Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do I wait until I get actual dates or reply saying they are wrong about it not being SB.    Can I fill in set aside form without date as awaiting SAR?
    • you never deferred to erudio. the debt is statute barred  any deferment to slc would have at the latest been 2012, the date of your last written and signed ack of the debt.   there are 10's of like backdoor erudio threads here already dx  
    • 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  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Lost parcel with Hermes via Parcel2Go


Recommended Posts

Okay. It's the usual load of old rubbish. No change there.

Quite funny that they describe the losses that you are claiming as "consequential losses". They are not. They are direct foreseeable losses.

Also, Chelsea Walton – "our Chelsea" has signed a statement which purports to be a statement of truth and in fact it's not. I suppose it's just a technicality but it just shows how poor they are and how poor their staff are.

Poor old Chelsea Walton.

The next stage will be that you will receive the DQ. Let us know when you get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hey @BankFodder,

 

I hope all has been well. Just wanted to provide you with an update.

 

I received the DQ form and filled it all out. I agreed for the case to be referred to the Small Claims Mediation Service and that it is "the appropriate track for this case". However, I am quite confused. One of the documents I received was titled "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" and the other one was "Notice of Defence that Amount Claimed Has Been Paid". 

 

I am assuming the "Notice of Defence that Amount Claimed Has Been Paid" letter is referring to the £20.00 compensation Parcel2Go offered. Should I just return the DQ form and ignore the other one? 

 

Would appreciate any clarification. All the best. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 Should I just return the DQ form and ignore the other one? 

 

Yes.

  • 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 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

Hi can i know what was the result of claim, did you manage to get your compensation ?

i am in a similar situation sent the laptop via parcel2 go and hermes which is not trackable for 10 days 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/04/2021 at 15:18, reflex-q said:

@BankFodder

Sent off my letter before claim to their claims department. Now it's time to start my claim via https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

 

Just wanted to get your input on my particulars of claim below and whether or not it requires any amendment. Thanks again! 

 

@reflex-q

I am in similar situation and looking for the email address to send letter of claim to parcel2 go, can you please share the email address you used to send your letter of claim thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

Hi @BankFodder,

 

Apologies for the delayed response. I hope all has been well. I had my mediation with Parcel2Go yesterday and went back and forth with them. 

 

Long story short, I asserted I have rights as a consumer to have my parcel delivered with reasonable care and skill as stated in s49 of the Consumers Right Act 2015. I should not have to pay extra for insurance due to negligence conducted by your own employees.

 

Hermes mentioned the usual rubbish as the mediator went through the process of how I did not choose to opt for insurance - mentioning how I dismissed several prompts to do so. 

 

Throughout the mediation, I demanded the full amount and was not willing to settle for less. They were not budging. By the end of mediation, Parcel2Go's final offer was 25% of the total value of my parcel, postage and court costs. What a joke.

 

The mediator said Parcel2Go are willing to go to court as they believe they have "ample evidence" to win the case. I said the feelings mutual, rejected the offer, and the case will now proceed further. 

 

I am awaiting instructions from the court and will be gathering all my evidence in preparation. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Edited by reflex-q
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you for standing up for yourself.

Please monitor this thread for a fuller reply later

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the update.

If you have read through the stories on the forum then you will see that this is a very unusual occurrence. Most of the time the claim gets settled at mediation but we have had two or three claims where the mediation appears to have failed and the defendant refuses to back down and says that they are prepared to go to court.

What is significant about these is that we then never hear about it again.

I have a strong sense that what is happening is that the defendant – Hermes or P2G then reaches out to the claimant outside the mediation but very shortly before the court date and offers a settlement subject to conditions of confidentiality.

If I'm right, but that would explain the fact that these claims simply seemed to disappear and we are never updated here.
If I am right then the defendant obviously decides to try and put additional pressure on the claimant and scare them into accepting some kind of compromise with threats that the claimant will be responsible for costs or something if they don't accept. And of course he settlement is made on conditions that the agreement will remain completely confidential and that is why we are never updated.

If this happens to you and of course it will be your decision as to whether or not to force the issue to court. Also, if this happens to you, you can be confident that if you email us in private, we will not release any details of what you are telling us.

Because the issue here is one of insurance, you should be completely assured that if this went to court and the defendant lost the case because the court found that the insurance was unenforceable then this would be a massively serious situation for the defendant and also the entire courier industry.

Although the County Court would not set any kind of precedent, the decision would be very significant. This is why we think that you have the upper hand and if you wanted to we feel confident that if you are approached to make a settlement then you are in such a strong position and also the dangers for the industry are so great that they would eventually back down completely.

If you find that you are being threatened with costs if you don't settle then you should ignore this. You are entirely within your rights to insist on full payment of your entire claim including costs. There is also absolutely no reason for you to subject yourself to conditions of confidentiality because you are simply enforcing your rights.

The issue of insurance is especially significant in your case because there is a strong possibility that the item which is a highly desirable electronic device has been stolen.

This would absolutely mean that the defendants are demanding that you insure themselves (not you) not only against their own negligence but even against criminal actions of their own employees. This is a gross abuse to try and pass on liability for criminal behaviour on to you.

When some dates are set then do let us know and we will help you refine your arguments. In the meantime do read again the forum stories and in particular the sticky thread which I posted at the top of the sub- forum outlining many of the reasons why the insurance is unenforceable.

Don't forget that the court has a duty to examine the courier contract in order to ascertain if there are any terms within which are unfair and therefore unenforceable. If you are approached then you should make it clear that you will be asking the judge to do exactly this and also you can remind the defendants of the significance for their entire industry.

If they force this issue into court and they lose, then they won't be very popular amongst industry. It will definitely be – Game over.

If you are approached with an offer of settlement then as I have said, either post it here or if you prefer email us in confidence to our admin email address.
 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hey @BankFodder

 

Long time! I hope all has been well with you.

 

I received an update on my claim, a letter titled "Notice of Transfer of Proceedings". The letter informs me of the next stage of my case - it will be transferred to the County Court Hearing Centre. It states that "on receipt, the file will be referred to a procedural judge who will allocate the claim to track and give case management directions". The details of the judge's directions will be sent to me in a notice of allocation. 

 

I hope you can provide some insight on this @BankFodder. What would the appropriate plan of action be? Gather all relevant evidence and start building a defense? I would appreciate your wisdom and knowledge. :)

 

Wishing you all the best. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this update.

This is standard procedure. The case will turn mainly on the fact that you had no insurance. I still believe that it would be extraordinary if they will want to test this idea in court – but if they do, then your entire position will be based on the fact that the insurance requirement is unfair and unenforceable.

Make sure that you've done your reading – including the topic at the top of this sub- forum where I have listed are various reasons why the insurance requirement is unfair.

For the moment though, wait to receive further notice from the judge and at some point you will have to start preparing a court bundle to disclose to the other side.
You probably don't have any documents to disclose but whatever, prepare them and get ready to disclose them. Read our advice on preparing your court bundle.

When you get further communication from the court then let us know

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hey @BankFodder,

 

I hope all has been well. 

 

I received a letter today titled "Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing)". I have attached a PDF of it. 

 

A Deputy District Judge had considered the papers in my case and ordered that it is suitable for mediation. Confused, I called the number on the letter and spoke to someone who clarified that since the case was not resolved the first time via mediation, rebooking another mediation would not be possible and that I should attend the hearing scheduled to take place next year. Weird. 

 

So I guess the plan remains the same right? Appreciate your help. :) 

 

 

Notice of Allocation to the Small Claims Track (Hearing).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is about the third set in recent days of confusing and contradictory messages I've heard about which have been received from the County Court.

I'm not quite sure what to say but you certainly need to take care that someone at the court office hasn't made another mistake and you suddenly find that a hearing remediation is arranged without you having been informed.

By all accounts you were even lucky to have managed to get you to talk to somebody. They are in a chaotic state.

Certainly – the plan remains the same if the information you are receiving from the court is up-to-date and accurate. I don't know where that leaves you but I suggest that a weekly call to the court to try get updates might be appropriate.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing, the representative on the phone was adamant that if a mediation was not resolved the first time, scheduling another one is not possible. I will give them another call to double check and ensure another one hasn't been arranged. 

 

Thank you. :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there not a second page or overleaf to the N157 your upload....It would appear that is in complete and the page containing the directions is missing. ?

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

3 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

Is there not a second page or overleaf to the N157 your upload....It would appear that is in complete and the page containing the directions is missing. ?

Hi Andy,

 

Yeah there is a second page just instructing me that I will need to pay the trial fee of £85.00 otherwise the claim will be struck out with effect from March 2022. Would you like for me to scan and send it over? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please as that is the most important page......disregard the offer of mediation that's simply process and part of the template Notice of allocation.

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

So now follow the directions by date...payment of hearing fee and file and serve your witness statement and documents.

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

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...