Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Amazon claiming they did not receive item ?


craigten
 Share

Recommended Posts

So please read the posts and then come back here and we'll decide what to do

Also, when did you send Amazon the SAR and how long ago did they knock you back with their response?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, hopefully you've managed to read around those posts a bit and so things are clearer for you.

Firstly, on the subject of the SAR which apparently Amazon batted back because you had sent it to the wrong department, you will see from the reference I posted that once your SAR hits the company then they have a duty to make sure you go to the right place. Even if there are a number of associated companies, they have a duty to make sure that everybody in that group gets a copy of your SAR and provide you with your disclosure.

It's called "cascading" and this means that Amazon are in breach of your SAR by declining to satisfy and instead telling you that you have to send it to another department.

This demonstrates poor staff development on GDPR by Amazon – and I can tell you that they aren't the only one. We are dealing with virgin at the moment and have just obtained a judgement against them for breach of SAR on a claim for £200 for distress.

On the matter of Amazon's liability or Hermes liability, Amazon are the retailer and you found that the item you return to them was defective and you returned it within the first 30 days. Used their own return system and their own returns label to return it and this means that it was in the hands of Amazon at every step. You followed the directions on the matter and if it was lost by Hermes then it's Amazon's fault for choosing Hermes. Amazon are not allowed to pass the buck onto Hermes.

The second top reference that I posted for you is a case that turns on exactly this point and in fact the OP was intending to proceed against Hermes but we suggested that he would be better off proceeding against Amazon – which he did – and I'm pleased to say that he didn't even need to issue proceedings. Amazon folded within a couple of days of having received the letter of claim. They are preparing to reimburse him over £1800.

Clearly the negligence has been committed by Hermes – but I think it will be much quicker and much more straightforward to proceed against Amazon.

Notice that once again Amazon are trying to duck the issue. First of all they have told you that the loss of the item is not their responsibility and you should proceed against Hermes. Secondly, they have unlawfully declined in SAR and told you that it's your fault and you have to go to a different department.

If you want help to proceed against Amazon then of course we are very happy to help you.

I expect that it will take a complaint to Amazon telling the are not happy with the decisions both on passing the buck to Hermes and also passing the buck on the SAR. I would give them about seven days and then I would send them a letter of claim giving them 14 days.

Whether they will change their mind as quickly as they did on the recently solved case, I don't know but you are only after about £300 or so and Amazon put up their hands very quickly to £1800 so I suspect that it wouldn't be very difficult.

I'm sorry that you waited so long since May to sort this out. Come to us more quickly next time.

Let's know what you want to
.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you address my question as to the date etc of your sar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, your complaint to Amazon should relate to both issues – the breached SAR request and also the failure to reimburse you for the lost item.

If you bring a legal action then I suggest that you would be bringing a legal action in respect of both them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have not been able to find proof of sending the SAR so will tomorrow send a 'fresh' one so can then start my claim.

I hope this is the correct action to start this ball rolling.

 

Thank you for the above advice, Wise words.

Edited by craigten
Link to post
Share on other sites

start keeping proper records and the paper trail of everything you do. You can't win anything if you don't keep evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

start keeping proper records and the paper trail of everything you do. You can't win anything if you don't keep evidence.

Two children away from nursery, two parents working from home full time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, craigten said:

Two children away from nursery, two parents working from home full time. 

I relayed this message to Hermes and they laughed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

I relayed this message to Hermes and they laughed.

Ha ha, give it time. I was relaying modern day issues. Anyone who is juggling all this knows that a receipt for a pick up is not on that priority list.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but 320 quid is a bit interesting sometimes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think you've lost me somehow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

Could you put up the text of the email you received from Amazon please.

Have you got a history of returning things? How many things have you returned in 2020?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, here are the email (mine in bold):

 

Hello,

We have closed your Amazon.co.uk accounts. We took this action because you have consistently asked us to issue refunds or replacements for a large number of your orders. While we expect the occasional problem with an order, we cannot continue to issue refunds or replacements to you at this rate.

If you had open orders on this account, those orders were canceled when we closed the account.

Any digital content that you purchased with this account is still available to you. To access the content, click the “Manage Your Content and Devices” link on the Your Orders menu on Amazon.co.uk.

If you would like to appeal this decision, please reply to this email to reach an Account Specialist. Our Customer Service team can only confirm that we sent this message and help you with technical issues. They cannot reverse this decision or share more details on this matter.

Sincerely,

Account Specialist
Amazon.co.uk
www.amazon.co.uk

 

Hello.

I would like to appeal this decision.

Please provide details of what I need to do.

Thank you,

 

Hello,

As we informed you earlier, we have closed this account. We took this action because you consistently asked us to issue refunds for a large number of your orders. While we expect the occasional problem with an order, we cannot continue to issue refunds or replacements to you at this rate.

After a thorough review, we have decided not to restore your full access to this account. You will not be able to place orders on our site.

Any digital content that you purchased with this account is still available to you. To access the content, click the “Manage Your Content and Devices” link on the Your Orders menu on Amazon.co.uk.

Sincerely,

Account Specialist
Amazon.co.uk
www.amazon.co.uk

 

Hello.

I asked you how to appeal, as your email offered.. Please provide details of how to do this.

All the best

 

I think the thing that frustrates me is a while ago, when I received some 'warning' emails, I always replied to ask them to state exactly what I had done wrong, which items they mean, etc but they never did.

 

Yes, I did return a lot of items, but boy do I buy a lot too. In 2020.....I don't know for sure but over 20? Gosh I bought some stuff, too though. Not small things either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm very sorry that it has led to this and no doubt it will cause you inconsiderable convenience. I'm not sure what to advise here because they will insist on their right to exercise their own discretion as to whether or not you should have an account. And I expect that they do have that right.

I have to say that if we had known that this might happen, then we would advise you to concentrate on Hermes rather than Amazon.

I apologise for this. I think that Amazon is really simply being vindictive – although if you do have a history of returning items then I suppose that this does cause the problem.

I think that 20 items in a year is quite a lot – but on the other hand we don't know what percentage of your total purchases this represents.

Unfortunately you can't even attack Hermes for this Amazon account closure.

Has there been any word from Amazon about refunding you the value of this lost item?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Please don't apologise. I would apologise too, but I really don't think I have done anything wrong. Bit of a grey area here, maybe.

No, nothing from them on the issue. I agree re vindictive.
Question - I have some items that I bought, fully expecting them to last a good duration, such as a £400 drone (upgrade on the crap one I tried to return). What happens if it becomes faulty, etc? It seems like I have no recourse? 

 

I will send that damn DSAR today, might be interesting.

Edited by craigten
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, their ban relates to new contracts. Any existing contracts are already in place and you are entitled to all of the rights that you would normally expect in which are protected by law

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what they say. It's what the law says

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you take it from us that you don't lose your rights in respect of anything which has already been bought. It's simply that you probably won't be able to use their customer service facility, you will have to use an ordinary email or letter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: Just phoned them (on loudspeaker and recorded) and asked what do I do in the event of any of my items purchased becoming faulty being as I would need to contact them for returns labels, etc. They answer was 'you need to contact your local Trading Standards and we will be happy to talk with them' but the upshot was that they refused to acknowledge that I have any rights regarding this possibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Of course this is outrageous and you should ignore what they say.

If you need any help on anything faulty which you have bought from Amazon then let us know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Amazon claiming they did not receive item ?

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...