Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Tesco Bank - CIFAS Placed 2016 - Advice On How To Handle?


L33noa
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 96 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

22 hours ago, BankFodder said:



Of course if you brought an action then it is quite possible that the bank would simply offer you the money that you are claiming in order to bring an end to the action. This would not affect the CIFAS marker – and you would have to decline the payment and continue the litigation.
The problem with declining an offer which has been made which matches your claim is that you risk the court making an order for costs against you on the basis that you could have saved everybody time and trouble by accepting their money offer.
 


Sue for damages AND a mandatory injunction.

Then they can’t get around it by offering damages alone to bring the case to a close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the action suggested above is entirely possible – it means that you would have to start a part 8 claim and this is far more complicated and most importantly it doesn't put on the small claims track. This means that you would immediately become liable for costs in the event that you lost your action.

If a judge decided that the OP had not been treated unfairly – and that the CIFAS marker was the correct decision, then the case would be lost and the OP would be liable for quite a lot of costs.
As soon as the bank realised that the claim was not on the small claims track, you could be certain that they would invest a lot of money into defending the action – confident that they were racking up costs which would be the liability of the claimant.

So although an injunction would be the ideal situation, it's extremely dangerous. The less risky way to do it is simply to claim for a modest amount of damages and then see what develops from there. Although you wouldn't get an injunction, it might be that the judge would express a view and I think it would be difficult for the bank to ignore that view.
Certainly if a judge considered that the CIFAS marker should not have been applied – then it could open the door to bringing a separate claim for an injunction with a little bit more confidence and considerably less risk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've trawled through the BCOBS material which is a mine field in its self! So, I hope I am the right track. As always, your help and guidance is appreciated greatly!

 

I see below possible causes for action.

 

BCOBS 

a. Failure to communicate properly

 FOS found that Tesco took the decision to place the markers and close the account without ever speaking to me.

 

Tesco have acknowledged that they have not acted in compliance with the GDPR in this case as they did not discuss their concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied

 

Tesco Bank have accepted that this was not fair and have now changed their process as a result in order to prevent any reoccurrence of this issue.

 

PRIN 2.1 The Principles

A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.

 

FOS found that Tesco bank did not carry out a sufficient investigation thus not treating me fairly.

 

Tesco have acknowledged that they have not acted in compliance with the GDPR in this case as they did not discuss their concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied

 

failure to produce the review which effectively recommended that the marker was not placed against you – was unfair. – Tesco have found that “we’ve not been able to locate a copy of this email”

 

failure to produce new DSAR – Tesco response - “a full new DSAR. Under the GDPR regulations there’s no requirement for us to provide you with information/documentation we’ve already sent”

 

 

BCOBS 5.1 Post sale requirements

5.1.1

 

Failure to follow correct procedure and rules – ICO and FOS findings on unfair treatment

 

Notes;

 

Also, I was thinking surely, they should have made the account dormant it was never used and hadn’t been for well over a year.

 

Tesco permitted a payment to be paid out of the account even though the account was unused for a considerable period and had no pattern of funds going into it. Was irresponsible for the Tesco to pay out against what was essentially a dormant account leading to personal data been processed unfairly resulting in a CIFAS being being filed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff.

Have you familiarise yourself with the steps involved in taking a small claim in the County Court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see you can submit it online or a paper copy with a fee dependent on the amount of claim

I have set up an account to do it online or is it better to do a paper version? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always best on line...more secure...cheaper fee to submit......unless you prefer walking to the Post Office and paying postage everytime you have to submit a document...and there will be a few.:-D

 

Andy

  • Like 2

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

As far as I can make out, the only solution left to you is to try and stir it up and the way you would do this would be by starting a small claim in the County Court for breach of their statutory duty under BCOBS.

You should understand that this is not an easy option for you. The bank will rally themselves together to stop this and you may find it rather stressful. It's a rather unconventional approach – and it is pretty experimental.
The idea is that you would bring an action for a very modest sum, say – £50 or something – for the unfair treatment of you in having placed this CIFAS marker on your file – and the way that they have done it.

I can imagine that there would be an attempt to go to mediation and I would suggest that you do so, but your position on the mediation is that you will be prepared to withdraw your action if they withdrew the CIFAS marker and allowed you to reopen your account.
I'm pretty certain that they would offer you the money that you are claiming on the basis that if they did this then they would satisfy your claim and so you had no option but to withdraw. They would tell you that if you refuse to withdraw despite the fact that they had offered you the money that you are seeking, then by insisting on continue the litigation, you would risk being required to pay for unnecessary costs incurred by them – and in fact they would explain this to the judge and asked the judge to award costs against you.

I think I've already explained in this thread that you are entitled to refuse an offer if it is reasonable to do so and your position would have to be to explain to the judge that even though the claim was paid, the unfair treatment – in other words the continuing CIFAS marker and the continuing closure of your account – meant that the unfair treatment was continuing and it is on this basis that you are continuing the claim.

In my view this would be entirely reasonable and this would be good grounds for the judge refusing to award costs against you. However, would depend on the judge and the judge might well take the view that you are trying to sneak a Part 8 claim through using a Part 7 "small claims" process. The Part 8 claim process is a process that you would use to get a court order.
Of course the judge would be correct – because a Part 8 claim is more complicated to bring and the small claims rules don't apply.

However, I would hope that as a litigant in person you would benefit from a certain licence and the judge would be more interested in seeing justice done. In fact if the matter was debated at all in a hearing then you would have to do point out respectfully to the judge that the prime objective is "the interests of justice" and that you are just an ordinary person who has suffered a serious injustice and a serious harm at the hands of the banks procedure.

So, in summary – you would bring a small claim, for a modest amount. Be prepared to refuse an offer of settlement if they won't deal with the substantive issue of the CIFAS marker – in which case you would have to go to a hearing and in which case you would have to be prepared to deal with the risk of having costs awarded against you. If costs were awarded against you because you had refused to withdraw the case on an offer a full settlement of the value of your claim, then your exposure to costs might be as much as £5000 – but I suppose it could be more. It could be less.



 

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's great thanks I will get onto this today. so to be clear i now go straight to the small claims (which i can do online) and I dont need to send a letter prior to Tesco informing of my intentions? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note you must observe the pre-action protocol which means that you got to give Tesco's at least 14 days notice that you are going to bring a legal action.

If this is what you want to do then draft letter of claim and post it here and we will have a look.

One of the things that we will eventually have to do is we will have to let them know that we will be requiring that guy – the guy who recommended that the marker should not be placed against you – we will require that he gives provides a statement and gives evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Letter of Claim

 

I am writing in compliance with the practice direction on Pre-action conduct with regards to the following matter which have arisen between us:

 

On 10th October 2016 you treated me unfairly by placing CIFAS entries against me with the relevant authorities.

  • Tesco Bank have treated me unfairly and not acted in compliance with the GDPR in this case as you did not discuss your concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied. 
  • Tesco bank did not carry out a sufficient investigation thus not treating me fairly
  • Failure to produce the CIFAS review which was unfair.
  • Refusal to produce new DSAR requested 16th March 2021.
  • It was irresponsible for Tesco to allow the account to be used fraudulently on what was essentially a dormant account. The account was unused for a considerable period of time and had no pattern of funds going into it.
  • Tesco Bank have acknowledged that they have not acted in compliance in this case as they did not discuss their concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied treating me unfairly.
  • Tesco Bank have accepted that this was not fair and have now changed their process as a result in order to prevent any reoccurrence of this issue.
  • ICO have considered the information available in relation to this complaint and are  of the view that Tesco Bank have not complied with their data protection obligations.
  • Tesco Bank failed to meet their obligations under the GDPR in this specific case with regard to fairness and transparency, prior to the CIFAS marker being initially applied.

This is a breach of your statutory obligation under BCOBS, which require you to treat your customers fairly and to have regard to their interests when making your decisions.

 

Furthermore, you have breached Principles 4 and 6 of the Data Protection Act

 

I am giving you an opportunity to address these concerns within 14 days. If you fail to do so then I shall see you in the County Court and without any further notice.

 

As a result of these matters I am entitled and intend to claim for compensation

 

In addition, I also claim the that the CIFAS markers are removed with immediate effect and erased from my personal records.

 

If you dispute my claim, I can confirm I would be agreeable to mediation and would consider any other system of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in order to avoid the need for this matter to be resolved by the courts.

 

In this regard, I would invite you to put forward any proposals.

 

I look forward to hearing from you within 28 days. Should I not receive a response to my letter within this time frame then I anticipate that a legal claim will be commenced forthwith

 

Yours sincerely faithfully

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have proposed some edits. Please have a look.

You've been through mediation with the FOS – and there is no point in offering it again. In any event, this is a letter of claim and you have to assert exactly what you're looking for and not give other alternatives.

You have suggested 28 days. It's up to you. Normally it would be 14 days.

Please do understand that they won't respond to this or they will simply knock you back. Once you sent this letter, then you will have absolutely to follow through with your threat. If you don't, then that will be the end of the matter.

Also, once again I have to highlight my morning to you that although we will support you completely and frankly I think that you have been treated very unfairly, you certainly will incur their fury and you may be rather shocked at the energy they put into crushing you.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the edits I will send today with those proposed edits

so to be clear in my head once the 14 days has passed from date of the letter I submit the claim online

 

I am ready for the fight and want to continue I have battled them for nearly 4 years i don''t want to give up now! 💪

 

thanks for the support as always 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you read up on this forum the steps involved in taking a small claim. I'm sorry to say that the question you asked above suggest that you aren't familiar with the steps. It's very important that you become reasonably self-sufficient on this process. It's not difficult and understanding the way forward will give you confidence in what you do.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

these were my notes re the court action I just wanted to make sure wasn't missing anything, 

 

1.     Issue a letter of claim (28th April) giving 14 days before the issue of the proceedings

         Ø  no response by 13th May ----> move to Step 2 or…

         Ø  See what response I receive

2.     Claimant sends a claim form using MoneyClaims online on 14th day if no response (13th May)

3.     Defence or an acknowledgement of service must be filed with the Court within 14 days of receiving the claim form

         Ø  If an acknowledgement of service is filed, the Defendant then has 28 days from service of the claim to file a defence.

         Ø  If no acknowledgement of service or Defence is filed within the time permitted an application for judgment in default can be made by the claimant

 

Note:

When the Court receives a defence it will send a copy to the Claimant, the claimant will have 28 days to respond and you will be informed of this on notice form the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just commenting as this is interesting. Good luck. 

 

Yes your notes look about right. Make sure you account for postage times for the LoC, and court papers delivery.  As the courts do say 14+2 meaning 2 days for postage. Tho if u have a bank holiday it may include another day. 

  • Like 1

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its 19 days to AOS from the date the court claim is raised -  14+5 days service

they have a total of 33 days to file a defence whereby the date on the claimform is 1 in the count.

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

I just said the couple of days as a example as some courts do a first class service others second for postage. 

 

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to start preparing the draft POC immediately. Don't forget, it may well be quite a complicated case in the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@BankFodderi have attempted a first draft POC please can i get your thoughts , am i on the right lines ? I need to add costs etc but at this stage i wanted to make sue i had the content idea right first many thanks as always :-) 

 

Those sentences in red are the ones I am unsure of the wording or what would have biggest impact I have tried to lok for someguidance here but its difficult to find. 

 

 

IN THE XXX COUNTY COURT

 

 

Between

                                                                                                          Lee XXXXXX - Claimant

  

 

 

and

 

  

 

Tesco Bank - Defendant

 

 

 

 

Particulars of Claim

The claimant Mr Lee XXXXX of United Kingdom

 

The defendant is a firm regulated by the FSA under the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 and as such is subject to the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 which requires among other things that firms treat their customers fairly (R.5.1.1).

The defendant is also subject to the General Data Protection Regulation & The Data Protection Act 2018. Aswell as abiding by National Fraud Database Principles.

 

From 28th February 2015 – 11th November 2016 the defendant supplied current account services to the claimant - account reference number Sort code 40-64-20 – Account number 10139362 - subject to contract being the “General Terms and Conditions – Current Accounts and Savings Accounts (including Cash ISA’s) and the implied conditions of contract contained in the Banking:Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 and the Payment Services Regulations 2009.

 

In breach of contract and their statutory duty to the claimant, the defendant acted unfairly in that they:

°       Have not acted in accordance with GDPR regulations as you did not discuss your concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied

°       Have not carried out a full and sufficient investigation as found by the Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

°       Failed to demonstrate enough to apply for the CIFAS marker as found by Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

°       Failed to produce under SAR request the CIFAS review document highlighting the decision to place the marker and overrule a previous decision

°       Failed to provide me with a FULL DSAR request

°       Acted Irresponsibly by not recognising “a sudden increase in spending”, (No previous transactions on the account) and “a payment to a new Payee”.

°       Have not acted in compliance to discuss their concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied acknowledged by Tesco themselves

°       Have failed to follow their own internal process and procedures as in normal in these cases

°       Have not complied with their data protection obligations as found by Information Commissioner's Office dated 3RD July 2020

°       Failed to meet their obligations under the GDPR in this specific case with regard to fairness and transparency, prior to the CIFAS marker being initially applied

°       Failed to communicate to the claimant in that The Claimant was unaware of the CIFAS marker for 2 years

°       Failure to communicate to the claimant giving no opportunity for the Claimant to defend and allegations or assist with any enquires or allow the Claimant to report to the Police

°       Failed to meet the National Fraud Database Principles in particular those below:

* Principle 3: Transparency - Subjects have a right to know how data will be used and how any decisions related to them have been made.

* Principle 4: Lawfulness (Searching and filing) - Subjects must only be searched and filed if they have been legally informed of how their data may be used via a Fair Processing Notice

* Principle 4: Lawfulness (Standard of Proof) - Cases filed to the National Fraud Database must be supported by evidence and meet the ‘four pillars’ of the Standard of Proof. The Standard of Proof Pillar 2 has not been met.

That the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct of the Subject to the police.

 

By virtue of the above unfairness the claimant has suffered loss, inconvenience, and defamation.

 

Particulars of loss

Cost of Telephone Calls - £

Cost of Transcription - £

Cost of Postage and Special Delivery £

Cost of Research £

 

Total - £

Particulars of inconvenience

The claimant has had to spend much time in dealing with the defendant by telephone calls & correspondence.

 

Particulars of Defamation

 

The claimant has suffered immense distress as well as being unable to obtain basic credit facilities, the Claimant has had credit facilities removed and cancelled, Insurance products cancelled and has had to decline job opportunities as a result.

 

 

And the claimant claims £XXX compensation for actual loss plus damages not exceeding £XXX for inconvenience to be decided by the court plus damages not exceeding £XXX for defamation plus exemplary damages as the court sees fit plus interest pursuant to s.69 County Courts Act 1984

 

 

I believe that the fact laid out in this particulars of claim are true

 

 

Signed

 

 

 

Date

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just starting to have a look at this

A huge amount of what you put is totally unnecessary. Surely we can summarise this into a small enough paragraph to allow it to fit into the basic moneyclaim limit?

Also, I don't know where you get the defamation stuff from. Leave it out. It lacks credibility, just complicates your life. Deal with one issue at a time

More tomorrow

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning as expected no reply from Tesco, tomorrow id the 14th Day (due to bank hol)

 

I have taken note of your amends and this fits into the money claim limit.  I have saved the form ready to send first thing tomorrow. 

 

I will go for claim amount of £500 as this only asks for a £35 fee. 

 

anything else I need to know at this stage?

 

Many Thanks 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can we see your draft before you send it off

Link to post
Share on other sites

In breach of contract and their statutory duty to the claimant, the defendant acted unfairly in that they:

·       Have not acted in accordance with GDPR regulations as you did not discuss your concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied

·       Have not carried out a full and sufficient investigation as found by the Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

·       Failed to demonstrate enough to apply for the CIFAS marker as found by Financial Ombudsman service dated 12th November 2019

·       Acted Irresponsibly by not recognising “a sudden increase in spending”, (No previous transactions on the account) and “a payment to a new Payee”.

·       Have not acted in compliance to discuss their concerns with me before the CIFAS marker was applied acknowledged by Tesco themselves

·       Have failed to follow their own internal process and procedures as in normal in these cases

·       Have not complied with their data protection obligations as found by Information Commissioner's Office dated 3RD July 2020

·       Failed to meet their obligations under the GDPR in this specific case with regard to fairness and transparency, prior to the CIFAS marker being initially applied

·       Failed to communicate to the claimant in that The Claimant was unaware of the CIFAS marker for 2 years

·       Failure to communicate to the claimant giving no opportunity for the Claimant to defend allegations or assist with any enquires or allow the Claimant to report to the Police

·       Failed to meet the National Fraud Database Principles in particular those below:

* Principle 3: Transparency - Subjects have a right to know how data will be used and how any decisions related to them have been made.

* Principle 4: Lawfulness (Searching and filing) - Subjects must only be searched and filed if they have been legally informed of how their data may be used via a Fair Processing Notice

* Principle 4: Lawfulness (Standard of Proof) - Cases filed to the National Fraud Database must be supported by evidence and meet the ‘four pillars’ of the Standard of Proof. The Standard of Proof Pillar 2 has not been met:

That the evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct of the Subject to the police.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...