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

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

  • Andyorch changed the title to Amazon claiming they did not recieve item ?

Topics merged...why are you sending separate particulars ?  Its really not advised or required. 

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

Posted (edited)

Oh Damn. I thought it was needed as there is so little space to write them in the box on MCOL? (Haven't posted yet though, phew!)
Thinking about it, they have the complete story in their Letter of Claim!

 

1. Date of service would be the date that the claim is made, ie - today?

2. Also, On what day did you serve? This is the same as date of service?

3. What documents did you serve? Please attach copies of the documents you have not already filed with the court. - Not sure what I need to attach here?

Edited by craigten
Link to post
Share on other sites

why  didn't you come here before filing on MCOL?

 

you don't need a detailed POC

the rest comes out at disclosure stage.

 

what have you filesd as the POC on MCOL?

 

you really should always be checking here and asking before you do anything...

 

sorry....but you've been here +15yrs and still always make the silly obvious schoolboy errors in everything you touch...i would have thought that obvious fact would have sunk in by now and rather than keep shooting yourself in the foot, you'd by now learned to come here and ask 1st...as we always seem to have to get the buckets and corks out when we see a post by you..

 

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

More you write in the particulars...more you give them to use as a defence...less is more...learn from the DCAs and why they keep their particulars sparse and vague,

  • 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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Amazon claiming they did not receive item ?
3 hours ago, dx100uk said:

why  didn't you come here before filing on MCOL?

 

you don't need a detailed POC

the rest comes out at disclosure stage.

 

what have you filesd as the POC on MCOL?

 

you really should always be checking here and asking before you do anything...

 

sorry....but you've been here +15yrs and still always make the silly obvious schoolboy errors in everything you touch...i would have thought that obvious fact would have sunk in by now and rather than keep shooting yourself in the foot, you'd by now learned to come here and ask 1st...as we always seem to have to get the buckets and corks out when we see a post by you..

 

dx

 

You’re actually a bit of a nasty sort, aren’t you? I’ve seen hints of it before with your arrogant attitude to people who don’t ‘get’ it. 
Shame on you, bully.

3 hours ago, Andyorch said:

More you write in the particulars...more you give them to use as a defence...less is more...learn from the DCAs and why they keep their particulars sparse and vague,

Thank you, brilliant education.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why I’m hesitant to check with you - you just belittle me.

 

also, no shooting in the foot, if you read my post properly you’ll have seen that I was intending to send it....but didn’t, thanks to the advice on here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what have you filed as the POC on MCOL? anything yet?

 

 

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

Yes, the following condensed version:

On 27.1.2021 I contacted Amazon to return a faulty Drone. They supplied me with a returns label & offered me the choice to send it back via ‘Hermes’, which I chose. Hermes picked the drone up & left a receipt.


I contacted Amazon to state that my refund had yet to appear. Amazon replied to say that the Drone was missing so they would not refund me. I replied to say that I used their ‘preferred choice of return’ so the issue is theirs.


Amazon contacted me to suggest I make a claim against Hermes. The responsibility lies with Amazon, I used
their ‘preferred choice of return’.


I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.


The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from 30/01/2021 to 02/06/2021 on £369.00 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of 8%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

However, I included the relevant email exchanges with details such as Hermes receipt code, order number, etc in my Letter of Claim, sent a while ago. Do you want to see that, too?

 

Edit: Crap, it took my '8%' as £8!!

 

Edit #2: I would like help but absolutely hate the idea of someone doing it begrudgingly, hence me trying to do it on my own.

Edited by craigten
Link to post
Share on other sites

we would all like to help but you move forward and always do something without checking...thats all..

 

so you mentioned separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form.

 

so give that 5 days which is deemed service and then you'll have to post the N215 off then.

i don't think you have an alternate now.

 

 

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

Thanks for this. So there is no way to 'undo' the ticking of the 'send additional POC' box, even if it was a mistake?

 

I guess the 'additional POC' could well be extremely minimally additional?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think so.

let @Andyorch confirm..

 

dx

 

  • Like 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

You could but its time consuming and there may be a fee...so you will have to run with it now but still try to keep it minimal...no attached documents and no copy emails etc. You should also send a covering letter to the defendant clearly advising that the enclosed are the extra particulars referred to in your claim form and quote the claim number.

 

You must file an ‘N215 Certificate of Service’ with the court within 14 days of the claim being issued. The certificate of service confirms to the court that you have sent the documents to the defendant. The certificate can be filed by post or preferably by email to [email protected]

 

Include the claim number in the subject line of the email.
The second page of the N215 explains how to calculate the ‘date.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-n215-certificate-of-service

 

Andy

 

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

16 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

You should also send a covering letter to the defendant clearly advising that the enclosed are the extra particulars referred to in your claim form and quote the claim number.

Thank you so much for this. I take it that these 'additional' details can be anything not mentioned in the MCOL POC....so therefor can be very minimal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as the MCOL...but with a few extra lines....which you would have gained if you had not ticked the " serve additional particulars " box. You lose 3 extra lines when you tick the box..

 

 

 

.

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

thanks andy

 

dx

 

  • Like 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

Will do!!

 

Please accept my apologies for not understanding this but please can I ask what the advantage is of not supplying all the data / one’s argument (emails, etc) in the original POC if one then goes on to supply the whole argument later in the process?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Already outlined above...but again

 

The main reasons are common sense ...you wouldn't show all your hand in a game of poker...you wont have any arguments/evidence left to counter their defence at witness statement stage.(stage 2) So your initial particulars sets out your claim and complies with CPR 16 statement of case with the bare minimum facts of the claim and tests the water to see if the defendant wishes to challenge the claim by submitting a defence.

 

If they submit a defence then you must proceed and then moves to stage 2...allocation and disclosure of evidence to support your claim this is where you introduce a more particularised statement with your evidence (the defendant has already submitted his defence so now its too late to alter or add to it).They can try to counter it with their own statement...but by this time your claim should be well and truly solid and too late late for the defendant to introduce anything further.

 

But if you had laid out all the facts in your initial particulars/ separate particulars....the defendant at this stage would be aware of every detail you intended to rely on...their defence would be based on all your details and their chance of defending the claim significantly very strong.

 

Also you are restricted through MCOL to keep your particulars to 1080 characters on 24 lines of 45. and cant physically attach anything to the claim. See Practice Direction 7E

 

 https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07/pd_part07e#6.1

 

Of course you could issue a claim manually using the old N1 but again its advised the process above is used and the best approach in litigation.

 

Andy

 

  • 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 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

Absolutely brilliant. Thank you.

 

Please understand that it must have been 11 years since I raised a claim against anyone (against Halifax, if I recall) so am extremely rusty on this.

 

Thank you for your help. I’ll send the additional (few words) POC tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My updated POC, additional line in red:

 

Further to my Particulars of Claim that you will have received within my Small Claims Court claim via MCOL, here are my additional Particulars of Claim:
 

 

On 27.1.2021 I contacted Amazon to return a faulty Drone. They supplied me with a returns label & offered me the choice to send it back via ‘Hermes’, which I chose. Hermes picked the drone up & left a receipt. I contacted Amazon to state that my refund had yet to appear. Amazon replied to say that the Drone was missing so they would not refund me. I replied to say that I used their ‘preferred choice of return’ so the issue is theirs. Amazon contacted me to suggest I make a claim against Hermes. The responsibility lies with Amazon, I used their ‘preferred choice of return’.

I have raised this point several times with Amazon but they won't directly acknowledge this.

 

I followed your instructions and decided to use your own preferred courier service – Hermes.

Despite following your own instructions for the return of the faulty drone, you have now declined to accept any responsibility and refused to reimburse me. Following my Letter of Claim, I have been forced to issue a claim against you via MCOL.



Yours faithfully,

 

Is this 'additional' extra line OK, please?

Edited by craigten
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm wondering if it might be better to rehash the lot and file the same kind of POC we use for the hermes court claims?

 

@bankfodder your thoughts?

 

i think that one simple extra red line is not enough to tighten down what you require from amazon,. and not leave them wriggle room to buff away to the postal service used, which IMHO might have been the better people to raise the claim against?

 

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

On 02/06/2021 at 23:12, Andyorch said:

Same as the MCOL...but with a few extra lines....which you would have gained if you had not ticked the " serve additional particulars " box. You lose 3 extra lines when you tick the box..

 

 

 

.

 

Thought we had already covered this...your only sending a separate POC because of the error made in ticking the separate POC box which you never needed to do in the first place.

 

So same as your MCOL POC....you can lose the Yours Faithfully...it must finish with a statement of truth and dated. 

 

“I believe the that the facts stated in this separate particulars of claim are true. "

 

Signed 

Dated.

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...