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

Backdoor Lowell CCJ for BT+VODA telecom debts - N244 Assistance


Recommended Posts

I am about to file an N244 and was looking for some advice. 

 

Lowell filed a back door CCJ on me at my previous address whilst chasing me at my correct address for a different debt. They are also claiming for two unrelated agreements with two separate companies on the same CCJ.  They obtained a judgement by default in November 2020 which came to my attention on 26/07/21 when I checked my credit record. 

 

Particulars of claim

1)THE CLAIM COMPRISES THE FOLLOWING AGREEMENTS THE DEFENDANT ENTERED INTO: A. BT PLC WITH REFERENCE ********* AND CURRENT BALANCE OF £299.51 B. VODAFONE FINANCE UK LIMITED WITH REFERENCE ******** AND CURRENT BALANCE OF £135.92

 

2.THE AGREEMENTS WERE TERMINATED AS PAYMENTS WERE NOT MAINTAINED AND SUBSEQUENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE CLAIMANT.

 

3.AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS:

A) THE TOTAL OF THE SAID SUMS BEING £435.43

B) INTEREST PURSUANT TO S69 COUNTY COURTS ACT1984 AT THE RATE OF 8% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF ASSIGNMENT TO THE DATE OF ISSUE, BUT LIMITED TO ONE YEAR, BEING £34.83 C) COSTS

 

So I need to break down this into a usable witness statement:

 

I did have letters from Lowell at my current address prior to the CCJ but no longer have them. I have emails from January 2021 and subsequent emails in April 2021 and June 2021 where Lowell include my current and correct address. 

 

Realising that I no longer had the letters from pre the date of the judgement, but they had written to me, I called Lowell on a recorded line in relation to a 3rd debt not mentioned in the judgement:

 

Lowell confirmed that they previously had my current address on file, but it had since reverted to my previous address as there was no contact at my current address. I pointed out that I had emails from as recent as June this year where they included my current and correct address. The agent confirmed that they had reverted to using my previous address as of 26/07/2021. The same day I found out about the judgement and spoke to their representatives Overdales. 

 

I believe this is grounds for a mandatory set aside as the claimant had my correct address and acted negligibly by sending it to my previous address.

 

In any event, we had a long history of communicating about the disputed debts over email, I had specifically requested that they contact me regarding these debts only by email.  

 

I wrote to the claimant to request consent for the set aside on these grounds, they refused and declined to give any reason for their decisions when asked. 

 

In case the judge doesn't see the evidence the same way I do, I want to also submit a draft defence. 

 

If you could help me to word the below better I would be grateful:

 

I admit that I have had an account with BT but do not recognise the account they are claiming for. I settled an account in full with Lowell for a debt with BT in 2018 and deny that I owe them any further money.

 

I do not recognise any debt to Vodafone

 

The two agreements mentioned in the particulars of claim are from two unrelated agreements that relate to two separate companies for unrelated products or services. In order to defend each case on its own merits there should two separate claims issued by the claimant, each with their own supporting evidence.  

 

What do you think my chances of succeeding are?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd also appreciate a bit of advice on the process. 

 

Am I expected to provide the evidence for my draft defense at the set aside hearing? Or does that come afterwards? 

 

In order to collect the evidence that I need I will need time to gather the information that Lowell hold in relation to the debt. I have a lot of back and forth emails about a complaint with Lowell for the BT account, they allege that I took out a verbal contract with BT mid term through a previous agreement for "Broadband Equipment" and that I made payments to this account. This is false. I only had 1 account with BT, this was assigned to Lowell previously and I paid it in full. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong with them claiming 2 debts on one claim.

 

unless you have a single email whereby you solely and only stated with regard to debt xxxx please note my correct address is xxxx you stand little chance imho.

 

your mistake was using email.

 

Another to add to your list of..i wish i'd have come to cag earlier issues you have.

 

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

Ah well. I'm going to go for it anyway I think. 

 

I don't owe them this debt and they have admitted they had the correct address on file for me at the time the judgement was issued. So there is that. 

 

I'm also not a clairvoyant, so I don't see how I could have come to the CAG earlier for a debt that I don't owe. They didn't serve the address at the address that the credit agreement was at. They traced me to my current address, then sent it to the one before. 

 

But thanks anyway I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

what i mean is..Youve been a member since 2018. A lot of your issues are since then and you should have known not to ever use email by your  reading up here.

 

If these email exchanges were before you joining...then as i said..its another issue you have that would have benefited you coming here earlier.

 

As for not owing the debts or a defence to go with your n244 be very careful, there are several telecom/mobile claimform threads here that have been won or discontinued using the ofcom guidance of termination fees till end of contract are unfair etc...but once judgement has been issued any paperwork wriggles are trumped by the default ccj.  And ofcourse that still leave any airtime use or return equipment fees. 

 

Interesting one is vodafone uk finance..was this for a new mobile phone and this was finance for it?

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 honestly don't know. I contacted them in 2018 as they randomly registered a default on my file for Vodafone. They said they had information from Vodafone from the point of sale when they purchased the debt that I owed it. I disputed it and that is as far as it went. They were going to take me to court for the BT debt too in 2018, but I settled and paid it in 3 instalments. I don't know where they have pulled this new BT account from. When I query them about it they just said it is equipment charges that I verbally agreed to.

 

I understand I should keep creditors up to date with my current address but unless I send prospective letters to every company who I ever had any kind of interaction with it just won't happen. I'm on the electoral roll at my current address and have been for previous addresses. My bank and other debts know where to send letters, as do Lowell in relation to another debt that I do not owe from British Gas for the same address in 2016. All these debts are coming up to being statute barred from a period of unemployment in 2016.

 

I still don't know what the procedure for the defence is, whether the evidence is required at the set aside hearing or the hearing after the claim is re-brought. I also need to put to the court the fact that I work for a company that's regulated by the FCA and if a review were undertaken by my employer I would lose my job that I have had for the past 5 years. There is some guidance or precedent written somewhere in the annals of legal seagulls that if the judgement has an unintended disproportionate impact on the claimant then it can be removed on the credit file. I don't know how to prove this though short of asking my boss for a letter that says that I'm going to be sacked for informing them, or how to put it to the court. 

 

I'm not doing this to clean my credit file for a mortgage application, or for any other related reason on my credit file, just to keep my livelihood. I would happily pay the judgement and have it behind me, and would have if I had received the forms. 

 

Also it irks me that it is fine for companies to bundle up completely different issues into one claim. What is to stop them just bulk buying 50 debts for some poor bastard and serving them with a mammoth claim. Probably the character limit at Northern Bulk.

 

I'm not feeling sorry for myself here, I've made poor decisions with my finances and owe some debt. This is a debt that I don't think I owe and is going to ruin my life if it is found by my employer. Hence why I am willing to pay the £255 even if the CAG'ers think its a shaky application. 

 

It has to be done seen as Lowell won't consent to it in return for a payment in full. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Backdoor Lowell CCJ for BT+VODA telecom debts - N244 Assistance

lowell didn't register the default voda did upon or before sale, don't forget a debt buyers name simply replaces that of the OC upon sale on credit file or a duplicate entry for the debt appears under the buyers name.

 

the BT debt will most probably be for the return of the router as they charge an equipment fee if you don't return it, the debt you paid would thus have probably been for BB/line usage/calls.

 

as for the N244, if successful, the claimant may or may not request a new hearing after the reset to as if you'd just received the claimform, it's then you could use our std defence here etc etc. 

 

now having the complete picture we can understand why you want to do this but unless you have concrete written evidence you informed lowells of your correct address prior to the claimform issuance nov 2020 on both debts you sadly IMHO have little chance.

 

what is on credit files or where you are registered to vote or pay CTAX is not that neither are emails in the year after the default CCJ

 

to set aside you at least need to meet 2 basic criteria:

1. proof the claimant purposefully filed to an old address when they had been informed in writing of your correct address at the time of issuance of the claimform.

 

2 a very brief defence that outlines why you do not owes the sum claimed.

 

sadly i see neither 

 

 

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

  • 2 months later...

So just a quick update to this several months on. This CCJ was set aside today on mandatory grounds. Claimant couldn't evidence that they performed reasonable checks in accordance with CPR 6.9. So the time for acknowledging service did not expire. 

 

Just in case anyone comes across this from google and thinks it's not possible, it is. You have to show that the claimant had reason to believe you were no longer at the current address, and that you were there to be found. I.e on electoral roll, updated bank and credit file etc. 

 

The burden isn't solely on the debtor to ensure that every creditor from the past is updated if there is a reason to believe you have moved address.

 

There is case law to support this as well, I'd advise you check

 

 

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...