system if I use the letter as evidence as it states "they have the system as a goodwill gesture"

As for ignoring all opportunities to appeal- well that cant be held against you and we have yet to see a case where the judge has brought this up. the same goes for who was driving, just say it wasnt you if that is the case and therefore force VCS to show they have sued the right person ( they havent as no keeper liability) Thanks

What will be hated is playing grandmothers footsteps with this matter by saying something like I an uncertain who was driving or it may have or may not have been me or whatever.

State it wasnt you and the re is no obligation to name the driver, that is for VCS to know before they even ask for your keeper details if they arent using the POFA and they havent

so a breach of the DPA/GDPR anyway regardless of their claims on reasonable cause, again it might have been or probably was isnt good enough and there is persuasive case history to support that ( VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016) and who is suing you? they cant claim ignorance

Going to look this up now

I asked the theatre for the number of Moor management as they said it is Moor management who deal with VCS. The Moor is an area of Sheffield where St Marys gate is. I asked for an email for evidence that theatre goers can now give their registration numbers so they can stay the full length of the show. This is what she sent. 

Date: Tuesday, 29 January 2019, 14:22 GMT
Afternoon Gemma
St Mary’s Gate is a 1 hour free parking car park with signage at the entrance and around the car park explaining this .

As part of our annual review of The Moor and including St. Mary’s Gate (July 2018) we intended to offer free parking by the entrance to theatre Deli for disabled customers then as a gesture of good will changed it to all customers that went to see a show.

To qualify for the free parking you must input your registration number into a machine within theatre deli.

This went live 18th July 2018.
Kind regards
Elaine
Operations Manager
The Moor Sheffield

.......................................

Do you think it is worth using this or shall I just take a photo of the machine where people put in their reg details.

at the bottom of the email the land owners is JSS (the same as in the contract they have supplied)

i can't really then point out that there is also no evidence to suggest that the contract is still running can I?

I am aiming to get something together based on the advice I have been given and hope it makes sense.

It is like being back at uni again writing essays.

Only then I got help putting it together from the dyslexic tutor :|

I am very grateful for your time everyone on here.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't take that one case as you are going to lose too, that was judge lottery.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reassurance about the judge lottery.

This is what blind inboxed me

Blind asked me to post it here.

 

Where do I find details of ( VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016) please?

When I search for it I can only find the case id and not the actual case.

I am also struggling to find examples of witness statement. :?:

 

Stand ur ground. Appeal if ur not happy with the outcome.

The contract is invalid.

I couldn’t find a ruling on presenting a valid contract in court.

That would be good if you do.

I was busy with family so was unprepared

 

The company JLL that signed off the contract on behalf of the “lawful occupant” at this point of time does not manage that property.

It’s not part of their portfolio.

 

Vcs paid the Scottish widows property trust money to manage the parking lot.

The signing authority was never a director of the company JLL.

 

Go to companies house company information.

Print the directors list.

That person is not on it.

 

I tried to find Scottish widows property trust but was unable to.

 

Find out who the leaseholder/landowner of 200 Eyre street from HM land registery is.

If it’s not Scottish widows property trust than this contract is invalid.

This info ought to be public knowledge but one needs to pay for it.

I didn’t have time and I was stupid to be over confident.

 

This is imperative.

If the owner is someone else than the contract is invalid.

If the owner is indeed Scottish widows than you can contact them and ask them aoubt their dealings with VCS.

Take the copy to court.

Don’t submit it with ur witness statement but on the day of hearing.

 

I would love to help you but I’m not sure if we can exchange numbers.

The judge should not accept a photocopy of the contract when originals are meant to be brought to court.

Write in the witness statement that you expect to see the original.

If you win this due to the fake contract than many of the people like me who lost can take vcs back to court and get our money back.

I really want to get these

i am gonna complain to Sheffield council that their adverts don’t follow rules of town and country act.(the judge said it’s not his problem but the councils) judge Wayne.

Good luck..

Does this count as the letter before action as I am pretty sure that they did not send me one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...