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

Aviva ignored signs of financial abuse by sibling and supported by FOS


Titchytitch
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have had the complaint directed to the ombudsman who has not upheld my complaint,  Aviva have set a policy up in my name whereby my brother claimed he was my husband,  he's made payments

 

all his details, just used my name and address and made me main policy holder, I've not spoken to Aviva at any point they've happily set the policy up, he's reversed all the premiums and now they're holding me liable as its their procedure that anyone can set a policy up, anyone can make payment and anyone's email address can be used, my identity hasn't been verified,

 

a policy investigation was done whereby my sibling has submitted the documents, he's stolen some of my ID and was dealing with V5 certificates online, I never received these but I'm not sure if he's set up a PO box to receive my post, I have no idea the whole policy was controlled by him, the ombudsman has clarified this but regardless has not upheld the complaint and doesn't feel Aviva have done anything wrong , how does this protect me as a consumer this opens anyone up to anybody taking insurance without their knowledge

 

Is there anything I can do or is that it, whatever the financial ombudsman has said goes?

Not only will I have to pay his liability I might also end up with default.  the ombudsman has given me till the 11th May to accept or reject her decision .

 

What happens if I reject it as I don't agree with her decision 

 

Any direction will be much appreciated 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, welcome to CAG.

 

I think we may need more information in order to help you. 

 

Are you saying that Aviva shouldn't make you pay because of the deception?

 

It's not clear how your brother set up a policy and kept you out of things. I have to say that I would be more annoyed with my brother from what you've said so far. Did you involve the police?

Best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

He has done an online quote and then rung them up to set a policy up they asked to speak to me but he said he was my husband and had authorisation. the police were involved and they said that its down to the insurance to investigate so I took it to the ombudsman, I had no knowledge of the policy

 

they are holding me liable on the basis of the policy investigation and they claim 12 letters were posted out to me, I only received the default notices as the online portal was locked and I was onto them straightaway

 

had I received or known earlier I would have contacted them too, i dont see why I should be paying the insurance when its got nothing to do with me and I've received no benefit from it 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well don't pay it then and cancel the policy.

not alot they can do bar trash your credit file, have they?

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

The policy was cancelled, somehow he's reversed all his direct debits back and they've happily given him the money back even though I've said it was a fraudulent policy 

 

They are now wanting the money from me and are classing it as a domestic and saying I should take it to small claims court but I'm liable

 

ive signed nothing, its just my name on the policy he's used but it will affect my credit check and they could take me to court im assuming 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they wont go near a courtroom door 

is it on your credit file?

 

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

could all be paper tiger talk

unless they actually trash your credit file, there's little they can do.

 

why dont you get us upto speed and scan up everything in/out since day one with everyone so we can understand the full story

 

use one multipage PDF only in date order ...please read our upload guide carefully.

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'm sure there are a lot of questions but I have one. Why did your brother charge back the premiums and what happened when I assume you asked him for the money please?

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Titchytitcha couple more questions:

 

(1) There seem to have been several cars insured under the policy with Aviva from December 2015. For all the cars insured since then (a) have you been the legal owner (ie was the sales invoice/receipt or similar for its purchase in your name) and (b) were you the Registered Keeper named on the log book/V5C?

 

(2) Do you know about the claim in 2017? How much was it for? Where did the claims money go?

 

(3) Put bluntly, the Ombudsman believes you are lying.  The Ombudsman believes you were aware of the policy because of the 12 letters Aviva sent to your home, addressed to you, since the policy started. I too am puzzled about how none of these letters ever arrived at your house.  Have you asked your brother if he intercepted them, and how?  You speculate that he might have set up a PO Box, ie a different address, but that would only work if he'd instructed Aviva to change the policy address to a PO Box. Have you seen copies of any of these 12 letters? Did they show a PO Box address?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

He took a car out on a loan with my name so I was the registered keeper , he sold that car without my knowledge but continued to make the loan payment

 

he was then using my details  to transfer the V5 electronically online from car to car and had me down as registered keeper for his cars but he was using my dads address for the V5 . he continued to use my details

 

this has all surfaced once I reported this to the police

 

his latest insurance was nov 2019 with quote me happy who are purely run online , they placed him on the insurance fraud database 

 

I registered myself with CIFAS and had markers put on my dvla record..I received letters from Jan 2020 nothing before that as im assuming letters were sent into his online portal or some other location 

 

They never spoke to me regarding the policy investigation theyre assuming the forms of information they requested I gave them to my sibling when in fact I didn't I dont know the amount or anything the policy investigation only cane to light through the ombudsmans complaint 

 

Due to the stress its caused I was thinking to pay it but I'm more concerned of getting a default as not only am I lumbered with his debt but also a default 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please try and punctuate your posts and insert blank lines

 

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

5 hours ago, Ethel Street said:

@Titchytitcha couple more questions:

 

.....

(2) Do you know about the claim in 2017? How much was it for? Where did the claims money go?

......


The OP needs to answer all of EthelStreet’s (very) valid questions for a reliable answer to be available, but the 2017 claim questions (all 3!) seem the most promising starting point .....

Link to post
Share on other sites

At no point was I involved in the policy investigation

 

apparently a letter was sent out to me which I never received but they are going by the fact he had a copy of my driving licence which he could have had from when the loan was taken out as the dealer and him dealt with the application whilst I saw to my toddler this loan was investigated last March 2020 and was abandoned by Barclays as it was mis sold as the sibling stopped making payments dec 2019

 

Hes given a bank statement which all i can think is the loan statement and a copy of the V5 certificates which he could have had postal address of my father's address 

 

The ombudsman has all this information aviva at no point have spoken to me or verified my identity or had anything to do with me

 

I have no idea what this policy investigation relates to how much was paid out I have no details 

 

Hope this helps answer your questions 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you reject the Ombudsmans decision, on the basis that Aviva cannot evidence that you agreed any Insurance contract with them. 

 

I would dispute some of the reasoning for the decision by the Ombudsman, as they have appear to have taken the word of Aviva in regard to Aviva's processes, where the Policyholder is not present, when the policy is purchased.  The Ombudsman should have asked Aviva to provide copies of their process documents that applied at the time.

 

You might want to consider a Data Protection Act complaint to Aviva about registering any defaults on your credit record, as Aviva do not have your consent to process your data, as you never agreed to any contract with them.  If Aviva disagree about their right to register defaults, then contact the ICO.  https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/

 

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

Thank you Aviva can't even reassure me that if I pay the debt off for arguments sake for the amount of stress it's caused whether a default will be registered they have just said to me there maybe a potential for it to hit my credit report 

 

If I reject am I right in thinking its not legally binding for me and Aviva? 

 They have listened to all calls and im in none of the calls in the 3yrs of the policy not once have they spoken to me or tried to verify my identity 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aviva have no proof of you being a willing  party to this contract and no proof you consented to them processing your data. 

 

Personally I think Aviva have made a complete mess of this and have tried to justify themselves.  The Ombudsman has taken the easiest option, withold properly holding Aviva to account. 

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

That's what it feels like but how do I go about getting out of this mess as I'm not admitting any liability/responsibility they're using the excuse of the letters but hes had a claim on the policy a policy investigation hes taken the money back and when I approached him he said he'd paid its an error on avivas behalf 

 

I had informed aviva that this policy was fraudulent he did the charge backs after I informed them and they happily returned the money to him and are now saying they can't chase him for the money as they can't legally take the money from him ive received no benefit of the insurance 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggest to Aviva that they need to cancel the Insurances and write off any premiums.  No willing consent for the policies in your name and no consent under Data Protection Act to process your data.

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

The policy was cancelled in 2018 so how my sibling managed to reverse charge backs from policies running from 2015-2018 is beyond me they happily refunded him.

 

I havent signed anything they are claiming that they don't need to speak to the spouse or verify identity but nowadays every company you speak to they ask for authorisation from the policy holder before they proceed further, and they are saying im liable have you read the ombudsmans decision 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No futher debate required.

 

Just tell Aviva that the Policies they issued were issued without your willing consent and the data they have processed was and is still without your consent.

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

  • BankFodder changed the title to Aviva ignored signs of financial abuse by sibling and supported by FOS

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...