Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Homer did say not to contact DR+.   If that's all the paperwork you have, sit tight and see if a letter before claim/action turns up. If you get one - and you may not, come back here and we'll help you to write back.    Or if you get more threatograms, let us know and we'll let you know if you need to take any action. In the meantime don't write to anyone and keep any correspondence for now.    HB
    • Hi DX   That is the only info letter I have we can't locate the first letter or original parking fine notification My wife said there wasn't  anything on the car windscreen. Do I ask the DC for the original notification ?   what shall I do just wait until they pursue through court ?   apologies for lack of info  Cancookwill
    • Hello, I've been following this thread and have some experience to share... Stand by for lots of words.   About 6 weeks ago, the engine seized on my car - 10 days before planning to use it for our 2 week trip around the UK!  I searched the internet for companies who could replace/rebuild the engine and get it back to me in time... One company that came up was 169 UK. I called the number and explained my predicament and the chap on the phone (who called himself Lee - I'm not convinced this was his real name) promised that if the vehicle got to him the next day or so, he'd have it done in time for our holiday!. He gave all kinds of reassurances about the types of vehicles they work on, from Porsches etc, even people from Spain taking their cars to him.. All work came through 3rd party websites (how i'd found them too) so you generally wont find reviews.    I was weary going into this, but you got to put your faith somewhere, right? so off it went on a trailer to Essex. NOW... I'd already asked where it would be going and I also tracked it by leaving a mobile phone hidden in the car. Interestingly, the place i was told i'd be collecting it from was not the same place the recovery guy (called Patrick?) told me he was delivering it to..    Anyway, they get the car and straight away tell me that the sump is full of diesel and that my ECU is faulty and its locked open one bank of injectors - causing the failure. All of this is feasible, but it meant that the car would not be ready in time for my holiday  He also tells me the DPF's (i'm sure it only has one, but he referred to there being more) were also completely blocked solid and needed to be dealt with (in this case, drilled and mapped out - which is also illegal) All of these little extras have now taken the cost from £3500 to nearly £5000  - as he was " putting together a special package for me" I tell him ok, i'm now away for 2 weeks so you have a little more time, i'll collect it when i get back.  I call him on the Friday before we travel home, asking how its going... he says "well, we aven't done it.. you said you were gonna be away for 2 weeks" apparently he marked to dairy wrong. So i call him again on the Monday following, I say I want to collect it that Thursday... not unreasonable. He then starts with the excuses that he has loads of guys off sick at the moment etc.. BUT, The car IS in the workshop and the boys ARE getting on with it. I say, OK.. but keep me updated daily as i need to make arrangements to come and get it. Tuesday passes without a word, so Wednesday morning i txt him asking for an update. He called me back around and hour later to tell me that the ECU they sourced for me is also faulty (they tested it before fitting it as they're nice like that) and it has water damage so he has to get another one, but that isn't going to get to him until the following Tuesday - which brings us up to this week.   Everything up until this point has been feasible if not a little annoying, BUT here is where is gets good...  On Sunday i happened to be in Essex on other business so decided to swing by Basildon and see if i could find my car. Knowing where it had been dropped off before the tracking phone died, i had a good idea where to look. And i also had the address of the garage where i'd be picking it up from. Hoping to not find it too easily - after all, it was being worked on on the Monday; Imagine my surprise to find it in the exact location it had been dropped off 4 weeks previously!  I lifted the bonnet - nothing had been touched.  The amount of dust on the bodywork and distinct lack of any hand prints etc strongly indicated that nothing had been touched and it certainly hadn't been moved in all that time. He may well have taken the ECU out to test but put it back, that's easy to do - but there is now way to tell from there that the DPF is blocked without removing it, or having full access to the ECU - which is faulty, remember?  It had all been LIES.  Now i am annoyed, but informed and he doesn't know that i know he's been lying to me.  I spent the next couple of days talking to various people i know and arranged my own recovery to get the car back - even if that meant effectively stealing it back. Long story short, i had it collected and got it back to me last night.  The guy who collected it went to the garage i'd been told i'd be collecting it from - Unit 28 Noble Square( Essex car and Commercial) and asked for Lee... Low and behold no-one by that name works there and the car (and others parked in the same place) were nothing to do with them! but then one guy did say "oh hang on, i think i know who you mean, let me give him a call"... 10 minutes later, 'Lee' showed up.  My man then had to endure conversation with this charlatan, but did glean some information that might be of interest.  "LEE" doesn't directly do any of this work... he takes on jobs, maybe up to 30 at a time and then farms them out to local garages. This explains why nothing had been done and why so many others get stuck in this net.   I was surprised that he was calm and didn't get the hump about me taking the car back, i still don't really understand what the scam is, but there definitely is one.  I think i've been very lucky that no money has been paid, i owe him nothing and i got out of there.  The amount of mental anguish and anxiety this has caused me has been extreme.  Now i'm back to square one, still with a broken car. But i'm only £500 out of pocket (for the recovery each way) and not £5k that it was supposedly going to cost... at some point, who knows when!     
    • Good luck from me as well Dixon, fingers crossed.    HB
    • Last time, the Judge provided me with, I would say, the most amount of time to speak. She started with HMRC, and they moved on to me. Essentially, since HMRC last responded to me (the original document I scribbled notes on), I feel it's right I should go first and just comment on each of their responses.   I'll leave sending that link to them, just in case HMRC then find something against it. I'll just bring it up, and mention the above quotes.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Unknown VCS CCJ - Bristol Airport - Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited . Was abroad


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 108 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Not sure about outing your husband as driver is a good idea still, others will be along soon.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'd agree with that. HB, it might give simple simon ideas.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll have a read through now.  But two immediate things.

 

Firstly, your EVIDENCE section is no good as it is.  You need to refer to the exhibits in the main WS, as for example you have done in (4.3).

 

Secondly, regarding outing your husband as the driver.  Your call.  Normally we would be horrified by this as Simple Simon would rush straight out and sue your husband - but your husband is in Zimbabwe so little Simon can do.  Up to you.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of my evidence is my husbands NHS negative covid test on the same day as his Charge Notice. So it has his name on the evidence - i am happy to keep in his name. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is superb.  You have put a massive amount of work in.  Well done.  Take that Simon!

 

All the numbering is fine too.

 

In (6) change "There is a parking industry-wide period" to "There is a parking industry-wide grace period".  That was probably my typo.

 

BTW, how has Wally got his grubby little mitts on your chat with BT?

 

Moving on to the BT Meet Me complication.  As tomorrow morning is your deadline, phone the court (if you can from Zimbabwe at a rate that isn't exorbitant) or get a female friend/relative from the UK to do so as soon as it opens.  Find out if Simon has paid the hearing fee and also if with BT Meet Me the court will phone Zimbabwe.  Point out that you've already e-mailed the court twice.

 

Presuming you get nowhere have a letter prepared for the judge in Word which can then swiftly be e-mailed to the court and copied once again to Litigation and Wally.  E-mail it to the court with FAO the judge in claim XXXXX hearing on 22 April.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I am the Defendant in this case.  The Claimant issued the claim against me at an old address in England but in reality I have been resident in Zimbabwe for XX years and live at XXXXX.

 

The hearing is to be via BT Meet Me but I am unsure as to whether the Court is able to call me in Zimbabwe with this service.  I have e-mailed the court on XXXXX and XXXXX (mails attached) but have yet to receive a reply.

 

I obviously realise the courts are very busy and over worked.

 

Nevertheless, I really need to know whether the hearing with BT Meet Me is possible quickly, as the only alternative is to book a return flight to England at a cost to me of around £XXXXX.

 

If it is possible to phone Zimbabwe kindly note my number(s) is/are XXXXX.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 

Yours,

 

Tomorrow I have work from 10:45 UK time but will look in half an hour before that for any last-minute necessities

 

I have no idea what effect the letter will have, but am a great believer in making your own luck.  At least the letter will be there for the judge on 22 April and will show you're not deliberately refusing to turn up.  We have had other cases where the judge has discovered the defendant is abroad and has pushed the claimant about it and the claimant has given up,.  A letter certainly can't hurt.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point taken about husband in your case as he is in Zimbabwe, little simon could do, what it does do is highlight that he is suing the wrong person, as the WS will show the judge he is suing you as keeper. he might discontinue, and try to sue your husband at the old UK address, but he's doubly stupid if he does that. Thoughts FTMDave, lookedinforinfo.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have organised for a friend to call the Court tomorrow morning. I  have the letter to the judge ready to be scanned with the evidence attached to the letter ie. 2 x emails to the court and my flight printed plus with it’s cost.

 

I will send off the WS first thing in one email to the court and then get all the evidence scanned in a second email and make sure they go first thing tomorrow.

 

Don’t think u need to see the final WS as have just added reference to evidence everywhere necessary and added that one word  “grace” into the relevant para. So all set unless u think of anything else that needs to change.

 

So very grateful to all of you - donation coming whether I win or lose.  Can’t express how incredible this platform is and how much help it gives.  Fingers crossed and a bit of luck 🍀

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we are pretty incredible - but then so are you for refusing to give in to these absolute charlatans.

 

Yes, the WS and the letter to the judge need to go off tomorrow morning, but I wouldn't do it immediately, I'd wait to see what info. if any your friend can get from the court first.  I promise to look in at 10:15 UK time tomorrow morning.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok perfect - i am actually going to try and call the court from Zimbabwe. Will try on skype first and then normal land line - it appears too complicated to get someone else to do it. 

Family are not as helpful as u lot!  They think i should have paid a long time ago and be done with the stress. Anyway it is not only about me any more - they don’t get it!

Will let u know how i get on tomorrow - thanks FTMDave for being there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting up the PCN. It is not PoFA compliant probably because the alleged breach happened on a road subject to Bye Laws which they are quite keen not to mention.

 

There are several things that make it non compliant the most important being the wording near the bottom of the PCN. In Schedule 4 s9 [f] it explains that if the alleged debt has not been paid by the driver then after 28 days from the date of the PCN, the keeper can be pursued.  But all  this PCN says is that VCS can pursue the keeper only on the assumption that they were the driver.

 

As you were not the driver you can tell them that and there is no need to identify  who was driving. You are signing at the end of the WS that you are telling the truth so in your case the case should be thrown out since they do not know who the driver was and you have averred that you were not the driver. End of story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Superb.

 

I was hoping you would pop in LFI.

 

Zimbird, if there is time, change your current 7.2 to 7.3 and create a new 7.2 based on LFI's post.

 

Your family are wrong.  The set aside fee was inevitable.  After that, the way English law works, costs are already included in the claim.  If you give in, it's £257.  Lose by default if something goes wrong with the phone connection, and it's still the £257 (bar maybe a tenner's interest).  Lose after a battled court case and it's still £257 ... but the judge would most likely add on a tenner's interest but subtract the £60 Unicorn Food Tax.  So it's well worth your fighting Simon.

 

See you in the morning.

  • Like 2

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have just read your WS. Since the WS that you copied from the Law has moved on and I think you should use the new Act coming out next year but with some things already in force. The government has already said that any amount over the £100 is" a rip off" and you could then use that statement to further complain about VCS not complying with the new Act and therefore calling into question their fitness to be able to acquire data from the DVLA.

 

Probably not a good idea to say that your husband has failing eyesight. When VCS lose they could possibly complain to the DVLA that he has been  driving while unfit to drive. 

 

I'll have another read of your WS when I am not so tired.

Edited by lookinforinfo
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

FTM Dave i am so use to you literally writing the points out - idiot proof - so i am not sure in this edit whether i have understood exactly where to put LFI’s additions. (which i am

grateful for!)

I might have one more chance of an edit before 12 noon but i have to go somewhere to scan the whole document which takes time.

Or do u think i could just email doc as attachment and scan the signed page only?

Would save me time, because every time we edit it moves the page nos etc.

If u do edit again, FTMDave could u make it idiot proof 😜

Hopefully we r nearly there 🤞🏼

 

Zimbird revised WS.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

First observation I have edited the pdf to remove your personal address, and reuploaded it for you

Going from LFI's comments on the Charge Notice, might well be better to drop all reference to your husband as the driver, chabnge to The driver, did, no need to know who are what relationship to you the driver is.  It removes the possibility of simon stupidly pursuing your husband at the old address  otherwisde its looking good, I'm sure FTMDave and LFI will help any last minute tweaks.  You have a great basis there to see Simon off and give him a good tolchocking (Nadsat for a good thrashing).

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brassnecked thank you for that - i will move all mention of my husband in the WS, except in the evidence as it proves he had a pcr test that day.

I await any further tweaks when FTMDave has a look.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to out him as the driver, either that way, the fact the driver stopped in a place for 37 seconds on a road that is not Relevant land is a different fact to your husband needing a Covid test to fly

Likely FTMDave will be along soon.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok my sons girlfriend phoned the court and she got one response and i skyped the court and got another.

Basically VCS have paid the court fee mid March.  So we r all go.

The lady i spoke to believed at the court said as long as i gave the international dialling code BTMeet Me should have no issue.  However my son’s gfriend said her operator thought it could potentially be an issue and suggested we got it in writing from the court - we should not just take anyone’s word for it.  Good advice.

Waiting now for FTMDave to give the fjnal green light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done.

 

So e-mail the WS to the court and CC to both Litigation and Wally.  Obviously click on the "return receipt" option.  In fact do the whole operation twice - the courts are overworked and lose mails, plus recently we've seen a nasty tactic from Simon of pretending to have not received WSs.

 

Then separately a letter to the judge -

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I am the Defendant in this case.  The Claimant issued the claim against me at an old address in England but in reality I have been resident in Zimbabwe for XX years and live at XXXXX.

 

The hearing is to be via BT Meet Me but I am unsure as to whether the Court is able to call me in Zimbabwe with this service.  I have e-mailed the court on XXXXX and XXXXX (mails attached) but have yet to receive a reply.  Today I called the court twice and was given contrasting information.  I was advised to request confirmation in writing from the court.

 

I obviously realise the courts are very busy and over worked.

 

Nevertheless, I really need to know whether the hearing with BT Meet Me is possible quickly, as the only alternative is to book a return flight to England at a cost to me of around £XXXXX.

 

If it is possible to phone Zimbabwe kindly note my number(s) is/are XXXXX.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

 

Yours,

 

Write "FAO the judge in claim XXXXX hearing on 22 April" in the subject tit3e, copy to Litigation and Wally, and send it twice.

 

Give me a minute re the changes suggested by LFI.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you have time make these changes to (7) -


7. No Keeper Liability:

 

7.1. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity the Claimant believes the Defendant is liable but states that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.


7.2. In fact the Claimant is suing the wrong person, the Defendant was not the driver of the vehicle and the Claimant has not established keeper liability under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The Act allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle but 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 road in question is a public road, not a private car park, and is subject to the Road Traffic Act and Bristol Airport bye-laws.

 

7.3. In Schedule 4 s9 [f] of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 it is stated that if the alleged debt has not been paid by the driver then after 28 days from the date of the PCN, the keeper can be pursued.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with this requirement, it merely states that VCS can pursue the keeper only on the assumption that they were the driver.  I was not the driver.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this to 11.1 -

 

11.1. As well as the original £100 parking charge and £110 allowed court/legal costs, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £60 described as “Debt Recovery charge”.  The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 limits the amount that parking companies can claim to £100.  Government ministers and government web pages that explain the new law refer to any amount over £100 as "a rip off".

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zimbird I am sorry I came to your thread late. However it is vital for your case that you get across that VCS are pursuing the wrong person. You as the keeper are not liable as the event happened on non relevant land so because PoFA does not apply then VCS can only pursue the driver. As you were not the driver they cannot pursue you.  

 

I

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...