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

Hellabubba

VCS PCN - no stopping - Bristol Airport

Recommended Posts

Driver here has received the same letter for stopping at the pedestrian crossing at Bristo lAirport for a few seconds when their car had stalled anyway and the passenger decided to hop out.

 

Driver dropped off at Bristol Airport and car stalled at the crossing.

Passenger jumped out and driver drive off.

 

Received a parking fine.

Option of payment of £60 has now passed.

Should they pay? 

 

Not sure whether to pay and missed the 14 day £60 thing.

 

Have Bristol Airport started this nonsense very recently?

They should be ashamed of themselves! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you show us where it says FINE please 

 

complete the below:

 

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture] 

 

please answer the following questions.

 

1 Date of the infringement 10/11/2019

 

2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 15/11/2019

[scan up BOTHSIDES as ONE  PDF- follow the upload guide]

 

3 Date received 25/11/2019

 

4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [No]

 

5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes

 

6 Have you appealed? [No) post up your appeal]

Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up

 

7 Who is the parking company? VCS

 

8. Where exactly [Bristol Airport]

 

For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. -says to contact myparkingcharge.co.uk but no mention of parking body

 

There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure,

please check HERE  it’s IAS

 

If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here

 

copy the windscreen or ANPR section to your thread and answer the questions...

……....

in either case scan up bothsides of any letters/tickets in or appeals made out to ONE MULTIPAGE  PDF ONLY

 

DDDEC662-8453-43B0-87BF-10D95D273529.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100's of no stopping threads here 

just use our search top right

 

get reading up.

 

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be worth demanding the CCTV video of the time stopped as if someone was crossing, VCS will miss that out from the stills, provided, might make them wet themselves as if it clearly shows someone crossing, its irrelevant that the passenger got out, the stop was a legitimate purpose, and in any case Bye-lawes apply and VCS have no Locus Standi to claim a bent bean.


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question on dates.

 

The NTK was issued on 15th November.

We don't know if it was posted on that day [Friday] but even if not posted til Monday, it should still have arrived before the 25th.

 

Is your car on lease perhaps or are you sure the 25th was the correct arival date.

 

If so it might be worth writing to the DVLA and asking them when they responded to the VCS request for your data.

These companies are not above lying about dates on their PCNs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/12/2019 at 16:01, dx100uk said:

only ever respond if they send a letter of claim.

ok thanks v much will do. I don’t remember anyone crossing so no use asking to see vid. It would have been about three seconds that I stopped so I understand that bye laws overrule that and to say you can’t stop is out of their remit. Is there anything else? And obviously I won’t write unless I receive a letter of claim.

 

thx
 

 

Quote

 

 

 

On 06/12/2019 at 17:39, ericsbrother said:

read all about airport parking and prohibitive signage, grace periods etc and you will see what is wrong with this demand.

Thanks, will do

Quote

 

“get all of your info first”

 

 

What do you mean by this? Do you mean wait to see what else they send me? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

posts moved to your own thread rather than hijacking someone elses

 

i'm sure EB will answer your questions soon.

 

dx


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to read a lot of threads on private parking and also background on  the difference betwen an offer of a  contract  and a prohibitive notice.

the Parking prankster's blogspot has plenty of examples where peopel have been sued and won by knowing the difference.

 

VCS have recently got contracts with a couple of airports and are trying their luck before they get clobbered by the airport  and the ICO.

 

the more you sit things out the better as it will weaken their resolve to waste money on an unwinnable claim and they will ahve spent a few bon on chasing you by then.

 

Even the world's worst solicitors wont represent them any more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I’ve now received a Letter of Claim. Well, two actually. Two arrived on the same day and they look identical to me. I wondered if they’d made a mistake in the first and sent another but can’t see anything to that effect.

 

I note this example in another thread of a cheeky letter to send:

 

Dear sirs, 

 

Unfortunately for you I wasn't born yesterday so I won't be paying the demand to your client as both you and they know what I know and that there is no liability in this matter because the land is covered by its own byelaws, the signage is prohibitive and not an offer of a contract so none has been breached and anyway the POFA limits any charge to the specified sum so your demand for £160 is just a nonsense.

 

As VCS has been spanked at court on this very same thing several times before I suggest that you tell you client to discontinue this foolishness and that way you will at least obey the SRA rules of conduct and obey Civil Procedureicon as well. I know that may well be a first for you but call it your new year's resolution.

 

Should they decide to continue then I shall be asking for a ful costs recovery order for unreasonable behaviour and the seek damages for breach of the DPA as per VCS v Philip, Liverpool CC dec 2016. 

 

Even Will and John, the parking worlds worst solicitors seem to have got fed up with Simple Simon's stupidity and greed and presumably that is why you are wasting your ink on his behalf."

 

I'll send this, unsigned, by recorded delivery to BW Legal tomorrow unless someone tells me otherwise.

 

Many thanks

Is that still the line do you think? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time for one or maybe two of ericsbrother's snotty letters, as you've realised.

 

Why have you got two letters, do they have different reference numbers?

 

Please don't rush to send the letter tomorrow, let the experts comment first.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sorry that last sentence about “putting it in the post tomorrow”  was the previous poster that shared the example letter -not my words. 


Thanks, yeah I checked the refs and they were exactly the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait for ericsbrother to pop in VCS/EXEL are owned by Simon Renshaw-Smith,  aka Simple Simon who now seems to sue on his own behalf, Will & John having given up on him, he thinks he can make it up as he goes along  so needs an adapted letter to suit his shenanigans.


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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no ned for recorded either, if that was your comment...

2nd class with free POP will do.

 

dx

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

raed more threads and you will be able to undersatnd who the players are in this game and edit a letter to suit. most of this one doesnt apply to your situation but the sentiment of the first sentence does so get your head around  prohibitive signage, byelaws and "relevant land" and penalty charges in contract law such as Dunlop v Selfridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so to respond to VCS' letter of claim somehting like:

Dear Simple Simon,

if someone had looked at the images they would have noticed that the car was stopped at a peculiar road marking this is commonly known as a zebra crossing. I dont know what planet you come from but on this one it is a universally recognised road marking and if you decide to carry on and prosecute this claim you will no doubt persuade government to change the law regarding private parking but not in the way you wish. I look forward to you wasting your money with this one, the local papers as yet dont have a page specifically for comic strips but I'm sure your supposed PARKING charge notice that this will be a great starter for them. In the meanwhile I hope that the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan are proud of your work, I shall obviously be asking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would send this and do as it says,

tip off the local paper and complain to the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan trustees by sending them the offending NTK image and tell them that as VCS are their servants you are going to sue them for the breach of the GDPR by VCS unlawfully obtaining and processing your data and invite them to pay you the £250 that the courts have decided is equitable for thsi under VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016.

 

note to anyone else suffering at this place

-COMPLAIN to the pension trustees and let them know that VCS are issuing unlawful demands like confetti and their pension trust is ultimately responsible.

 

VCS may well then get booted out but it will need a groundswell of complaints threatenting to sue them to make them listen as it is somehting they will then have to act on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, do I sign as my name or not?  They specify their reason in letter of claim as: 46) Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited.

 

So I will of course quote "...that there is no liability in this matter because the land is covered by its own byelaws, the signage is prohibitive and not an offer of a contract so none has been breached..."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no you type your name.

 

 


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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's GDPR now, not DPA, not that Simon would know anyway.

 

Cut out the bit about SRA as that applies to solicitors.  Simon doesn't employ solicitors any more to lose his court cases, he's quite capable of losing them himself.

  • 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to understand what you are saying and to whom, you have still got soem cut and paste in there that applies only to a solicitors so if you use this as is they will realise the limits of your knowledge pretty quickly so less is more.

so go back to the suggested  4 lines in post#19.

No need to quote the law, they know it but choose to ignore it and civil procedure to boot.

 

being polite has so far never won the day against this lot, they are not honest so dont respect the truth nor care about it either. The idea of sending this letter is to show them that you know they are just sleazeballs rather than to get them to change their mind by showing you are right. They dont care as they may well still sue and hope that you wet yourself and pay up. So far they have wasted about £20 on this and are determined to make some money somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ok I’ll streamline and update/remove  the SRA and DPA bits. 
 

cheers

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...