Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My almost ready witness statement ...    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.   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.   Conclusion: 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.
    • I have read that thread. I will need to wait for last date of deferral to get key information to go back to Drydens.   I already asked for them to set aside, they refused but they have sent a message to court suspending warrant of control and put account on hold whilst they answer my SAR. I have also requested SAR to SLC.    
    • you do NOT need to pay it and anyway that would not remove the ccj, its there on your file paid or not for 6yrs, a paid ccj even with a cert of satisfaction is as bad as a non paid one.   the ONLY way to remove it is to set it aside.   sadly you the very worst thing you could have done with ANY debt on your credit file or not that you last used or paid or wrote about to the debt owner in the last 7 yrs....you ran away,,,moved without informing the debt owner of your correct and current address.   erudio and drydens are masters at doing backdoor ccj's. they are ofcourse totally wrong that the defaulted date is the sb date...well not when your last written/signed ack of the debt was more than 6yrs before the claimform date.   now how do you remove it....go read that thread ...carefullly then comeback here and lets see if you understand how.   dx  
    • Thanks, having to move house and discovered this. It's causing a nightmare in trying to rent somewhere and mortgage was also refused by the bank.    Shortly after requesting info I got a warrant in the post from bailifs. Managed to halt that and pause any action till I get key dates to try and get this removed.   Not wanting to avoid paying it, just need the CCJ gone.   Appreciate your help. Will read fully although I am not great with law.
    • Write the letter. It's important that you put this in writing so that you have a paper trail. Send the letter by recorded first class delivery. Explain that because of the defect in the bundle which has manifested itself within 30 days – always refer to the bundle – you are now rejecting it under the consumer rights act 2015 and that you require a refund and you want to know what their arrangements will be for providing you with this. You can also send this by email – but do it straight away. This reserves your rights and after that you have some flexibility as to how you want to act. I understand that they are uncooperative. No surprises. Don't imagine either that they will be fazed by your letter – but the important thing is that you are able to show that you are asserting your rights. After that, they are acting unlawfully We will help you make a claim against them and I suppose that will involve threatening to sue them and maybe even going on to sue them. You will find interesting and you will acquire some transferable skills which will enable you to sue anybody else who gets in your way with a degree of confidence. However, it might be a good idea to mitigate your loss and I would suggest that you accept the money that they have put on the table but make sure that they understand that you are accepting it and you are happy with it and you consider that they still owe you the outstanding £70. If you are asked to sign anything then you should decline and then we will help you claim for the whole lot. However if they don't ask you to sign for anything, then make sure that they have a letter from you at the same time saying thanks very much do for the £250. You are accepting it but this should not be taken as an indication that you are now relinquishing your claim to the rest of the money. Tell us what you want to do – with you want to take the 250 or whether you want to simply reject the lot and claim for the lot. If you want to take the 250 – which I suggest that you do – and if they will give you the money despite the fact that you are still reserve your rights in respect of the balance, then come back here when you have that money and we will help you with the rest. If they refuse to give you the money unless you agree that it is in full settlement, then that becomes very interesting because it becomes very clear evidence that they are beating their obligations under the consumer rights act – and this gives you even greater leverage over them when you decide to confront them. The advantage of mitigating your loss is that there is less to sue for and that means that your court fees will be less – although you will get these back anyway when you win. Also, because they are only fighting to hang onto £70, they are more likely to put their hands up once they know you're serious. There is absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain by taking the money that is available on the table subject to the reservation which I've indicated above.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

John Lewis trying to blame me for TV fault **SETTLED**


Recommended Posts

Hi. I’m looking for some advice as I’m looking now to take JL to the small claims court after they are trying to blame me for a TV fault.

I’m honestly shaking as I type this as I can’t believe the faith I had in the store up until this point, for them to turn around and say they will not take responsibility for something that wasn’t my fault, instead trying to blame us.

 

My TV (costing £800) lost power after 18 months.

It has a five year guarantee and JL sent a local repair shop out to collect it a few days later.

 

I had to chase the TV, but it was finally returned about 10 days later.

Due to covid, I stayed in my kitchen with the children and my partner asked the delivery man if he needed a hand out of the van, which he did.

 

They both entered the house and laid the TV screen side down (as advised) on a double layered blanket.

My partner asked if we could check it to sign the fault repair off and my partner was told he couldn’t stay due to covid and within 30 secs had left the house and driven away.

 

About an hour later, when we had time to do so, we lifted the TV up onto the wall and switched it on.

We immediately noticed horizontal and vertical lines on the screen when powered and a very very small indentation to the screen, hard to see without close inspection.

 

I immediately called the repair shop who tried to blame my partner saying he placed it down on a plug or cable and we’re very rude and defensive telling me to phone JL.

 

JL were originally fine and had my back but then tried to also blame me and although we didn’t sign off the TV, there are no photos of the TV when it left the repair shop and no photos or video of it having been repaired - apparently they still believe we are at fault. We didn’t leave that TV after its delivery and I can be 100 per cent sure it wasn’t us. They can’t be.

 

JL have washed their hands of it - even with members of their own team apologising to me as they can see my side, but have to take the ‘expert report’ filed from the repair team. Their own view of our images of the damage apparently show it can only have been done by the customer - how???

 

I’m so, so upset to be treated like this.

I wouldn’t go to these lengths if I thought I was at fault.

I’d claim on my household insurance, but I can’t, as I didn’t do this damage - they did.

 

Am I right to go to the small claims court?

 

Thanks so much for advice :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome to the forum and I am sure that we can help you but you have posted your story in an extremely long solid block of text.

 

This makes it very difficult for people to read.

 

Please will you repost your story properly spaced so that it is more accessible and you will get much more enthusiastic support for the people who can help you solve your problem.

 

Thank you

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i've spaced the post.

 

dx

 

  • 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

John Lewis is the responsible party here. They arranged or authorised the repair.

You haven't told us what the original fault was.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so it's not a fault related to the screen problem. It would have been helpful if it was.
When I think you're going to have to write a letter to John Lewis and and tell them what has happened, remind them that first of all they agree with you and they supported you and mysteriously they have now changed their mind and they are no longer prepared to support the product which they sold to you on XXX date.

Make sure you include any reference numbers of the repair et cetera.

I think you should say to them that you are considering taking legal action if they won't change the position. Tell them clearly the damage to the screen and the screen problem has been caused by the negligent handling at some point of your television by their appointed repairers.

Point out to them that you did actually refused to sign for the television indicating that it was received in good condition. Point out to them that although you offered the repair company an opportunity to check with you that the television was functioning correctly, they refuse to take this opportunity and left the premises.

Explain to John Lewis that there is no doubt that they are responsible for the television.

Tell them that if you don't hear a positive response within seven days then you are likely to send them a letter of claim.

Presumably you are prepared to bring a legal action. If you aren't certain then let us know. The steps for bringing a small claim in the County Court are well explained in many places on this forum. We will help you all the way.

I consider that it is most unlikely that John Lewis will force you to hearing. You may need to issue the claim papers – but after that I can expect that John Lewis will put their hands up at some point.

Under the consumer rights act you would only be entitled to recover the value of the remaining portion of the normal life expectancy of that television.

This means that if the light of the television it's expected to be 10 years. You have used it successfully for 18 months and that means that you would be entitled to the replacement value less 15%.

However, if you have a five year warranty – it may say that in certain circumstances you are entitled to have a full replacement.

You will need to check this.

Anyway, in the meantime send the letter I have suggested if you think you're prepared to take legal action and then start understanding the steps involve taking a small claim.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you SO much for your response - that has been extremely helpful! I will let you know how I get on. I have said something similar to them this morning and they have quite rudely told me to proceed with the claim, which I have already started to write. I will indeed use your advice. 

I have also reviewed all my Ring device footage last night which thankfully shows the lack of care taken with my TV and lack of protection by the representative. Quite unbelievable that they can even suggest I have done the damage myself. Chat soon - wish me luck.
 

I spent six years working for BBC Watchdog some time ago - we could have done with you on the team! I felt I needed to ask for advice as I’ve been away from Consumer Law for so long now I wasn’t sure what changes were in effect since the Sale of Goods Act. Thanks again!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You said that you were speaking to them – you should make sure everything is in writing. It will only delay things by about seven days so I suggest that you send the initial letter which I have recommended – and it's extremely important to lay down a paper trail.

We can help you all the way including drafting a letter of claim and your particulars. We recommend that you post up letters of claim here so that we can check and also particulars of claim. We tend to find that people become a bit verbose and is not necessary.

On the matter of BBC Watchdog, I'm afraid that we regularly attempt to provide them with information about interesting stories and we never ever receive a response. It's very disappointing – but I suppose they have their agenda and their policies. I sense also that they really don't like referring to or plugging a website such as ours on their programme. That's unfortunate because of course we would like a plug but even if they didn't give us a plug, the whole point would be to get some of the stories out into the public because that is a good way to get companies to change.

If you still have contact with BBC Watchdog then you might like to point them this way and if you ever feel that you have contacts which will allow you to pass information on to them, maybe you'd like to drop me a note to our admin email address and that could be very helpful to us, the people who come to us for help – and maybe even to the BBC.

It's worth emphasising that everything we do here is completely free. We don't make any money – we don't get paid – and we barely meet our expenses. Maybe the BBC has taken the view that were in it for the money – I wish!


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do end up bringing a small claim, you might find yourself going to mediation. Especially with the covid crisis there are a huge number of cases now which you are being settled some way or other at mediation.

If this is where you find yourself then then you can usefully have a look at some of the stories on the sub forums involving postal and delivery services. I'm talking about the cases involving Hermes where so far we have probably helped people to sue Hermes part of delivery on at least 25 occasions. We win every time. That pretty well everyone of those cases goes to mediation and some of the people we have helped have put up excellent summaries of what happened during the mediation journey and you may find it very interesting.

We had quite a number of people now who I have referred to those stories in preparation for the mediation of their cases and they have reported back that these accounts of how it works has been extremely useful to them and given them a lot of confidence.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/183-postal-and-delivery-services/

 

BBC Watchdog could do well to do a program where they describe the small claims process and take people through it – and also take people through the mediation process.
I think it would do the general public a lot of good to see it and it would increase the level of courage and confidence – because I feel that many people are not prepared to challenge companies which let them down simply because they don't understand how it works and they are a bit frightened.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for this.


Unfortunately I left the team some years ago and no longer have contacts there. You are correct in saying people need to be made more aware of their rights and simply need to know what to do next. I’ve been left out in the cold by John Lewis and to be honest that hurts as much as anything having been a loyal customer for years. What you are offering here is an amazing service.

 

I have written up the events in detail, down to timings, dates, case reference numbers etc. I also have emails and reference these in my case. Should I post this here (it includes representative names, which I can delete)? Or is it best to private message this to you? 
 

I really don’t mind if you are too busy to look at this - honestly! I was only ever looking for someone to reinforce in a few words that I was justified in raising a case against them.

 

Thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you post it here as a pdf

please redact names of reps you've spoke too or p'haps just use their 1st name only.

 

if we did everything in private they'd be nothing for the 1000's of people that simply read here and never post.

  • 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

If the account that you have drawn up is in a bullet pointed chronological style so that it is light on narrative then please post it up.

Don't worry about redacting the names of the John Lewis people but you probably don't want any of your own personal identifiers on view.

I don't think we need to see the exchange you have had. Just the chronological summary.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

John-Lewis Claim_V2.pdf

 

Hi I hope this uploads okay. We have spent some time documenting the events and working our way through any video evidence to support our case. Apologies it is lengthy. I am now going to slim this down somewhat for the Small Claims Court (and can post this here), but will hopefully be given the chance to provide full details to the court.


Thank you in advance for any advice you can offer :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

all that is for your witness statement later in the court process.

not what you put in the claim particulars.

 

 

have you sent john lewis a letter of claim under the pre action protocol yet by royal mail?

 

 

 

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

no.

 

you must issue a Letter of claim ..

 

use our search top right

 

type in 

hermes letter of claim.

 

ok you are not claiming on a parcel but many threads there give you the format

 

dx

 

  • 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

:rockon:

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

Please let us see the letter of claim before you send it off.

Same with the particulars of claim.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just looked at the document which you've uploaded. I asked for a chronological bullet pointed account – but in fact you produce an extended summary running over four pages.

It's far too long and it would be much more helpful if you could simply do some bullet points.

We don't need to know all about that the staff of the mishandling et cetera blah blah blah blah.

The Sydney need probably about 10 lines – when you bought it, when it went wrong, who you contacted, what they said, how it is returned, how you found the damage, who have you talked to since then, what has been said in return, – all with dates.

A bullet point chronology would help us and also it would inform anybody else who comes to this thread if they have had their own bad experience and they want to see how others have dealt with it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please find a summary below. I am working on the letter of claim now and will upload here.  Thanks.

  • I purchased a Sony Bravia TV on the 15.09.2019 from the John Lewis store in Southampton, costing £775.  It came with 5 year warranty.

  • The TV lost power on 09.01.2021. John Lewis technical support line arranged for a repair team to take the TV away for repair the following week.

  • The rep arrived on 12.01.2021. He took the TV and carried it to his van for repair at his workshop 20 miles away, but first making other stops on his way.

  • The TV was returned on 20.01.2021. Our home security shows very little protection to the TV in the van.  TV delivered to house and placed on our dining table.  We were not allowed to check the TV repair or sign to say we had accepted the TV.  Rep left swiftly.

  • TV was mounted on wall with existing bracket and found to have very slight damage to the screen - resulting in horizontal and vertical lines throughout picture.

  • Immediately phoned rep who denied all knowledge and fabricated a story that it was damage caused by us. Phoned John Lewis who said they would investigate.  

  • Further phone calls and emails exchanged on 23.01.2021, 25.01.2021, 28.01.2021 and on 29.01.2021 John Lewis decided they would not pursue this any further (having previously told us they would look to compensate) as it is “damage caused by the customer”.  A statement which is false. There is no evidence of it leaving the workshop undamaged, or arriving at our house undamaged and no sign off from us as acceptance of a fully functioning TV.

Edited by Smith1976
Link to post
Share on other sites

thats not a letter of claim

 

far too much details

 

you do not need any history.....

 

simple that they failed to take reasonable care of an item under their control

 

Letter before action

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

On 20th May 2017 your company contracted to transport my parcel and to deliver it to .

 

You have informed me that you have lost the item in your care, and are therefore in breach of your contractual obligations (regardless of your unfair T+Cs).

 

The content of the parcel was a glass splashback and I enclose documentary evidence of the value of the parcel.

 

I require repayment of that sum in full, the wasted delivery fee, and the cost to reclaim the amount (this letter), which amounts to £54.64, broken down as follows:

 

Item Cost

Wasted delivery fee £7.99

Value of item £44.99

Cost of postage of this letter (second class signed for) £1.66

 

If I do not receive reimbursement in full within 14 days then I shall begin a Small Claim in the county court to recover the money, plus interest and without any further notice.

Yours faithfully

 

(Me)

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

  • BankFodder changed the title to John Lewis trying to blame me for TV fault **SETTLED**

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...