Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bankfodder, I don't understand why you think that I am trying to cheat them. It is in the best interest of the landlord to have a tenant occupying the property rather than having it vacant. But having it vacant is better than having a 'bad' tenant - there are plenty of horror stories. As a landlord, you don't have a lot to rely on before you let some occupy the property so how the tenant behaves leading up to signing the agreement is important.    I have had other issues with the agent which I didn't want to elaborate here that led me to terminate the contract as soon as I rejected this tenant. But ultimately the law is law and if my interpretation regarding the 2013 Regulation is correct, this should be straightforward and we don't even need to rely on the other clauses. I'll see how it goes.
    • Just because criteria won't agreed in writing, doesn't mean that there are criteria and they are not to be implied into the contract. As I've said, you have to give your contracting partner reasonable opportunity to complete their side of the bargain. If you employ a builder to build a wall and they start work, then you have to give them a reasonable opportunity to complete. Here you have an agent who apparently has found a tenant and the tenant has satisfied the reference requirements. You keep on saying that they were transparent – but you haven't told us what that means and the most important thing is that you might have to explain that to a judge. I'm afraid so far the impression one gets is that you are simply trying to escape a commitment – even if it is for the best of reasons. I see that you disagree with me. Well that's fine. It's not me that decides the outcome. I think that you are in difficult terrain in respect of your first grounds of objecting. I think that the unfair terms provisions are far more useful to you and are likely to have some success. Once again, your only answer to this is that a tenancy contract haven't actually been signed. Once again I say to you that all of the practical conditions for the contract to go ahead had been satisfied but on your hunch you then prevented the agent from completing their side of the bargain. I think that you are going to have to find a reasonable settlement. I don't think it will be very much – but you are certainly going to have to find a reasonable settlement – and if the agent objected, as well they might, at least you can then demonstrate to a court that you at least have attempted to act fairly and it is simply the agent who is being unfair. I don't think it would be too good for you if a judge came to the conclusion that the agent was trying to cheat you – but you also were trying to cheat them, for whatever reason. I don't thing I can say anything more  
    • Well I think it would be prudent to check them. I found several warranty details for your make of laptop but not UK. Surprisingly, they only say that they will repair defective parts and there is nothing as to what happens if the unit is not repairable. I suppose that being Acer, they have access to all the parts needed – in principle – and they reckon they can repair anything. Double check and see if you can get access to the warranty. Also, you need to decide whether you are prepared to issue a small claim. If you never done it before then read around this forum about how to take a small claim in the County Court. It's quite straightforward but you need to know the steps in advance. Once again, don't expect this to be sorted out by 18 December. I expect that you won't even have it sorted out by February – unless they suddenly react once they receive the court papers and move themselves. Of course you could say that by February the thing will be repaired anyway – but actually you don't know that. It could go on very much longer and at the moment I think you are being led around by the nose
    • As far as I remember and by looking at the receipt, it was already included in the price of the laptop.    Regarding the terms and conditions, I have no idea where to look for them. I might ask my mum to see if there is a mini book that came with the laptop and might contain the terms and conditions
    • But there were exceptional circumstance involved, they must count for something 
  • Our picks

VCS/BW PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - no permit - Woodside Business Park, Peel Investments, Birkenhead


Recommended Posts

they have said no witnesses so...

 

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 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Go as per DX use what EB suggests as a guide, along the lines of you had no legitimate claim 3 years ago, i haven't and you, I and BW legal know this, and I haven't forgotten, sure EB will call in and

not being funny dave you've been here since 2016   more than enough time to realise cag is also a self help forum and we have a very good custom google search box on the left after clic

How about tis- Dear sirs, I am surprised that Simple Simon is wasting his money hiring the parking world's second worst solicitors to chase up a claim that both you and he knows is spurious.. Sho

i believe we have already covered this have we not?

no proof of what PC was used or where it was?? void of IP Address wasn't it?

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

read the thread again??
 

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

You're supposed to only refer to your WS, but you can try, the judge might stop you, nothing ventured ...

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks HB, I'll give it a blast, the more ammo the better!

 

Ive just checked with the court too, they have confirmed that my amended signage map has been included in the bundle, so that is a huge relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was an anticlimax.

 

the case has been adjourned due to the Judge believing the 1 hour time slot allocated is not enough time. He’s going to reschedule with a 3.5 hr slot some time soon.

 

I asked the Judge if the claimant for their name and if they had the right of audience, to which I was told that it was the Secretary representing VCS, and a Barrister, so therefore yes they did.

 

The judge made a point the my defence is so meaty, this was the reason for the extra time required. 
 

The Secretary seemed quite cocky, and I got the impression he felt he had a strong case.

 

he made a quick reference to Britania and abuse of process, but can’t remember what he said it was all a blur. I think he made some quick quip about the byelaws too.

 

The judge stressed most these cases usually don’t need more than an hour, but this was deffo an exception.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you mean you WS.

 

you should have recorded it dave.

 

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

Yeah your right I’ve thought that too. Sorry yes WS

 

is it normal for VCS to roll out the Secretary?

Edited by Dave962
Link to post
Share on other sites

that's immaterial.

 i was more thinking they'd actual paid for a barrister??

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

Well thats what I thought they'd done?

 

As you can see it was way over my head! Im sure the judge said he was a Barrister though? I'm totally confused. They didn't give me a name.

 

Out of interest, if they now allocate me a 3.5 hr slot, and a 2nd court date, have my court costs just shot through the roof? 😲

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reporting back.

 

It's been a long time since anyone has been involved in a proper court case so it's important for others to find out what the PPCs are up to (it's a lot more common for them to start court claims to try to frighten the motorist or to get a default judgement, then after the WS they either discontinue or don't bother turning up).

 

Good to know they shelved out money for a barrister, cash they'll never get back!

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dave, appreciate that information.

 

Yeah as you say that’s good news with the Barrister they must have had to pay top dollar there mustn’t they. 
 

Do you think there is any particular reason they are taking this one a bit more serious? I can’t think whether this is a good or bad thing?

 

Do you think Peel Ports or Holdings or whoever from Peel, have taken more involvement in this too? I wonder if they have rolled out the big guns for a reason.

 

Cant say going toe to toe with a Barrister fills me with confidence 😬might be a tad out of my depth there!

 

Ah well if all else fails like you say it must be costing them a few Bob now...as long as I don’t end up forking out for his hourly rate. I won’t will I???

Link to post
Share on other sites

no costs are limited in small claims.

 

it puzzles me too as TBH its a pretty slam dunk win for you 

you are employed to do your job

your employer issues the passes.

your employer to all intend employs VCS to manage parking

you simply forget it your pass.

 

that site can't be much of a money earner for them anyway..

so why throw money at proving their mite??

 

puzzles me no end.

 

unless ofcourse they are still getting their knickers crossed that its another byelaws case....

 

 

 

 

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 DX, I appreciate the reassurance about my case too.

 

I take it I’m gonna be up against it now tho? Even if I have a strong case like you say, I don’t fancy my chances much against someone as high as a Barrister, especially for 3.5 hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why..doesn't matter who presents their case

if it's a lemon case its a lemon case for them no matter what money they throw at it.

 

the judge has made it 3.5hrs (poss) because of all the irrelevant crap VCS have introduced.

IMHO its a very simple case as i explained before.

 

its that your interpretation of the basic facts...

 

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

The Judge might enjoy forensically dissecting VCS case and the Barrister.  We don't know for sure whether that Judge has had some VCS shenanigans in court before.

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

Thanks DX and BN.

 

He did keep saying he’s done loads of parking cases in the past, over the 10 years he’d been doing it, so as you say he’s bound to have come across VCS stuff before isn’t he.

 

hopefully that’s the case then he just wants to go through it in a bit more detail. Either way you have given me a lot more confidence again now thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to your question on post 207 if you bring in the points that I made on the validity of the contract they are supposed to have with Peel holdings then mention that there are already doubts about the validity of the contracts that are being used by the PPCs and the OPS is a classic example. Once you are on there you should then try and get your other point in after that.

 

if it is in connection with the extra charge of £60 remind the Judge that the charge has been defined by many Court across England that the charge is an abuse of process which was covered in PE v Beavis at point 198 

 

" The charge has to be and is set at a level which enables managers to recover the costs of operating the scheme"  IE the £100 charge covers all their expenses so nothing should be added.

 

as their WS claims an extra £60 that could be judged as perjurious since it is an additional sum that should be known by VCS and the author of the WS as a double recovery. Especially as they have already lost in Court for the same reason.

 

Another cause to prove that they do not comply with their Code of Conduct.

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/CamScanner%2008-05-2020%2016.34.59.pdf

 Byelaws are statutory not arbitrary as their WS said on no .42 .

 

Best of Luck.

 

The above URL does not work but this one does

http://forums.National Consumer Service.com/index.php?showtopic=133001 

 

[20.1 is where  VCS  lost then 20.2 where they appealed and lost again .

But read the whole thread as it may help you in other ways too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...