Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
  • 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 ANPR PCN now letter of claim - Berkeley Centre


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1456 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

Good suggestion above – but be measured in the way the you express it or else it will look like bluster. Also at some point early on in the data you need to make a clear general statement that you deny that any contract existed between you and that you deny any liability in any event

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes also check the Prankster for cases where VCS were spanked in court for claiming when Excel were the name on signs, Simple Simon has tripped himself up with this before, claiming are same company .

for example this one

 

https://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/06/vehicle-control-services-have-no-right.html

  • Like 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All - thank you for your contributions - I have been doing my reading up and will come back with the letter - hopefully tomorrow. (that is today now -29th I got distracted in my lockdown studies) 

 

Please could anyone confirm whether the reply form must be used - is it part of the pre- action protocol ? Off to check Civil Procedure rules.

 

 

Dear ....

 

I am in receipt of a letter before claim from your 'litigation and debt department'. 

 

After reading the POFA 2012 Schedule 4  it states that a 'creditor has the right to recovery if all the applicable conditions under the schedule are met'.

 

I acknowledge I am ..............the keeper of ......... 

 

I was not the driver of the vehicle in your letter.

I cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver nor does the speculative claim meet conditions requiring keeper compliance with any said contravention.

 

Do not persist in sending these or any other notices -

 

The Notice to Keeper did not comply with the mandated requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4, namely but not limited to, failure to meet the applicable conditions under the schedule.

 

2 (a) The period of parking has not been specified - legislation requires this - here they only state that parking occurred between two times recorded by an ANPR

7 (c) Description of the charges, the circumstances and other facts should have been made on the notice - the keeper has not parked on this site, no knowledge of the signage can be assumed. There is no explanation of the tariff - this is no guide to the keeper.

9 (5) The NTK has fallen outside the 14 day notice requirement - which means the creditor is no longer entitled to recover unpaid parking charges

 

In addition to the lack of adherence to mandated requirements the following points have also been noted:

-the company (which the keeper does not know or have any contract with) confusingly seems not to be the one advertised on the signs - photographs of which have been obtained. 

 A letter will be sent to the Secretary of State to lodge a complaint and the DVLA will be requested to release which of these companies has obtained personal data - 

This company has sent the keeper a letter before claim with elevated 'charges', which a solicitor would know do not meet the conditions outlined in POFA 2012 schedule 4. This is not the company on the signage. This is a separate company. 

 

Another point to consider -  a driver local to the area might know of this car park, it's procedures and the reputation of the parking company which manages it. A search was able to find an article in the local press earlier in the year where a local driver's duration of stay (not parking) was only slightly longer than on the NTK received, this case was taken to court only to be dismissed by the judge, along with any other cases brought before them with  less than a two hour duration of stay.  

 

Please do not contact me further.

 

Any further action by this company with whom the keeper denies having any contract or liability will be considered vexatious and further use of personal data would now be in breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

(not quite there ...but fell asleep ... back later!)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you ignore their form.

 

and that is far too much detail

 

save the details for IF IF IF it goes to court.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Just condense it down to the three main points  the three line drfence as DX says detail not required yet, it might give them something else to chuck at you IF it went to court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just send the letter at the start of the thread dx posted.

 

The digging you've done is excellent but it's not needed yet, the point at the moment is just to tell Simple Simon to Foxtrot Oscar and see if he crawls back under his stone. 

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks All - I appreciate your input - I was working on this when FTM and BN  posted above. Could you please read and give your thoughts?

 

 

Question 1 - the name on the letter before claim is a X from the Litigation department(perhaps I shouldn't name him on here?) but on your snotty letters you specifically name SRS - what do you recommend I use?

 

Question 2 - An alleged 'outstanding balance' needs to be received by May 3. (I am not paying obviously as I don't admit to the alleged liability and the request is not compliant).This 'suggested principle debt' should be received by a date they say is within 30 days of the date of the letter before claim (should that not be 30 days from the date received?) -  Date on LBC is 3/4, (sent by 2nd class post so not received until 7th May) -  30 days from date on LBC is a Sunday, should I send this out today? I can't see any information regarding dates if a Keeper is not intending on paying a spurious claim. Am I bound by a reply date as the scare tactics suggest that if the alleged outstanding balance is not settled , legal proceedings against the keeper will commence without further notice.

 

I have looked back at some of the threads - a number were linked to ( I'm still getting to grips with navigating the site) - I saw a few 'snotty letters' . By nature I am not inclined to be 'snotty' on paper (only tissues) however I hope that my firm response is indication enough that they should cease communicating with me. 

 

Reply - 

 

Dear ....

I have received a letter before claim from your litigation department. 
I acknowledge that I am the keeper of the vehicle – registration mark …………………….
I deny that any contract exists between myself (the keeper) and the company issuing them – I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day to which this alleged liability refers, nor was I present at the site on that day. 


I draw your attention to The Notice to Keeper for this speculative claim which did not meet the applicable conditions requiring keeper compliance with any alleged contravention.  This did not arrive within the 14 day time period required.

 

I do not approve of your methods, if they continue I will be reporting you to the trade body, the DVLA and the landowner.


Other available points could be discussed in court, but as the company has not met the applicable conditions set out in order to begin a claim, please don’t waste your time or money.


Any further action or communication will be considered vexatious harassment and further use of my personal data would be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
Please remove my details from your system and respond to that effect only.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please reconsider the snotty letter advice. It is recommended because it conveys to the buncj h of crooks that you are dealing with that you have no intenion of paying them. It alos alerts the Judge when he sees the letter, the kind of company he is dealing with if he didn't know before.

Your letter is too polite leading VCS to think you may well pay up and does not inform the Judge, should it get that far, that he is dealing with a bunch of scumbags. One more thing-it is fun to write. The only downside is that they are too thick skinned and plian dumb to take offence. They also know that what is being said is true. So go on, have some fun-you are in lockdown so you need something to raise your spirits.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

use the one in that other thread.....

you are after insulting him …..

not giving away the cards you'll play if he's stupid enough to do court...……...

 

"Address letter to Simon Renshaw-Smith at the VCS office in Sheffield

Dear Simple Simon,

I am in receipt of your LBA but fail to see what the cause for action by VCS is against me as the parking at the site and thus any contractual offer and consideration is with a different company that according to Companies House has no relationship with VCS.

As there is no cause for action this makes me wonder what reason was given to the DVLA for the accessing of my personal data and so invite you to drop this ridiculous claim  before you spend even more of your money on this by way of settlement of  a counterclaim as per VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016.

I look forward to your deafening silence."

 

 

 

 

 

  • 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

I acknowledge I am ..............the keeper of ......... 

 

I was not the driver of the vehicle in your letter nor present at the site on that date.

I cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver nor does the speculative claim meet conditions requiring keeper compliance with any alleged contravention. I deny any contract with the company.

I would strenuously defend any claim against me. 

 

Do not persist in sending these or any other notices. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not insulting...

 

dx

 

  • Haha 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

Way too polite

Dear Simple Simon

As you well know no Locus Standi to invoice the keeper, Land isn't run by VCS is Excel a different company it matters not you are with them both  so your claim is likely to be sucked into a black hole and lost as you have been spanked in court by judges before on just this issue.

 

Looks at ericsbrothers missives, the more insulting the better.

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emma, you're obviously a very sweet person who finds it difficult to be obstreperous, but you have to remember who you're dealing with and what he plans to try to get out of you, without just cause. You need to be on the offensive right from the start, or he'll think you're a pushover! Remember you're trying to avoid hours and hours of preparation for a court hearing - been there, done that! You'll have to take a deep breath and beef up I'm afraid, to try to make this go away. Try to get yourself in angry mode, feel bitter and resentful for a couple of minutes and vent your wrath! I'm only sorry I never had the chance to write such a letter. Do it!

I do like dx100uk's version, and especially the foxtrot Oscar reference which is priceless.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't advise that...should they wish to proceed dont forget they have a right to disclose all documents pursuant to Pre Action Protocol and you wouldn't want a judge to see that from a defendant. ..you lose before you start.

 

Andy

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 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 OTHER

 

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

Sorry Andy , if you are referring to the last flippant comment. I definitely won't put that on!

The being snotty bit is not in me I'm afraid. But I'm tenacious and will not baulk . I just need to get this letter sent out. I have seen the pre - action protocol and that's what has minded me just to be straight to the point. Other snotty letters have still resulted in the same trajectory from what I have read so far. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the letter is to let Simple know you know he has no grounds to claim a bean and ericsbrother's missive stay the right side of tghings so that a judge will see that you know simple is trying it on, its almost abuse of process all the claims PPCs issue on a similar POC, which is why we refer to them as a Roboclaim. Really needs the Courts to join the dots and tolchock (nadsat for spank or hit) the PPCs  That site is well known on here and simple has lost in court before there.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a letter before claim from your litigation department. I dispute the claim.


I am the keeper of the vehicle – registration mark …………………….


No contract exists between the company and the keeper and no liability is accepted.

Your claim is flawed and misrepresentative.

You have no locus standi. 


I deny that any contract exists between myself (the keeper) and the company issuing this letter before claim

– I was not the driver of the vehicle on the day therefore not the user of the site to which this alleged liability refers, nor was I present at the site on that day. 


Other available points could be discussed in court – but since your claim is flawed, I would suggest you reconsider further process and drop your spurious claim.


I have read recent cases of abuse of process and contract misrepresentation - I also understand you get many of your cases thrown out - didn’t a judge recommend you attend court with a toothbrush in the past? 


I would strenuously defend a claim against me. 
Do not waste your time or money.


Any further action or communication will be considered vexatious harassment and further use of my personal data would be in breach of GDPR.


Please remove my details from your system and respond to that effect only. 

Am I allowed to privately contact a forum member? I want my mummy.... @anniebattlemum

 

No offence to any of my CAG helpers. @dx100uk @ericsbrother @brassnecked @Andyorch 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just send what you were told to

 

Dear Simple Simon,

I am in receipt of your LBA but fail to see what the cause for action by VCS is against me as the parking at the site and thus any contractual offer and consideration is with a different company that according to Companies House has no relationship with VCS.

As there is no cause for action this makes me wonder what reason was given to the DVLA for the accessing of my personal data and so invite you to drop this ridiculous claim  before you spend even more of your money on this by way of settlement of  a counterclaim as per VCS v Phillip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016.

I look forward to your deafening silence."

 

stop faffin around being nice

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...