Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of. My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using. Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose. Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process. To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
    • I would if I could tobyjugg  Did the same run today over an hour quicker than yesterday, thats what happens when you know where to go and not just try finding places with the postcode as I was yesterday
    • Thank you, @lookinforinfo. I have updated the VCS v Ward case as below:   VCS v Ward     1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.   63 Airport byelaws. (2) Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws— (d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;
    • Savers opening its Digital Regular Saver this month and adding between £1 and £50 in April, May and June will qualify. There will be ten prizes of £1,000 each. You can earn 3 per cent on the first £1,000. View the full article
    • Would you want your bank to know how many steps you've walked today or whether you got around to going for your weekly jog? But what if it was promising you vouchers or cash as a reward. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs***


Recommended Posts

might do go check Mcol

if not ring northants bulk and ask.

 

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
  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I would not be letting them off the hook    dx  

Let them spout and don't tell them that you have recorded the call until its nearly ended and you have said you are logging date and time of all calls as they are in breach of the Protection from Hara

Ah ok - fair enough.   You need to use your appeal transcript against them when making the argument about there being no term which forbids double parking, as they pretty much imply that non

Allocation varies by court and workload....and no it does not show on MCOL...you have to ring.

 

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 Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

So a bit of an update as I haven’t posted for a while

 

I have received a court date of the 14th of Feb 2020 (maybe they will take me for a nice meal afterwards?) so I am starting to prepare my witness statement. 
 

today I have received a letter from BW legal in response to my CPR letter

yet again ignoring the fact that their T&Cs do not cover double parking.

 

They are also now starting to hint that I was parked out of the bay

yet the images provided on their evidence of the three tickets they are claiming for don’t evidence this as they are such bad quality. 


stapled to the back of this is another letter.

 

As a “gesture of good will”, the client is offering an out of court settlement figure of £500 payable in the next 5 days.

Me thinks they are starting to realise they may not have a leg to stand on here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

whats their court hearing fee paying date?

 

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

they cant just change their mind as to what condition was breached, it has to be given on the screen ticket ad the NTK and match one of the conditions on the signage at the time.

 

If I employed you to cut my grass and you did a rubbish job of that and I decided to sue you for not watering the flowers I cant suddenly change my mind when I realise that is a loser and say that you didnt cut it in a nice stripy pattern when there was no such mention of that condition in the agreement.

 

GOGW is admissible to show that thier client doesnt really have a contractual claim for the sum at all. they will say they are being generous but the truth is they are abusing the courts to try and coerce you into paying money that isnt actually owed and they know it. half of what they ask for is unlawful under the terms of the POFA but they do like to try it on as it mitigates their costs of the actions they lose

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gesture of goodwill. A phrase where someone knows they've done wrong, won't admit it, are still trying to pull a fast One,  but want to make it look like theyre still being generous

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

They're known to.go right to the last minute.  Either begging you on the courtroom steps or even going into court and lying and telling the judge he or she is wrong.

 

That's why you need to make sure you have everything in order on your side. Just in case.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My WS will be finished Monday at which point I’ll post it up for review. My submission date is by 1400 on January 4th. I’m conscious that with Christmas and new year, it doesn’t give much time so am I ok to submit my WS via email or is that still a big no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I've been behind on this due to sickness so am very conscious of time (needs to be submitted by 4th Jan). Ive uploaded my redacted witness statement. I would really appreciate any criticisms from anyone as this is the first time i've done something like this!

witness statement redacted.pdf

 

 

On 23/12/2019 at 09:14, ericsbrother said:

it is a big no.

Read ther CPR's it has to be in writing but it wont hurt to email the court a copy but NEVER use email to the bandits

 

As the court isnt far, i assume id be ok to hand deliver it? I know its not ideal but i want to make 100% sure its there before the deadline?

Edited by harni
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all a bit loose tbh. You've got week to get it in, so I'm sure we'll get something better pulled together. Have they served their WS on you yet? I'd prefer to see what weaknesses it presents before working too hard on yours. Even if it's a day or two late, it shouldn't harm.

 

You still haven't posted up the tickets and notices to keeper I asked about further up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Shamrocker. Im glad i got it uploaded with time to make changes.

 

Apologies for not uploading the tickets and NTKs. See attached.

Note that i appealed each of these before the NTD arrived as it is a lease vehicle so the NTK would have gone to the lease company and then on to me with a nice charge for the hassle. 

 

They have not issued their WS to me yet.

The last i had from them was December 14th when they sent me 2 letters together.

 

One was a response to my points in my defence along with all of their evidence (about 10 pages worth).

The second letter was a 'gesture of good will' that the claimant will settle out of court for £500 if paid within 7 days.

Needless to say that had about as much consideration as the rest of their rubbish!

NTK's_and_tickets.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would really appreciate any feedback. Having reviewed the paperwork, it has to be returned by 4pm 3rd Jan, not the 4th so i have to get this in the post on the 2nd which doesn't leave me much time unfortunately 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wheres the letter that tells you WS must be in by 3rd?

usually its 14 days before the court hearing?

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
1 minute ago, dx100uk said:

wheres the letter that tells you WS must be in by 3rd?

usually its 14 days before the court hearing?


On my desk at work unfortunately but I read over it several times for that reason. From the threads I have read on here it seems everyone gets 14 days before but it 100% says to be in by 4pm on the 3rd  No explanation to it either. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this was on page two of the letter from the court advising of the date of hearing. 
 

documents to be returned by 4pm 3rd Jan

Fees to be paid by 4pm 17th jan

hearing 10am 14th feb

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harni... when these tickets were issued due to double parking, did only one vehicle receive a ticket, and was it the one allegedly overhanging the area they supposedly manage (tarmac)?

 

Did you send a CPR request upon receiving the claim form?

Edited by shamrocker
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shamrocker said:

Harni... when these tickets were issued due to double parking, did only one vehicle receive a ticket, and was it the one allegedly overhanging the area they supposedly manage (tarmac)?

 

Did you send a CPR request upon receiving the claim form?


Yes they only ticketed one vehicle and yes it was the front most vehicle close to the tarmac 

 

yes CPR went off and they returned all the docs I requested although stupidly I did not request a copy of their contract 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/08/2019 at 22:59, harni said:

1.The claimants claim is for the sum of £667.19 being monies due from the Defendant to the Claimant in respect of Parking charge notices (PCN) for parking contraventions which occurred between and on private land managed and operated by the claimant, where the defendant was responsible for a vehicle registration mark, seen breaching the terms and conditions in operation at the car park/private land.

 

2.The defendant was allowed 28 days from the PCN issue date to pay each PCN but failed to do so.

Despite demand having been made, the defendant has failed to settle their outstanding liability. 

 

3.The claim also includes statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum (a daily rate of 0.11 from 20/12/2018 to 27/08/2019 being an amount of £27.19. The claimant also claims £ contractual costs as set out in the terms and conditions. 

 

1. the claimant has failed to show a cause for action as they have not shown they have a right to enter into contracts with the public nor to make claims in their own name. The defendant does not believe they have locus standi in this matter.

 

2  In any case there was no breach of the contract offered by the defendant.

 

3 the claimant offered individual terms that override the signage at the site so the terms in that contract were adhered to and thus no cause for action by way of a breach of contract

done above SR.

 

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth
  • Andyorch changed the title to Cpm/BW windscreen pcns - BW PAP LOC Now Claimform - (residential car park) The citrus Building, Maderia road, Bournemouth ***Claim Dismissed with Costs***

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...