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

VCS/ELMS PCN PAPLOC now Claimform - residential - Headford Mews, Sheffield, S3 7XL


Recommended Posts

Just a thought about this Excel/VCS mix-up.

 

You could contact the DVLA and see who accessed your data.

 

If it is Excel then that would be a massive blow to Simon.  It would back up what you say that the original PCN was from Excel.  It would mean Excel accessed your data when they had no reason to.  It would show that VCS got your data from Excel, not from the DVLA.

 

I'm not sure as no-one has done this for a while but I think the details here are still current

 

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

HI All

Today i have received the WS from VCS paralegal, not 50 pages but a fair amount. Whats best thing to o, scan each page into one document, redact and post here? Its very confusing they just ramble on and on about the same thing

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes probably our friend wali?

 

 

dx

 

  • Haha 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

It will definitely be full of waffle that can be dissected and challenged

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have used a CTRL C CTRL V WS  plenty to kill their pig with.

  • 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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/09/2021 at 18:15, Hideyspidey said:

they just ramble on and on about the same thing

Indeed they do, cut & paste bilge as BN says.

 

However, that's very, very good news for you.

 

I see that you included Supremacy of Contract in your defence.  This is an extremely-important legal point.  Ambreen has ignored it when talking about your defence.  Presumably she agrees you had Supremacy of Contract.  She certainly hasn't argued against it.

 

It's common sense that residents will at some point have work done on their properties.  What are tradespeople like you supposed to do?  Is there a temporary permit scheme?  There's nothing mentioned by Ambreen and nothing on their signs.  Essentially they're making it impossible for you not to be charged, which is an unfair term.

 

Ambreen mentions a contract.  Can you post that up too?  It's highly likely VCS have messed up there.

 

Anything from the DVLA?

 

You need to draft a new version of your own WS now, try and group the points together as explained in post 146.

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

On the residential Point, there is caselaw to support the contention that a guest can be given the parking right by the resident raed these links, and keep for later if required

 

PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

C8HW2E9Q – UKPC v Miss C, Reading 12/07/2017 before District Judge Harrison Claimant represented by Andrew Gibbs-Ripley, solicitor instruc...
PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM

C8HW3P0T – UKPC v Miss B, before District Judge Jones. 12/05/2017 UKPC were represented by Mr Elfer (not a practicing solicitor or a regul...

 

 

Incidentally team, with regard to Residential Parking I phoned VCS regarding Courier deliveries to apartment blocks they infest, they assured me that a van with DPD, Yodel etc would be invoiced if it had no permit and drivers should apply for a permit to allow therm to deliver difficulty would be car couriers for Hermes and Yodel . Call was recorded.  They also said by inference the postman's red post office van would also be invoiced but that the driver should appeal.......  Obviously y they would fall down in Court with Homeguard V Jopson, but Simon is greedy enough to try.

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work BN.  Can you get the call or at least a tapescript to the OP?

 

So in Simon's world, whenever the OP gets a job it's her responsibility to contact every single PPC in the whole of the country to check if they administer the car park in question and if so apply for a permit.  I suppose alternatively she could cycle there the evening before even if the place was several miles away in the heart of winter just to see if there were signs belonging to a PPC 🤣  Good luck to Simon arguing this before a judge. 

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

10 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

In addition to posting up the whole contract could you please also include the PCNs which should settle the Excel/VCS question. 

There's a problem though LFI.

 

The OP is adamant that the original PCN was from Excel, but they didn't keep it.  The OP doesn't have the original PCN.

 

When they CPR'd Elms, they sent everything bar the PCN, which suggests they had something to hide and backs up what the OP said.

 

When the OP SAR'd Excel they didn't reply, again which ties in again with what the OP has told us.

 

When they SAR'd VCS they did send a PCN, which could easily have been forged by Simon.  The WS will contain a PCN but probably this forged one.

 

I was hoping the DVLA would confirm the involvement of Excel but they haven't replied either.

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

I would also like to know why the had an employee giving out tickets during lockdown.  I was an essential worker,  travelled from Lincoln to Sheffield to move a vulnerable person to a safe place

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case might be the same argument as if a Taxi Driver was invoiced for picking up a customer without a permit as was said in Homeguard v Jopson, there is a presumption that people would be able to stop to pick up or deliver without actually being parked:  

 

 

from Jopson v Homeguard:

 

"20 Neither party was able to direct the court to any authority on the meaning of
the word “park”. However, the Shorter Oxford Dictionary has the following:
“To leave a vehicle in a carpark or other reserved space” and “To leave in a
suitable place until required.”
The concept of parking, as opposed to
stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed
for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it, and perhaps coping with
some vicissitude of short duration, such as changing a wheel in the event of a
puncture. Merely to stop a vehicle cannot be to park it; otherwise traffic jams
would consist of lines of parked cars. Delivery vans, whether for post,
newspapers, groceries, or anything else, would not be accommodated on an
interpretation which included vehicles stopping for a few moment for these
purposes. Discussion in this area left the respondent in obvious difficulties,
from which the attractive advocacy of Miss Fenwick was unable to rescue it.
21 Whether a car is parked, or simply stopped, or left for a moment while
unloading, or (to take an example discussed in argument) accompanying a
frail person inside, must be a question of fact or degree. I think in the end this
was agreed. A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not
be “parked”.

Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant
delivering a case of wine, and nor, I am satisfied, a retailer’s van, or indeed
the appellant, unloading an awkward piece of furniture. Any other approach
would leave life in the block of flats close to unworkable, a consideration
8
which those instructing Miss Fenwick seemed reluctant to accept. I am quite
satisfied, and I find as a fact, that while the appellant’s car had been stationary
for more than a minute and without its driver for the same period (whatever
precisely it was), while she carried in her desk, it was not “parked”.
Accordingly, for that reason too, the appellant was not liable to the charge
stipulated in the respondent’s notice."

 

Judgment can be downloaded from here  its the last case at the bottom of the page:

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

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was hoping that all the PCNs would have been included with the WS as they should. An alternative to the DVLA may be to go back to Headford Mews to see what the signs are.

Also you could put them to strict proof that the signage was VCS at the time and not Excel which is quite normal for both those companies despite it being unlawful for them to do that. 

See this below and include it in your WS since it shows VCS and BW legal lying about the situation. They could be doing the same with you.

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.com/2017/01/vcs-discontinue-another-albert-street.html    this was a terrible case and there were another two or three cases mentioned in thesame post..

 

In addition if you look at this thread  post 3 by Ericsbrother it explains the legal situation between the two companies

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the contract

Ive also attached the photos they took, you can see how dark it is, however i chose to ignore as i understood i had the right to park in the space allocated to the apartment to conduct what was an essential job during lockdown.

 

Yes i guess i was just stupid to assume but for the life of me i didnt think there would be anyone snooping about and that on  a cold dark wet late afternoon i wouldnt get a ticket. (morally) 

 

I saw that there is off road parking a few hundred yards away when i went back to look again in the summer, this is unlit and on a steep hill and i had a ladder. Im not sure what they wanted me to do.

 

They did send the first letter from excel, received just after xmas.

Im still chasing DVLA and also EXCEL.

Shall i contact them again, excel got my SAR request in May?

Vcs contract headford-redacted.pdf

 

here are some photos to show how dark it was too and the original ntk etc

 

i really want to know if they should have had people wandering about during lockdown

jpg2pdf.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it def a vcs bod that clocked you? Or someone paid a backhander to dob people in..i forgot..

 

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

The priority now is to work on your WS.  I've just reread it and 99% of the points are excellent.  The "meat" is all there.  However, you jump from one legal point to another and back again, it needs to be ordered properly as pointed out in post 146.  All the excellent legal points that BN, LFI and you yourself have looked up need to be included.  I see your first draft was two months ago - the clock is ticking.  You are dealing with the most litigious of the PPCs and you need to sit down one evening and counter these vermin and do the WS.

 

Well done on the photos.  There is just one solitary sign, artificially illuminated by VCS, which you wouldn't have been able to see in the dark.  Get that in your WS too.

 

Well done on the contract.  It is not with the landowner.  Also to include in the WS.

 

Yes, chase up the DVLA.  However, I see in their SAR that VCS state that they contacted the DVLA.

 

There's no point chasing up Excel.  We know why they haven't replied to the SAR.  They don't want to send you the messed-up PCN, and if possible they don't want to lie and say they have no data on you.  So you either accept this or you sue them.  You've twice been invited to start a new thread if you want to sue them, and haven't done so, so I guess you don't want to sue them.

 

The lockdown rules changed so often I haven't a clue if it was legal for their bod to be snooping around.  I suppose you could look up what they were in that area at the time you got the ticket.

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

41 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

Was it def a vcs bod that clocked you? Or someone paid a backhander to dob people in..i forgot..

 

Dx

The OP found a note on her vehicle from VCS.

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 contract should not have had the signatories redacted. Now there is no way to confirm if the contract was even let alone validly executed. 

 

Under the Companies Act 2006 the requirements for a document to be validly executed are-

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and 

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

The "Contract" that VCS showed gives no indication of who signed it or what capacity -was it a Director as it should have been  and was it witnessed as it should have been. At the moment there is no way of knowing if it has been validly executed and VCS must be put to strict proof that it has. There is no reason for the signatures to have been redacted other than it has not been properly executed. so you must be aware of the provisions for document execution as VCS will say anything to get out of the situation

 

 

 

Edited by lookinforinfo
Link to post
Share on other sites

im hoping to sue once this is over ( win or lose) , just cant cope with two at once.

Im very confused about the order of putting things down in my ws, its all legal jargon and i apologise, i have FM and brain fog so its a struggle

ive made notes and got items printed out so am on it

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont need to use legal jargon at all. You are a LiP

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

This evening I'll try to sort out the order of the legal arguments in your WS.

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

OK, I've had a go at tidying up the order of the legal arguments.

 

It's your WS, not mine, so I haven't cut anything out except (a) a bit of repetition and (b) GPEOL, as that argument is outdated and isn't valid any more.

 

What you've prepared in very good, just some bits need to be fleshed out more, and the legal points and persuasive cases quoted from post 142 onwards need to be included.

WITNESS STATEMENT(1).pdf

Edited by FTMDave
Forgot to add attachment

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

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...