Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Currys online order lost by DPD - Refuse Refund - help


Recommended Posts

I bought a Dyson Cooling Fan online from Currys on 19 Jul, a substantial purchase for me at £339, but absolutely necessary even if it took all my savings. I paid extra for next day delivery.  

 

The 20th came and went - It never arrived. The courier was DPD so I checked the tracking details. It arrived in the local DPD Depot at 0727 on 20 Jul and stayed there - It said “your delivery is being held in the depot” no reason why and no contact from DPD either.  It took me all day to get hold of DPD who checked and rang me back advising me that my delivery is missing! Stolen more like… DPD were not interested at all.

 

I managed to get Currys Customer Services after nearly 3 hours and told her what I had happened and what I had found out. She said she would ring DPD and I had to hold. She came back and said that it was being held in the Depot! Which is what I had told her!! I advised her that it had gone missing from DPD and she was so unhelpful. I requested a refund, but was told I could not have it until the outcome of a full investigation which could take 14 days plus!  

 

This item was urgently needed for medical reasons, hence the reason I paid for the next day delivery, so without the refund I cannot source anything else as I had used all my savings for this purchase. Currys we’re not interested. I have spent hours trying to get help with this issue as I do not believe Currys should withhold my money! The carrier is their issue, not mine, I didn’t engage DPD, there is absolute proof that the carrier received the item and lost it, I have nothing to do with the transit of my delivery at all so why am I being penalised? 

 

They are literally stealing my money. Everywhere I have gone for help has advised me to write complaints and all that rubbish, BUT I have to give them 14 days to respond! I need my money now.

 

What is the point!

Why don’t Consumer Laws actually help us?

Who writes these laws?

How do we get them changed?

 

I am absolutely beside myself will all this and have nowhere to turn.

It has had a severely detrimental effect on both my physical and mental health. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Currys online order lost by DPD - Refuse Refund - help

how did you pay currys - debit card?

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

In any event, your protected by the distance selling regulations.

Send Currys an email and tell them that you are now rejecting the goods under your rights in the distance selling regulations. You are entitled to a cooling off period of 14 days from the date of delivery and as it hasn't even been delivered yet, you are entitled to reject it out of hand and for no reason whatsoever.

Make sure this is in writing – email will do – and then I suggest that you telephone them and confirm that they have received it. Tony get a reference number. Insist on your refund – and as asked by my site team colleague above, how did you pay?

If it was by debit card then you should call your bank and begin a chargeback process. Your bank might try to say that they don't get involved in contractual issues. Tell them that there is no contract because the item has been delivered and you want your money back.

Get a reference number from the bank as well. Read our customer services guide

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your help and advice.

 

I used PayPal to purchase the item and have started a complaint with them but again I have to wait 14 days.  

 

I cannot email Currys as they have closed off all their emails, even though they still direct you to them on their website.

 

I need to buy a replacement item now, not in 14 days.

I just don’t understand how they can hold my money when it is their agent that is at fault!  

I am going to have to borrow some 🥺

Link to post
Share on other sites

how do you pay paypal, was it existing funds then?

 

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

with an existing balance in your PP account or your paypal account had to suck money from your bank a/c to pay for the fan?   you'll get it in a minute i'm sure....

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

PayPal is linked to my bank account. PayPal not able to chase response from Currys until several days from now… which doesn’t help me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so on your online bank statement there is a transaction for the relevant item amount yes.....?

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

3 hours ago, Bellemorte said:

 

 

I cannot email Currys as they have closed off all their emails, even though they still direct you to them on their website.

 

I need to buy a replacement item now, not in 14 days.

🥺

 

You must still write them a letter rejecting the item on the basis of the distance selling regulations. If you can't send it by email then send it by recorded delivery letter to their head office. Make sure you give the reference number of the purchase.

There is no reason why you shouldn't do this and it will reserve your position. It's extremely important because it gives your point and leverage later on because in addition to failing to deliver your item, then also become liable for breach of the distance selling regulations – and that is also a fairly serious matter.

Send the letter straightaway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bellemorte said:

Yes

 

good we got there in the end....

you are quite entitled to go do a chargeback on that payment, paypal never nor can argue, simply tell you bank an item paid via paypal never arrived and paypal are ignoring you. might be the quickest way to get your moneyback

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

I did the letter to Currys but they have not responded. PayPal have also said that I have to wait as Currys have 8 days to respond. They reminded me that they were only an arbitration service… DPD are now saying the tracking number no longer exists… I will contact my bank and see if they can help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter that they didn't respond. The important thing is that you sent the letter and that you have evidence that you sent it so there you have put your marker down and reserved your position.

This can only be to your benefit if you have to take more formal action

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chargeback takes up to 60 days! Why is it that I can be held hostage like this when the delivery company is nothing to do with me!? Their contract is with Currys, not me. Why don’t Currys refund me and then claim it back from DPD?! This legislation has to change…

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chargeback should be instant

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, where are you getting this 60 days stuff?

 

It seems to me that you are holding yourself hostage

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cant be instant ....there is a process that the bank must adhere to.

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

The bank is not telling the truth if they have told you that it is 60 days.

Have you begun the chargeback process?

If you can get them to confirm that is 60 days then tell them that you know that they are not telling you the truth and you will want it logged as a complaint which will eventually go to the ombudsman.

Once you have begun the chargeback, as soon as they have established that the chargeback is valid then they will pay you back instantly.

In your case where the delivery has not even happened so the contract has not been executed then the contract should be pretty fast.

Have you begun the chargeback process or have you merely had a conversation with the bank about it?

There is no reason that you should trust the bank on anything they say. They don't like giving you back your money and if you have simply had conversations with them without actually invoking the process then you have been wasting your time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent. Was that just the application or have you actually had your money back yet?

If you haven't had it back then when did they say you would get it back?

Also, I'm afraid that may not be the end of it because now you will have to be dealing with Currys who are very poor at providing customer service but not too bad about hassling people if they think they are owed money.

If you get any problems from then then make sure you come back here and we'll take you through the next step

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

that link is the USA rules

 

i've done numerous ones with mainly the co-op and it appears to be that the bank initiates immediately and then send forms etc out.

 

as for currys tell them to go do one and go get their product from DPD.:pound:

  • 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

Bank are pursuing PayPal and have not told me when I might expect a refund, but until then they have added a temp payment, equivalent to that outstanding, to my account, which I can use. The refund, whenever it happens, I presume will go to the bank 👍🏻

 

dx100uk - That is exactly what I told Currys to do as the carrier was contracted by THEM, not me, and they can chase reimbursement from them - but apparently that is not how it works… I am shocked that they can get away with it - I didn’t get even a glimpse of my item and DPD freely admitted they had lost it 🤷‍♀️  
Thanks again guys 🤟

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write a letter or an email to Currys and confirm that you have now received a reimbursement from your bank on the basis of a chargeback and that the contract is now definitively closed.
You can also express disappointment, if you want, that you have had to go to these lengths.

 

Lessons here are:

 

Be aware of the various 14 day, 30 day and six month deadlines for various actions and remedies.

Never trust your bank. Double check all the information they give you.

Don't imagine Currys are going to give you good customer service – they're not.

When things go wrong, send letters quickly. Establish a paper trail.

Read our customer services guide and take control of all telephone conversations.

 

Stop being surprised and shocked at the way retailers treat their customers – if you don't, then you will never stop being surprised and shocked.

Take control

Come to this forum quickly.

 

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...