Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Presumably you have received your own NIP/s172 request after the lease company identified you as the person the car is leased to?   First thing to say is that, regardless of any questions over the date of the first NIP, you must still reply to your own NIP/s172 within the time limit given otherwise you are committing an entirely separate and more serious offence than any speeding infringement.  If you were the driver you should nominate yourself.   You need to be careful arguing that the first NIP was not sent out in time.  Note that it is only the first NIP that is subject to the 14 day limit, and that NIP needs to go to the Registered Keeper.  There is no time limit on subsequent NIPs.   So are you 100% certain that your lease company is the registered keeper and do you know that for a fact?  Please note that the registered keeper of lease vehicles is often not the lease company, but a finance company.   If the police are saying that the first NIP was sent to the RK within the time limit, you can be 99.99999% certain that they will have evidence proving that fact.  Assuming it was sent out first-class, there is a legal presumption that it was delivered two working days after posting, unless the addressee can prove it was never received.  So if the police are saying the first NIP was sent out within 12 days, the RK would have to prove it was never received within 14 days to provide a defence.  As you might imagine, that is very difficult to prove otherwise everybody would claim it.  Unfortunately, "reminder" NIPs are usually not marked as such and may be indistinguishable from the original.   So you need to confirm (preferably by sight of a copy of the actual V5C document as staff of lease companies do not always know) who the Registered Keeper is, and when they recived the first NIP.  If it was received after 14 days can they prove that fact (eg by a date received stamp and an appropriate system for dealing with mail received) and can they prove that they didn't receive an earlier NIP?   Hope that makes sense!  If it doesn't another poster called Man in the Middle will clarify what I 've not explained well or got wrong.
    • Simply confirming no mediation and the claim is proceeding to allocation.   Andy
    • Thanks for the swift response. Will continue to read around.   I have a date of march 10.
    • First of all, they always say that you should be prepared to give up ground. If you are convinced as to your rights in the matter – and we certainly are – then there is no reason for you to give up any ground at all. You may come under pressure to give up ground – but you don't have to concede any ground. The benefit to Hermes is that they don't end up going to court so that they are spared extra expense and also there are spared the embarrassment of a judgement against them. When you are given the mediation date, then let us know and then we will go through it with you. However, read up on all of the threads in this sub- forum. You will find exactly your situation have occurred several times and have already gone to mediation and you will find that we have already given explanations on each one of the points. Familiarise yourself with the stories and the principles involved. When you get your mediation date then come back here and let us know.
    • I have read the page on mediation, but wanted to clarify a few details.   I have been given an arranged time for the mediation call. The email from the court states:   "for mediation to be successful, you would need to be willing to negotiate on the amount of the claim and have a degree of flexibility".   Should I have to give up ground? At this stage, I feel I am owed what I have lost, and what the claim has cost me, not to mention my time. The email says if you aren't willing then mediation is unsuitable.   It then also suggests:   "It is crucial that you are able to briefly and accurately explain your claim or defence. It is vital that you have prepared for the mediation by putting together a brief summary of your opening position. Only the key points are necessary at this stage as the longer the time taken discussing the disputed issues will reduce the time available for exploring settlement options."   I am of course aware of my opening position - that they were negligent and lost my item and thus I believe I am due recompense. However, I am not certain of the legal particulars of my argument.   Furthermore:   - Should I mention that the defendant may not wish to proceed to court as it may support a precedent for others in a similar situation to also claim against them? - Are there any other things I should be mentioning to the mediator?   Appreciate the guidance.
  • 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

VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - no stopping - London Southend Airport ***Claim Dismissed***


Recommended Posts

Looks damn good to me - well done!

 

I like the way you have a preamble at the start showing how Simon's claim is pants, and then flesh out the points underneath.

 

I'm not sure you need to go into such detail about the appeals, they are immaterial to the fact that the claim is spurious.

 

Also I've seen other WSs where for clarity the writer has put in sub-headings before the various points such as "No Locus Standi", "Prohibition", "No Keeper Liability", etc., which you could consider.

 

However what you've already prepared is more than enough to blow Simon's case out of the water.

 

 

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
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airp

It doesn't matter if the new ByeLaws have been adopted yet. The important thing is that it is clear that the airport roads are either covered by the Road Traffic Act or Byelaws  which confounds the VC

I have posted on WoodDD's thread a very comprehensive WS. You will need to find other good WS'salso  probably in the successful wins on the Stikky on the first page on the private Motoring section as

Posted Images

Agree about the appeals FTMDave, they are likely not needed, but they might be woeful for Simple Simon, as they show he is just a greedy git who doesn't follow the rules, if its dealt with by a judge familiar with Simple's shenanigans and is looking for more reason to tolchock him.

  • 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

don't forget at the top to put

 

I am the registered keeper of vehicle XXXX detailed in the Particulars of Claim.

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

Amended wording of a statement of truth (CPR Practice Direction 22)

2.2 The form of the statement of truth verifying a witness statement should be as follows: “I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

 

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

Yes put the sentence Andy had in bold above your signature.  sign the Court copy but not the one to fleecer's I think

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
  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all, hope you are all staying safe.. I have attached a sample of the exhibits I am gathering.. I wont bother attaching copies of the fleecers letters as we have all seen these before.

 

Not attached: Some still in progress

EXHIBIT 02

EXHIBIT 04a & 04b

EXHIBIT 06

EXHIBIT 09

EXHIBIT 10

 

I have listed EXHIBIT 10 -. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67.. but the fleecers like quoting that on their demands so not sure I should use it.. perhaps better to use something else as an example where they have lost.

 

I have looked at the Southend Airport By-Laws @ https://southendairport.com/corporate-and-community/byelaws

I cant seem to see the date of this, but it does say current bylaws on the above link

 

By-Laws - https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/sen-byelaws-1983-297c76b8.pdf

 

Let me know what you think,

 

EXHIBIT 01 - London Weather Map @ 22:00 Hrs 16th August 2019 [Time of Alleged Offence]

EXHIBIT 02 - Copy of V5C/3 Transfer of Vehicle to Motor Trader 01.02.2020

EXHIBIT 03 – My 2 appeals against the Parking Charge Notice & Formal Challenge on Second Appeal

EXHIBIT 04a & 04b - Claimant’s appeal rejection letters dated 19/09/2019 & 28/09/2019

EXHIBIT 05 – Copy of Civil Procedure Rule 16.4

EXHIBIT 06 – TBA

EXHIBIT 07 - Copy of Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA)

EXHIBIT 08 – Copy of Section 192(1) of the Road Traffic Act

TBA EXHIBIT 09 - Copy of The London Southend Airport Byelaws 19??.. I think 1997 is the latest.

TBA EXHIBIT 10 -. Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67

EXHIBIT 11 – Examples of additional charges being considered an abuse of process

EXHIBIT 12 – Copy of Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4)

EXHIBIT 13 – Formal Challenge to VCS

 

Regards Tom.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

Well you're certainly thorough. :)  What would be really helpful would be to put all of your exhibits into a multiple pdf document so that people don't have to spend ages uploading a dozen different documents. If someone's on a phone, they may not want to go through this and so you lose that advice which would be a shame.

 

Our upload guide has details on multi-pdf's.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - no stopping - London Southend Airport

merged all you pdf's together as your full draft ws.

 

just remember this is not due till feb 14th....

you must inc a cover sheet for each exhibit

 

for future readers, now you can see why we say never ever appeal...

the stupid appeal document used from another site before TP came here opened up soo many things that did not need to be addressed until WS stage. ideally after simple simon files his taking advantage of your LiP status.

 

it is worthy to note

simple simons tac on byelaws is slowly changing 

see about post 184 here:

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416675-vcsbw-pcn-paploc-now-claimform-no-permit-woodside-business-park-peel-investments-birkenhead/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-5074536

 

and although it has been established that the above business park was sold and NOT covered by byelaws...

simon has included byelaws in his latest WS rambling assuming their involvement.. i expect it will evolve again by the time feb comes around.

 

 

 

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

Hi dx.. appreciate that, thanks.....i tried with PDF but failed.. i'll work it out for when I post the completed version on here

 

So.... now do i wait for their WS.. or should I send mine in about Jan 2021. I was hoping to get his first so I can respond to some of the dribble..

 

Regards Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

imho you do not blink first

 

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
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

Greetings.. Well it finally arrived [Via E:Mail today] The long awaited.. and I mean long [50 Pages] VCS Witness Statement.. the Hearing is not until the 26th February, however, I will get this loaded up for all to peruse by Sunday this week.. As you will see, there is a load of Jargon and for a layman, it's pretty intense..

 

I love how that VCS are claiming £220 for a local lawyer, but it would seem Mr Wali [Paralegal no less] will be representing VCS.. 

 

Stay Safe everyone, and keep an eye out for my WS.. coming soon..

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt it will be excessively  verbose and full of irrelevances. Post up so we can dissect and see where he is trying it on.

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

In post 102 I wrote that I thought you'd written too much about the appeals.  However, I've noticed in all recent WSs of Simon's (of course all, they are cut & paste jobs!) that VCS/Excel go on about their wonderful appeals procedure that the driver "should" use.  So I've changed my mind, if a motorist ignores the appeals procedure it's worth a few lines saying that they'd discovered it's a kangaroo court, and if instead a motirst does use the appeals procedure and fails it's worth stating that shows it's a laughable kangaroo court.

 

Also I've noticed in the parts of Simon's WSs dealing with the Unicorn Food Tax that he states that dealing with legal matters is not part of his business.  Yet that idiot Jake Whatshisname who signs some of Simon's stuff says he runs the VCS/Excel Legal Department!  I'll see if I can dig out an example of Jake's letters.

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

Hi All,

 

Apologies for the Quality of the PDF.. I had to Compress edit it as it's 50 pages.. but it's still readable.. these grabbed my attention:

 

Page 1 Claim @ £185.. Not sure if they are going to present the other claim for £220 on Page 49 as the "Paralegal" looks like he is running this Dog & Pony show and may send an Advocate

Page 7 [18] Apparently I am naive

Page 14 [47] The Paralegal may not be able to attend.. 

Page 40 [3] I made a cut & paste error here.. wrong company & wrong amount.. not much I can do about this..

 

I will  also include in my own WS Dave's suggestion on the Kangaroo Court & Jake's letters if found..

 

VCS Witness Statement 20-01-21_V1-Upload.pdfLet me know your thoughts,

 

Regards Tom

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PDF is ok in quality Tom

This is an interesting submission as it calls into question part of their purpose, as in they expect to make money para 42.2

 

"The other purpose was to provide an inmcome stream to enable the
Claimant to meet the costs of operating the scheme and make a profit
from its services, without which those services would not be available."

 

its barefascedadmission they are out to fleece the unwary, of course they would pursue a broken down vehicle and the recovery truck that came to assist most likely under same head as here.

 

 

 

 

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

oh you mean pay for someone in a spycar to travel around taking video of people supposedly stopping for no good reason in your books simon? and make a profit out that...and then claim in your court documents its a CCTV capture...liar!!

 

sort of self funding really with a nice little bit of profit..and self defeating too, scrap the spycar then you don't need to fund it...:pound:

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 quality is excellent Tom.

 

I've just sacrificed half an hour of my life that I will never get back reading that load of bilge from Simon.  A few things.

 

For once Simon doesn't go on about appeals (although the correspondence between the two of you is in his attachments) so it's immaterial how you deal with this aspect.

 

Again, unlike recent VCS/Excel WSs Simon doesn't even try to defend the Unicorn Food Tax, so you can really put the boot in re double recovery.  I didn't find Jake's letter, but I did find  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/419312-vcs-pcn-claimform-no-stopping-in-restricted-zone-bristol-airport-claim-dismissed/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-5081518  Look at the first page of the attachment in post 95.  VCS already employ a Debt & Litigation Manager so obviously see litigation as part of their business and already have an employee who deals with such matters without them having to spend extra money.

 

I love paragraph 31 " ... The Claimant robustly denies that the signage in the car park is of a prohibitive in nature ... the Defendant's vehicle was observed stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited"!!!

 

Your WS is succinct, to the point, and will impress a judge a hell of a lot more than Simon's garbage.  I think it would make it even clearer to the judge if you titled the sections to mention prohibition, POFA non-compliance, bye-laws, double recovery, etc., so the judge can see immediately what you're arguing.

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
  • Andyorch changed the title to VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - no stopping - London Southend Airport ***Claim Dismissed***

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...