Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your point 4 deals with that and puts them to strict proof .....but realistically they are not in a position to state that within their particulars they were not the creditor at the time of default but naturally assume the OC would have...so always worth challenging and if you get a DJ who knows his onions on the day may ask for further evidence from the OC internal accounts system. 
    • I see, shame, I think if a claim is 'someone was served' then proof of that should be mandatory. Appreciate your input into the WS whenever you get chance, thanks in advance
    • Paper trail off the original creditor often confirms the default and issue of a notice...not having or being able to disclose the actual copy or being able to produce a copy less so. Creditors are not compelled to keep copies of the actual default notice so you will in most cases get a reconstituted version but must contain accurate figures/dates/format.     .    
    • Including Default Notice Andy? Ok, I think this is the best I can do.. it all makes sense with references to their WS. They have included exhibits that dates don't match the WS about them, small but still.. if you're going to reference letters giving dates, then the exhibits should be correct, no? I know I redacted them too much, but one of the dates differs to the WS by a few months. IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim. 1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 24/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be 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 it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • AMEX and TSB the 2 Creditors who you need to worry about the least, ever!  Just stop paying them and forget about it, ignore all their threat o gram letters.  Only if, and with these 2 it's a massive if, you end up with a claim form you need to respond, and there will be plenty of help here.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - no stopping - EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT CASTLE DONNINGTON


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1411 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

see post 33 here

 

 

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

no 

click that tlink

goto post 33 there and READ

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

DeeBrad69

  • Basic Account Holder
  • DeeBrad69
  • Registered Users

    Change your profile picture
  • 1
  • 17 posts
  • Member ID: 386101
  • Change Group
  • Member ID: 386101

Hi I found another thread very similar to my situation in which they were advised to send the following by the talented ericsbrother, would it be OK for me to send the same or is that not done?

 

Unfortunately for you I wasn’t born yesterday so I won’t be paying your demand, you know what I know and that is 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 discontinue this foolishness and that way you will at least obey Civil Procedure. I know that may well be a first for you but call it your new year's resolution.

 

Should you decide to continue then I shall be asking for a full costs recovery order for unreasonable behaviour and then 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.

 

Any thoughts greatly appreciated. Dee

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

 

  •  

eh?

you have 30 days to send the above reply.

 

 

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

where this 14 days come from?

its 30 days for a PAPLOC reply from you

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

use the blue text in the earlier post

do not adapt it.

 

doesn't matter when you send it as long as you meet the 30days

it does clearly state 30days on the PAPLOC if you go look.

it's part of the PAP rules.

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

👍 wondered about this:

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.

 

Best to leave it out?

sign? 

Yours faithfully

Resistered keeper

 

(i think)!

 

Sorry,  just curious how they getting on and what they actually have done, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wont harm you no ..as simply simon will no doubt be aware who will/john are anyhow..

but yes as you spotted elsewhere, that last bit was not necessary.

 

i wouldn't be signing no

just print your name.

 

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

Cant see it making any odds

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

18 hours ago, Whats happening dude said:

👍 wondered about this:

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.

 

Best to leave it out?

sign? 

Yours faithfully

Resistered keeper

 

(i think)!

 

Sorry,  just curious how they getting on and what they actually have done, 

This is there because the original letter was sent to a firm of solicitors. You are not writing to them but to VCS directly so Simple Simon is the person you refer to  as Simon Renshaw-Smith owns both VCS and Excel Parking and often forgets which company is doing what.

 so to write to VCS you say

Dear Sirs,

i am in receipt of your latest missive and from the moment I picked it up to the moment I put it down I was convulsed in laughter, someday I intend to read it but until the time hell freezes over simple Simon knows that the byelaws override any possible contractual offer and anyways a prohibition is not an offer of a parking contract.

As he has had many a spanking in court simple Simon also knows that he wil be paying my full costs for unreasobale conduct and I may well sue you for breach of the GDPR as per VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC dec 2016 and other cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all

a claim form,

issue date 19th Feb, 

turned up today so a clock is ticking!

 

This is same in description as other recently posted by others. 

Please advise best timescales to log on Mcol ,

 then to send the templated letter

aos edited to suit of course to vcs. 

 

on the claim form it leaves some space for writing defence !

 

It is to assume for now for a no stopping event is the following  points? ; 

 

1. No cause for action against the defendant the defendant is the keeper of the vehicle and VCS have failed to show who was driving at the time and so cannot create a keeper liability as they have failed to follow the protocols of the POFA 2012

 

2 no contract can exist between VCS and the defendant as the land is governed by its own byelaws and these have supremacy of VCS management arrangements and that also means no keeper liability can  exist. 

 

3. The claimant has no locus standi 

 

4. in any case the signage is prohibitive in nature and not a genuine offer of terms for parking for a motorist to consider, Therefore it is denied that there was any ability for the driver to contract with the Claimant. 

 

So:

When does the above go in at before 14 days? or is this the before 33 day last min! .

 

WS ? is this the lengthy detailed response to the aos reply but is not in the frame until actually any court date tracked. So after 33 days!

 

 Thanks 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you do not use the forms, they are only for ref

 

do that link..

we'll advise what to do and WHEN

 

till then..sit on your hands

do nothing TILL ADVISED.

  • Thanks 1

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - no stopping - EAST MIDLANDS AIRPORT CASTLE DONNINGTON

Name of the Claimant  VCS LTD

 

Date of issue –  19 Feb 2020

 

What is the claim for – 

 

1.The Claim is for breach of contract for breaching the  terms and conditions set on private land. 

 

2.The Defendant's vehicle, xxxxxx was identified in the East Midlands Airport on the xx/xx/xx in breach of advertised  terms and conditions; namely stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited. 

 

3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 

 

4.The  terms and conditions upon entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations. 

 

5.The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 

 

6.The signs specifically detail the  terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply, namely a  parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability.

 

7.The Claimant seeks the recovery of the  parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.

 

What is the value of the claim? £185.00

 

Has the claim been issued by the Private parking Company or was the PCN assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim ? CLAIM ISSUED BY VEHICLE CONTROL SERVICES

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? NO NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...