Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove 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."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Bizarre Refund Letter including a cheque received from HSBC....Scam ?or dangling a carrot for fishing? confused...


livingthedream
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 307 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

Ive today received the same letter and same amount, but the issue I have is the sceptic in me makes me wonder a couple of things.

 

I had an very old account with HSBC connected with a business account so not relating to me personally, it's a very long story but basically they attempted to get me to pay the companies overdraft, and I have argued the issue ever since. The supposed debt is potential statute barred as far as it relates to something that happened in 2010, however there are also mentions that as it relates to a bank overdraft that 12 years is the limit before statue barred, but i'm not 100%.

 

However the reason I am sceptic, is how does HSBC "apparently" know all my details and more interestingly my full name, account and now my current address (after 3 addresses and current address still not fully registered on credit files). I have remained away from any recorded data as much as I can, I have never corresponded with them, or any debt collector.

 

So is this £25 cheque a fishing exercise to confirm I am who I am at the address I am at? It could be legit and maybe they have had a slap on the wrist and told to compensate a bunch of us I don't know, but after having to play the debt collection game for over 10 years now, I'm aware of every trick possible.

 

Does banking the cheque trigger a confirmation, by banking this cheque, it confirm the name and the address they have are correct, ie they have found me!!

 

Or am I being over sceptic, I don't care about the £25 enough to potentially open pandoras box for them, the wording seems very pushy "simply bank the cheque", "yes please bank the cheque"

 

This all relates to a business account, and is not relevant to me personally, so any compensation should be paid the  limited company which is now gone, so why are they trying to pay me personally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 29/11/2020 at 21:39, theoldrouge said:

Just bank the cheque 

100% genuine 

Banked mine, cleared,

money in account ready for a bottle of something on HSBC for Christmas 

Have written to HSBC requesting details of their "failure "

and will decide on the details of their reply whether to press for further redress 

 

I'd be interested to hear potentially where this goes, the whole thing sounds a little to fishy to me, I don't care enough about £25 in order to open up any potential old wounds! I assume you were also had a debt, and assume you never cleared the debt either, and from the looks of it theres a pattern emerging from all of us who have received this letter, ie there was s debt and none of us settled it

 

Does banking the cheque open up the account again with a transaction and make it live?? just an idea but i'm filing this in the bin along with any other attempt they have made over 10 years

Link to post
Share on other sites

OD SB 12yrs..no.

and it doesnt matter if you bank the cheque, it can't be used as admittance to anything by you

 

 

 

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

It's so grey I don't care £25 enough to even warrant banking it, I found "If you have reclaimed PPI, this is likely to have acknowledged the debt."

 

So by even the simplest of actions in which although you don't directly acknowledge the debt in black and white, the 6 year SB gets reset at the point of acknowledgement, by banking the cheque you are clearly acknowledging the debt did exist and you were involved, otherwise why would you accept the cheque?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OD SB is not 12yrs it's 6, and once a debt is sB'd nothing can unbar a  debt not even a judge.

 

PPI reclaiming does not reset the SB date or your acking of a debt anyway...amongst others, CITI bank tried this on by wanting to pay many successful PPI reclaims to DCA debt buyers as the debt had latterly been sold on. The FOS soon sorted them out on that.

 

you also need to read whole threads, with regards to my earlier post.... should the debt still be on the OC's book and statute barring.

 

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

Have you seen the 2019 case in relevance to acknowledgement of debt, talks a lot about potential of starting the 6 year clock again

 

"In January 2019 there was a decision in the Court of Appeal (Doyle v PRA) that has changed the point at which the six-year period starts for some debts including credit cards and loans."

 

"A good way to think of statute barring is that there is a 6 year timer. This is set running when the creditor has a cause of action. The sand takes 6 years to drain slowly through… at the end, your debt is statute barred.

But if you make a payment to the debt or acknowledge it in writing during the six years, the clock is reset back to start at 6 years again. So if you are making monthly payments, even tiny ones, a debt will never become statute barred as the clock resets back to 6 years every month."

 

For me it's the "acknowledgement of debt" that becomes to grey to risk

 

I'm not normally a sceptic, but £25 isn't worth it for me to even bother with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

HSBC and Santander are to refund more than 115,000 customers after failing to alert them via text when they went into their unarranged overdraft.

 

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has ordered the two providers to pay out, after both broke a legal order requiring banks to alert customers before they're hit with unarranged overdraft charges.

 

HSBC has agreed to pay an estimated £8 million to approximately 115,754 customers. While this works out at an average refund of about £70, the bank says cases will be looked at individually, so refunds could be higher or lower.

The payments will consist of refunds of the overdraft charges, plus 8% interest.

 

29 November 2019

 

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/11/over-100-000-hsbc-and-santander-customers-owed-unarranged-overdr/

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

17 minutes ago, livingthedream said:

For me it's the "acknowledgement of debt" that becomes to grey to risk

 

your debt is already SB'd nothing can unbar an SB'd debt not even a judge.

had you actually owed money to HSBC and they still owned the debt, the refund would have come off the balance not be sentto you by cheque.

 

own thread created.

 

 

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

These letters relate to very historic 

collection/recovery "service failures" concerning current accounts, credit cards and loans

 

I have not had an account or debt with HSBC since 2008

My gut feeling is that it maybe connected to the use of their fake inhouse  collectors 

Payment Sevices (PSB), Metropolitan and DG Solicitory

but I will know more when they reply to my letter demanding details

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Very much as expected 

HSBC is of course doing this to mitigate the fine from the  FCA

Much as Barclays has done 

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/fca-fines-barclays-treatment-customers-financial-difficulty

 

The question is whether £25 to £100 is sufficient redress 

When the facts come out 

this I very much doubt 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've received 2 similar letters with cheques. I used to have a current account, a savings account and a loan with HSBC. 

I've banked both cheques, since the letter clearly states that this is compensation for their sub standard service :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...