Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you never deferred to erudio. the debt is statute barred  any deferment to slc would have at the latest been 2012, the date of your last written and signed ack of the debt.   there are 10's of like backdoor erudio threads here already dx  
    • My almost ready witness statement ...    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.   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.   Conclusion: 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.
    • I have read that thread. I will need to wait for last date of deferral to get key information to go back to Drydens.   I already asked for them to set aside, they refused but they have sent a message to court suspending warrant of control and put account on hold whilst they answer my SAR. I have also requested SAR to SLC.    
    • you do NOT need to pay it and anyway that would not remove the ccj, its there on your file paid or not for 6yrs, a paid ccj even with a cert of satisfaction is as bad as a non paid one.   the ONLY way to remove it is to set it aside.   sadly you the very worst thing you could have done with ANY debt on your credit file or not that you last used or paid or wrote about to the debt owner in the last 7 yrs....you ran away,,,moved without informing the debt owner of your correct and current address.   erudio and drydens are masters at doing backdoor ccj's. they are ofcourse totally wrong that the defaulted date is the sb date...well not when your last written/signed ack of the debt was more than 6yrs before the claimform date.   now how do you remove it....go read that thread ...carefullly then comeback here and lets see if you understand how.   dx  
    • Thanks, having to move house and discovered this. It's causing a nightmare in trying to rent somewhere and mortgage was also refused by the bank.    Shortly after requesting info I got a warrant in the post from bailifs. Managed to halt that and pause any action till I get key dates to try and get this removed.   Not wanting to avoid paying it, just need the CCJ gone.   Appreciate your help. Will read fully although I am not great with law.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Dispute with Vauxhall *** Resolved***

Recommended Posts

I am currently in a finance agreement with Vauxhall that's due to end Oct 2021

A month ago my car developed an engine fault and after sending it back to the original dealership for inspection, they have admitted there is a manufacturing defect leading to an entire engine replacement

Vauxhall have offered a "goodwill gesture" of paying 80% of the repair cost leaving me to pay the remaining 20%

The car is 4 years old (warranty expired last year) and has travelled 32k miles. According to Vauxhall themselves this type of fault shouldn't occur before at least 6 years or 64k miles


My question is should I be paying anything at all, considering they have admitted its a manufacturing defect (in writing) or should I pay the 20%?

Link to post
Share on other sites

was this a new car at purchase?


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

An apportionment in the way suggested by Vauxhall is the correct approach and if it went to court, this is what a judge would decide.

However we need to look at the percentages in the apportionment to understand whether they are offering an appropriate amount.

You are dealing here with a four year old car which has done 32,000 miles which at 8000 miles per year is probably well under average. The big question is what is the life expectancy of this kind of vehicle both in terms of years – but probably more importantly in terms of mileage.

If you can do some research and come back to us and tell us what you think the reasonable answer is we can then help you decide whether 80% of the value of a replacement engine is a reasonable offer.

Don't forget at the end of this you come up with a brand-new engine and no doubt the whole thing will be serviced as well.

Get some ideas as to life expectancy and then we can go further

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the life expectancy of the timing belt - which was where the fault started - is 6 years and 64,000 miles. 

When the timing belt started to fray it lead to swarf particles in the oil, hence the reason for the new engine

The timing belt should not have started to deteriorate before 6 years and 64,000 - this is according to Vauxhall themselves who have provided this in writing 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to base your calculation on the life expectancy of the timing belt at six years – 64,000 miles, that means that at 32,000 miles you should only be entitled to 50% of the cost of the new engine in which case Vauxhall are doing you a huge favour.

However I think that you are making the wrong calculation and it should be the life expectancy of the vehicle – basically meaning the life expectancy of the engine. How many miles could you recently expect the engine to last. Substantially more than 64,000 I hope.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have just had some good news this morning - Vauxhall have just called to say they are willing to pay for the full cost of repair! 

This turned out to be £4,493 (and not £3,134 as previously thought)

Extremely happy with this result plus I get a brand new engine at the end of it


Thanks for your help everyone 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Andyorch changed the title to Dispute with Vauxhall *** Resolved***

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...