Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No DWP is in denial, the Errol Graham case has caused much concern   https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/errol-graham-coroner-pledges-to-press-dwp-on-safeguarding-review/   Something is amiss with the procedures, Capita and the PIP Assessments seem to go against what a claimant's doctors say quite often, as do the UC Work Capability Assessments
    • oh don't you just love fleecers out to make a buck out of people they think are just mugs..
    • Useful link, BN.   The article mentions that the National Audit Office said that the DWP isn't learning anything from its mistakes.   HB
    • 1.     The Claimant claims £9,240.52 for monies due from the Defendant.   2.     This debt was pursuant to a regulated agreement(s) between the Defendant and The Student Loans Company Limited.  Each agreement had an individual account number as follows: 01xxxxxxxx, 00xxxxxxx, 97xxxxxxx, 96xxxxxxx.   3.     The Defendant failed to make payments as per the terms resulting in the agreement(s) being terminated.   Notice of such is served by a Default or Termination Notice subject to the terms of the agreement(s).   4.     The debt was assigned to the Claimant on 22/11/2013, with a notice provided to the Defendant.   A new master reference number xxxxxxxxxxxxx was also applied upon assignment.   5.     The Claimant has complied with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims   DEFENCE ……………...   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR 16.5(3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.     Paragraph 1 2 is noted and denied accepted . I have had financial dealings with The Student Loans company in the past.  I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my requests for further information.   2.     Paragraph 2 is noted and accepted.  I did take out 4 student loans with the Student Loans Company.   2.     Paragraph 3 is noted and denied.  The Defendant never agreed to make payments to the Claimant, terms of the original Student Loans Agreement have been adhered to and thus repayments of loans are not due.  The Claimant is put to strict proof that an agreement(s) to make payments was made and a breach of agreement(s) occurred.   Paragraph 3 is denied as The Defendant maintains that a default notices were never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof that default notices were issued to, and received by the Defendant    3. Paragraphs1 & 4 are denied.The annual income of the Defendant has never exceeded the published limits for deferral since graduating in XXXX. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly provided by the Claimant pursuant to the LoP Act 1925.   4.      On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant, to which both have failed to respond to,  It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant;  the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement/assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 CCA Request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a)   Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement(s) (b)  Show how the Defendant is in breach of agreement(s) (c)   Show why the Claimant has terminated agreement(s) show the nature of breach and service of Default Notices and subsequent Notice of Sums in Arrears in accordance with the Consumer  Credit Act (d)  Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and (e)   Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.     5. On receipt of this claim I requested (Royal Mail signed for) on 14/02/2020 a CPR 31.14 from the Claimant's solicitor and a section 77 CCA from the Claimant,  for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply to my section 77 requests and their solicitors, Drydens Limited, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.    6.     The Defendant has supplied the Claimant with a deferment letter and evidence every year that their income is below the threshold for repayments, by way of Royal Mail signed for and proof of postage has been kept. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.      7.     The Defendant has done everything required of them to qualify for deferment as per the original agreement(s) with The Student Loans company.  The Claimant has only once acknowledged a deferment letter on 16 September 2014 whereupon they granted their request to defer repayments for that year. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.    8.The Defendant therefore fails to see how they are in breach of any agreement(s) and deny the Claimant's claim of £9,240.52 or any other sum, or relief of any kind. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief        ……………………………...   delete the red add the blue.    
    • Is this better?   In the Bristol Civic Justice Centre   Claimant name and address xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx   Defendants name and address Nissan Motor (GB) Limited, The Rivers Office Park, Denham Way, Maple Cross, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 9YS.   Brief details of claim Damages   Value £225   Particulars of claim 1. The Defendant is a Data Controller within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018 and is responsible for the processing of data of which the Claimant is a Subject.     2. This claim is in relation to three breaches of the Data Protection Act (2018) by the Defendant. (a) Failure to comply with the statutory time limit. (b) The Defendants data disclosure was incomplete. (c) The Defendant sent the data to an address which was not the address of the      Claimant data Subject.    3. The Defendant has failed to comply with the statutory time limit and is therefore in breach of the Data Protection Act (2018). (a) On 09 January 2020, the Claimant made a request for to the Defendant for a statutory data disclosure.  The statutory timeframe for compliance was 10 February 2020.    4. The Defendants data disclosure is incomplete.  (a) The Defendant has provided data disclosure on 25 February 2020.  However, the data disclosure that has been provided by the Defendant is incomplete.    5. The Defendant sent the disclosure to an address that was not the Claimant’s. (a) The Claimant provided the Defendant with the correct address to send the Subject Access Request to on 10 January 2020 and again on 19 February 2020.      6. The Claimant has made a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) asking for a statutory assessment to be carried out.  The ICO has offered a preliminary view that the Defendant has breached their statutory duty in failing to comply with the statutory time limit.    7. By virtue of the Defendant’s failure to comply with the Subject Access Request the Claimant has suffered distress.
  • Our picks

eshroom

NSL/Marston lifted/towed my van re;DVLA no tax fine but now found they damaged

Recommended Posts

The summary is that I collected my van after it was towed, drove it 20 metres and saw a panel come loose, I went inside to report it and immediately emailed them, they have since refused the claim as I had already collected the vehicle.

 

The story:

 

- Van towed

- Van collected, signed out 12:00

- Van appeared visually to have no new damage, was not allowed to drive it until paperwork signed

- Upon driving it a plastic exterior panel came loose (this appears to be from when it was craned onto of truck)

- I stopped the vehicle 12:03 and walked into their office to report damage

- I emailed photos to head office 12:08

- NSL initially claimed they examined photos and damage was pre-existing

- I requested CCTV footage of my visit under Data Protection Act. I provided them a copy of my ID, photo, description of clothing as well as letting them know I was the only member of public/customer on-site for the duration of my visit

- CCTV footage denied on basis I "was not recognisable" after they reviewed footage

- Initially refused to provide any photos of vehicle

- Finally produced 0.3 megapixel images, much too low resolution to see anything, but certainly confirming their claim the damage was pre-existing is false

- Refuse to provide original full resolution images despite multiple requests

- Latest excuse I was gone 15 minutes and could have caused the damage during this time. Clearly a false assertion given I emailed them within 8 minutes and was in their office within 3 minutes of leaving.

- I feel by refusing to provide CCTV footage and full resolution photos they are obstructing my ability to prove they caused the damage

 

The damaged panel tore off at 30mph while trying to go to have it looked at, luckily no other vehicle was damaged, in hindsight I should have driven with the panel being damaged. But this proves the damage is very unlikely to have been pre-existing as the van couldn't be driven.

 

So I intend to pursue through the small claims court. My questions are:

 

- I can't afford to fix the van right now and as it is cosmetic, I can still use it without fixing the panel. Can I get a quote from Renault and claim on MCOL for the value of the repair?

- Although I was gone only 3 minutes and drove 50 metres from NSL yard directly to NSL office, I did still take the vehicle before reporting the damage, this was due to the panel being pushed into place (but not secured) and therefore not visible until the vehicle was moved. Will this work against me when making a claim?

- Does their repeated lying (first claiming it was pre-existing, then falsely claiming I was gone 15 minutes and could have caused the damage then) work against them?

- Does withholding CCTV where I was the only non-high vis person on-site on the basis I was not "identifiable" work against them (clearly I was identifiable, I was the guy without high vis on)

- Does failure to produce any original images, just very compressed images of the van before and after towing, work against them?

 

How strong a case do people think I may have?

 

I have exhausted their complaints process.

 

Thanks in advance for any thoughts on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

who are nsl?

what are they doing lifting your vehicle in the 1st place?

 

dx


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NSL are contracted by the DVLA to tow vehicles that have unpaid tax. My van was sitting a while and I was travelling, and I forgot to tax it.

 

I subsequently taxed it, paid my DVLA fine, held my hands up and took responsibility. But am now trying to get NSL to pay for the damage they caused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the DVLA's responsibility/involvement is within this

as NSL were operating for their client the DVLA


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fine was paid directly to the DVLA, my towing and storage fee was paid directly to NSL, I therefore assume that any implied contract regarding the wellbeing of the vehicle would be with NSL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a client is equally responsible for the actions of their dogs.

 

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from maybe going after DVLA instead/as well, does anyone have any insight on any of the points I raised? Especially this one:

 

- I can't afford to fix the van right now and as it is cosmetic, I can still use it without fixing the panel. Can I get a quote from Renault and claim on MCOL for the value of the repair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before considering a claim, you would need to obtain a quote for any damage. 

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...