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

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


Titchytitch
 Share

Recommended Posts

The ombudsman didn't come back to me for any final additions to add to the case she just made the final decision without talking to me and the adjudicator didn't speak to me once she was getting the initial investigator to get the information from me 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but I thought it was laid out somewhere on the ombudsman's website that they would come to you with a draft decision and invite you to make final comments on it. Have I got that wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I understand that. You said that before. However you are missing the point that I seem to remember that somewhere the ombudsman's process is described and in that description it says that you will be given sight of the draft decision and invited to make any final comments before the decision is finalised.

Have I got that wrong?
If that's correct, then where is that piece of writing please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder I believe its this bit you want 

Taking your complaint further

If you or the business don’t want to accept what we’ve said, you can ask for your case to be referred to an ombudsman.

The ombudsman will then look at all the details of your complaint afresh, and make a final decision. As part of this process the ombudsman may decide to issue a provisional decision which will set out the decision he/she is minded to make on your case. The ombudsman will then ask both parties to make any final representations which he/she will consider before issuing a final decision on your case. 

Once a final decision is issued, you will be asked to confirm by a specified date whether you accept or reject it. If you accept the ombudsman's decision, the business has to do what the ombudsman has told them to do. This might, for example, include making the business pay you compensation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

I see that it simply says that the ombudsman "may decide"….

That's unfortunate. I thought that the ombudsman was obliged to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but that only happens in the event that the ombudsman has decided to exercise discretion and generate a provisional report.

The asking of both parties to make final representations is predicated on the ombudsman's decision whether or not to generate a provisional report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder ok it's unfortunate thenx

 

@BankFodder I think we were thinking on the lines of the adjudicator didjt look at the complaint afresh she carried on the investigation based off what the initial investigator had been looking at and didn't speak to me but was filtering information through her so wasn't really seen as "afresh"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well if you are happy with the letter, wait for a few hours for any feedback from the others and then send it recorded delivery and by email as well to the independent assessor email address

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we have to start turning our attention to Aviva.

This thread has gone on a long time and I expect there will be more to add

I think that it will be a good idea to start a new thread.

 

Could you please start a new trade with a brief title

Something like unfair treatment by Aviva in fraudulent insurance application

 

Then if you could start off by giving a very few brief facts. We don't need to go through the whole thing we don't need to to talk about the ombudsman.

You simply need really to talk about the fact that they opened an insurance policy because of a fraudulent application by your brother and that the call handler felt uncomfortable but still approved the application.

And now the result is that they are pursuing you for the recovery of the money which has been stolen by your brother

And that he has now been arrested.

 

Quote some of the findings in the ombudsman decision where are Aviva have given their account of exactly what happened.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way you say that your brother has been arrested. Has he been charge?

Does either his arrest or the charges relate at all to the Aviva insurance fraud or are they simply in respect of the other frauds that he apparently has committed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder email from officer this morning I knew about his arrest as his wife rung me threatening me 

 

Morning, 

 

Just to let you know your brother was arrested last night, i'm unfortunately in court today but a very trusting colleague will interview him and let me know what he says. Ultimately he will be released under investigation or on bail and I will send the file to CPS. I'm hoping his house is also searched for any evidence but the fact he has known he was wanted makes me think he may have gotten rid of anything that might incriminate him. 

 

I will be on my emails all day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Bankfodders letter is good.  I will add further posts, but here is what i think so far.

 

Might be possible to add some Insurance regulatory information and also some information on domestic financial abuse.   The FOS are required to consider all relevant information and it appears that they have not done so.  FOS have to follow the FCA rules including ICOBS.

 

FOS staff should be aware of financial abuse and consider whether this was a factor.  Did the Ombdusman ask Aviva about their policies in helping their customers facing domestic financial abuse ?  Did the Ombudsman look into the FOS/FCA policies and procedures in regard to handling a complaint that involved domestic financial abuse ?

 

 

 

WWW.FCA.ORG.UK

One in five women and one in seven men has suffered some form of financial abuse typically at the hands of their partner. Like all domestic abuse it is a...

 

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Section 3 of this link covers the rules that the FOS are required to follow.

 

https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP.pdf

 

DISP 3 : Complaint handling Section 3.6 : Determination by the
procedures of the Financial Ombudsman
Ombudsman Service

3.6 Determination by the Ombudsman
Fair and reasonable.....................................................................................................
The Ombudsman will determine a complaint by reference to what is, in his
opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

Section 228 of the Act sets the 'fair and reasonable' test for the Compulsory
Jurisdiction (other than in relation to a relevant complaint within the
meaning of section 404B(3) of the Act) and n DISP 3.6.1 R extends it to the
Voluntary Jurisdiction.
Where a complainant makes complaints against more than one respondent
in respect of connected circumstances, the Ombudsman may determine that
the respondents must contribute towards the overall award in the
proportion that the Ombudsman considers appropriate.
In considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the
case, the Ombudsman will take into account:
(1) relevant:
(a) law and regulations;
(b) regulators' rules, guidance and standards;
(c) codes of practice; and
(2) (where appropriate) what he considers to have been good industry
practice at the relevant time
  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is very interesting.

It appears that the FOS has a statutory duty. However, it also seems to rely on the ombudsman's own subjective view of what is fair and reasonable and that gives them their let out clause.

On the other hand, it seems that the ombudsman is obliged to make a decision as to what is fair and reasonable based on "all the circumstances" of the case.
That suggests to me that there is a statutory duty to ascertain all the circumstances and if it's correct that the ombudsman hasn't seen the "process" then he is not aware of all the circumstances in which case he is in breach of his duty.

I think that this is very helpful and we will have to find a way to incorporate it into the letter I have suggested above

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ombudsman clearly did not dligently check and consider all of the information that was pertinent to the complaint.

 

I have not even mentioned Aviva's failure under the Data Protection Act.   They allowed a third party to arrange Insurance for someone else, without gaining any consent to process data.

 

Did the Ombudsman obtain call recordings from Aviva, so they could review how the Insurance arrangement was handled, to check that Aviva followed law and regulations ?

 

If the Ombudsman did  not apply the fair and reasonable tests when handling the complaint, they have failed to objectively consider the complaint in the way regulations require.

 

Aviva under FCA handbook Principles for Business states

 

RIN 2.1.1 R 03/01/2018 RP

The Principles

1 Integrity

A firm must conduct its business with integrity.

2 Skill, care and diligence

A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence

 

This is adding to the point in Bankfodders letter, that the Aviva Sales Advisors instinct was that they were not sure they should issue the policy as they were unsure about meeting with regulatory requirements.  The Ombudsman has then not considered properly whether they have themselves met FCA Fair and Reasonable tests,  reviewing the complaint to ensure they have taken into account

 

(1) relevant:
(a) law and regulations;
(b) regulators' rules, guidance and standards;
(c) codes of practice; and
(2) (where appropriate) what he considers to have been good industry
practice at the relevant time

  • 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

@unclebulgaria67 the investigator only mentioned business file and I believe they have heard the calls as they  said he claimed to be my husband as they concluded the policy was fully controlled by Mr Z

 

She also said their was a litigation case from the subject access again its come to light his details are on the end he said I was driving it supposedly went to trial stage but I have no letters or knowledge and it was being dealt with  solicitors no contact with me again his details used , the adjudicator concluded the investigation based on the litigation case I believe 

 

So none of the information was actually taken into consideration as she would have had this info as I got it in the subject access 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we will incorporate these points in the letter but I think everybody has to accept that a complaint to the independent assessor will have no effect on the decision.

They are very clear that they won't interfere with the decision and the best you might get is some bonbons which are really calculated to make it look as if they are proactive and customer facing.

Still will make a good fist of it – but the best thing now is to attack Aviva directly and on that basis, you should start a new thread in the way that I suggested earlier

  • Thanks 1
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder I've just received some update from the police officer Z gave a prepared statement he was specific of the solicitor he wanted which is a family friend who I don't trust so she has further enquiries to follow :

 

-He claims a verbal agreement was made between me and him and my husband my eldest brother and late father were present this is a lie if this was true why would he need to claim with aviva that he was my husband 

- 2nd he is claiming I have correspondence with aviva where I have signed documents another lie I havent signed anything which leads me to believe he has been forging my signatures 

 

police officer has said she will be speaking to aviva and asking them why this hasn't been classed as fraud and for any info 

 

I have asked the police officer to speak with my husband in her line of enquiries I feel sick to the stomach taht your own can go to this extent 

 

Once her enquiries are in she said she will decide whether it will go to CPS or not 

 

please advise if there's anything else i can do 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

@BankFodder have we finished compiling the letter for the independent assessor as deadline is 8th October sorry it completely slipped my mind I know you did one but wanted to tweak it but I didn't get an updated version to send in 

 

thank you 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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...