Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello and thank you for reply, I really appreciate!    Basically, I logged a complaint with CISAS and then reached out to all the directors Vodafone Limited and Vodafone Group Plc. I researched directors via companies house and guessed their emails. I also reached out to Ms Lamprell via Linkedin where she replied, gave me her email and said to she would have someone look into it. I sent her an email where I tried to present my case as a some sort of consultant giving insight about what I have learned about their customer service and what they could improve, mainly suggesting to hire a really highly trained professional in English and & Welsh law, so that person could take the cases that are being escalated and also train other staff. The next day, Vodafone came back to me with settlement offer. I believe everything has been pushed by Ms Lamprell who really seems a top executive to me (she will apparently receive MBE for her business services) and understands that customers are in fact important stakeholders; although the truth is I did email a few other directors too, so who knows...   In the settlement letter they pretty much negligently ignored almost all my listed points about the things where they were arguably very wrong; but what they did was they admitted some extra things where they were wrong and on that basis waived the charges and on that basis they will reverse the default on my credit file as well. Moreover, the settlement they offered me was based on the distress scale presented by CISAS where £200 is maximum for severe distress and they added £50 so I should get £250 altogether. I accepted the settlement, simply because I am too exhausted with this case.   To be honest I am still upset about the case and don't feel very satisfied given what I have been through because of Vodafone. I do believe if I pushed further and took them to small claims court or if I somehow pressed further through CISAS, I could get compensated for the actual damage caused to me and my business. I would need to play on a higher level with their lawyers for that, and it would require me extra time to study legislation and I would have to take extra risks too. I am honestly very upset about Vodafone's abusive systems, as there must be many vulnerable people going through it and I think it is unlikely it ends up as well for them -- quite the opposite.    Given anyones experience I would love to know how would you evaluate risks of pushing this further and what else could be done.    Thanks so much for all the answers in advance, it's a wonderful forum!  
    • Yep.  Also planning to do a video walkthrough and point out where the mould was that we had to deal with as the LL was in denial about it.
    • Good morning!    I have been banned from a supermarket for shoplifting and I would like to know if there is the option to be unbanned and if there are people who were, what they did.   thank you in advance 
    • Hi ericsbrother,   Thanks for your reply, I just wanted to check how it all sounded so yes seems to be good.   I have worked in sales before and do need a job right now so I will take it. I was told how good my work was etc.   Cheers!
  • Our picks

Stevie_T

Excel Windscreen PCN Claimform - Parked in a disabled space - MIDDLESBROUGH LIESURE PARK

Recommended Posts

show us the new pictures and indicate where they are by giving us the EXACT address. you will need to get screenshots of google earth and streetview to help your defence and make a simple line drawn map as well.

 

You throw in pictures of the kitchen sink as well if you can find case law on stainless steel and parking,

the fact that these signs weren't on your route is irrelevant,

they are relying on signs you didnt see and it is your duty to look for them if you have been warned from the outset.

 

Now that is a matter for argument about quality and content of the offer of a parking contract but dont hamstring yourself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just received Excel's witness statement. It's a doorstop. I've read through it once as a skim and again slighty more in depth. There is a lot they probably re-use over and over. The post pictures taken around the car park. These are poor quality. They show signs but not the detail of what is on them.

 

It also shows a picture of a notice tucked under my windscreen wiper which I never actually got Perhaps it blew away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we'll need to see everything sadly inc exhibits

scan it all up in ONE multipage PDF

read upload carefully

 

well done on holding off yours

you can now use it to rip theirs apart item by item.

and you've got till the 2nd march? to do it?

 

dx

 

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK - scanning session tomorrow

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

we don't need to see each exhibits cover sheet, nor any full printouts of any cases they refer too, if that helps??


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there's a bit of a glitch in their pagination 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m attaching the Exel witness statement. A few things occur to me:

 

They seem to be claiming that I failed/refused to inform them of the driver of the vehicle. I do not recollect and no see no evidence of them having asked for this info

 

They accuse me of being non communicative. I know I can’t use this as a defence but my experience is that there is no point in communicating with these dudes of submitting any mitigating factors

 

The images of the “disabled” bay including ones with my car in it are different to how they are now. They have added extra signs. On the evening in question there were none

 

Their own pictures are of their signs are crap. The wording can not be read. There is no clear indication of where each sign is. 

 

I still think my strongest defence is that the perfectly reasonable route my car took presented no signs to the driver whatosever. 

 

They mention the “authority” to erect signs but make no mention of planning permission

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry removed

you MUST remove all ref numbers 

claim numbers 

and numbers around the outside of pages

please try again.

 

dx

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Will do 

it took three passes to get this far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its on everyone of your 1st 4 pages! and page 1 of the WS atleast

 

they purposefully put the edge numbers on the rest so they can find you on forums as simon appears to be getting rather annoyed with CAG


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their NTK's fail to fulfil the protocols of the pOFA so they cnat create a keeper liability and they use this statement that you refused to name the driver in an attemot to get bits of case law that dont apply considered.

 

When this is challenged they lose that argument but many judges dont understand that the POFA HAS to be obeyed in all of its parts to allow the parking co to create ANY liability and not just keeper liability.

 

The problem Excel have is that by failing to do so they ahve broken the law in obtaining your keeper details.

sadly this isnt a matter for this hearing but worth a mention of you ahve found other lies in their WS as it places a weightng to the evidence.

 

Now to look at their statement.

 

point 8

they have a contract with a managing agent, not the landowner. they need to prove there is a chain of authority that allows them to enter into contract with the public and to make civil claims in their own name. this is very different to just a managemnt contract where all of the risk still belongs to the landowner.

 

Again, judges often accept that such authority exists without any proof of such a chain of authority so you need to look at old cases where this was a deciding factor (Parking prankster blog)

 

point 10

suggest that they monitor someone elses conditions not create their own so again sight of what the landowner told them they can and cant do will decide so you ask for this as no right to make their own rules exist if this popijt is true

 

point 42

that is only part of the purpose of the POFA,

it also states what a parking co has to do to create a contract and allow them to make a demand by claiming a liability exists between teh 2 parties.

 

they have deliberately not included the part in their following points that only the amount invoiced on the NTK is applicable to the keeper as the contract and thus any extra charges brought to the drivers attention by way of that contract are not applicable to a keeper laibility if one is created and then used to enforce the debt.

 

that means that point 76 cannot apply  as they dotn know who the driver was and have made this clear in their WS so only the original £100 could ever be subject to a civil claim.

 

Judges have also decided that open ended contracts that are vague in their wording and purpose are not binding . Again look up relevant cases on the Parking Pranksters blog

 

The big sign they say is at the entrance is not an offer of a contract but an invitation to treat. thsi menas you can enter and park and not have to read or consider the other signs there if you dotn want to. Other terms are unfair unenforceable and so amke the entire contract void under the CRA 2015, (s62) if you do not wish to be bound by them.

 

Courts have also decided that the rubbish paint job seen in their evidenec doesnt define a disabled parking bay and each disabled bay will require its own blue and white sign. No evidence of that here. again look up a case, there is one from less than 2 yeras ago in this section of CAG

 

Hope this is of help to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. All good stuff but sorry to be obtuse - what is NTK and POFA

 

The photos show very little marking on the “disabled” bay. If you visit now they have made it much more prominent  and put blue signs up. As if they’ve been stung by this before

 

11 minutes ago, Stevie_T said:

Thank you. All good stuff but sorry to be obtuse - what is NTK and POFA

I think I found it NTK - need to know ?? Is that right

POFA - Protection Of Freedoms Act. - am I right

Edited by Stevie_T
Failed to give thanks - oops - rude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have had 5 months to do your homework on this, I hope that you have pictures iof the bays as they were to use in evidence. If you avet then you will have to play judge lottery unless you can idg up somehting else. Now what about planning permission for the signage etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their own pictures show how the bays were at the time I parked there including the one with my car in shot. When they began this process and I returned to take pictures there was a new paint job and signs had been erected. I have not made any inroads into the planning permission issue. I'll set some time asside tomorrow to work on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached is the first draft of my Witness statement. I have more to add but I wanted to offer it up for comment now. I'm going to UP another one of things I'm not sure whether to include or not and I'd like a second oppinion

 

 

witness-statement-draft1.pdf

 

On reflection, I wonder if should have laid out the images to follow the text that they illustrate rather than collect them all at the end

  

 

I'm going to attach a PDF containing additional info and images I am not sure whether to include in my WS or not

INFO TO CAG.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

images do NOT go into you WS text

your REF what exhibit number you are referring too

and bundle them at the end with a cover sheet for each.

exhibit A1 a2 a3 etc.


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your 1 is crap english ... reword it.
2 remove 'and as' the claimant
3 they have in their NTK.
4 is in the wrong place.

 

i'll do the rest laTER internet is crap due to winds here.

 

dx

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok - I’ve looked at your points will make a start on this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:rockon:

 

scroll up to 

ericsbrother post of February 10 

 

a good start.

 

dx

 

 

 


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

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was planning to introduce  Eric’sbrother stuff next but see now that perhaps I  should introduce the NTK first and then get into my specifics of sinage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2020 at 23:49, dx100uk said:

>>your 1 is crap english ... reword it.

Reworded ......

 

1.      The defendant is the keeper of the vehicle [REGISTRATION NUMBER]. On [ DATE] the claimant issued a charge notice claiming that the vehicle was parked in a manner that breached a unilateral contract offered by way of signage at the car park situated at Middlesbrough Leisure Park.

 

>>>2 remove 'and as' the claimant

Removed and reworded......
 

2.      The defendant denies being the driver at the time. The claimant has failed to follow the protocols of the POFA. There is no keeper liability in this matter.
 

 

perhaps this is the point at which I I should intruduce the NTK and POFA arguments  suggested by ericsbrother

 

Quote


>>>3 they have in their NTK.

OK -I have deleted this section


>>4 is in the wrong place.

where should it go? Later on I introduce another judgement about signage

 

 

 

Share this post


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...