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

Unfair treatment by Aviva in fraudulent in application


Titchytitch
 Share

Recommended Posts

Aviva opened an insurance policy because of my brother making a fraudulent application by claiming to be my "husband" the call handler didn't feel comfortable setting the policy up and referred it to the manager who gave permission for her to set it up , a credit agreement was set up in my name with no knowledge of mine and neither did they speak to me but a policy was set up .

 

The policy was set up as me being the main driver brother being the named driver, his email address, his bank details,  his phone number.  He had a claim on the policy the whole policy was contolled by himself with access to avivas portal no correspondence came to me, once he cancelled the policy the portal was locked I started getting default notices in January 2020.

 

Our relationship broke down in Sept 2019 due to inheritance issues and out of spite he put an indemnity claim into Aviva via the bank and reversed all the premiums he had paid . Aviva were made aware of this policy being fraudulent they still happily returned the money back without challenging the sibling or the bank and are now pursuing recovery from myself for the money stolen by my brother.

 

He was arrested on 21/09/21 and is currently being questioned and investigated by the police.

 

This complaint was taken to the ombudsman who confirmed the whole policy was controlled by my sibling, and that aviva have followed a "process" and have done nothing wrong they have set up the policy in accordance with their procedures.

 

@BankFodder

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you send Aviva an SAR?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder yes they sent me a whole bundle but of general correspondence of their changes to policy renewals none of this info came to me it was going directly to the portal by the looks of it 

 

Through this bundle I got call tapes which were only my recordings,  litigation details , details of the solicitor firm handling case as apparently their was a trial date, his wife on 20th Jan 2020 pretended to be me and confirmed my details and then the phone was given to the brother who then cancelled the policy and claimed the money back , this has been passed to the police its in the paperwork 

Dec 2017 he was stopped by the police and the police rung insurance 

 

Other than that nothing else really stood out 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they provided you with data relating to you? This despite the fact that you have never any dealings with Aviva and you have never given permission for them to hold your data?
Is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay this is excellent.

This means that we have a pretty will open and shut case in terms of inaccurate data processing.

I can imagine that this is an extremely distressing experience and by coincidence, breach of data protection rules is one of the very rare areas where you can claim against a data processor to recover damages simply for distress.

I think that we can begin this campaign against Aviva by suing them under the data protection act. How does that sound to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's go for it ! At no point have they spoken to me as the ombudsman had put in her findings the whole policy was controlled by the brother they haven't even completed basic data protection never spoken to me until the default notices started arriving 

I gave them authorisation to speak to my sibling at that point as I had no idea what this policy was about 

I'm happy to follow your lead @BankFodder

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, have you ever sued anybody before?

I can imagine that they will start off by trying to settle your claim out of court. Normally speaking if you refuse to accept their offer then you would be at risk of having to pay their costs even though you would win your judgement because the court would take the view that there was no point in going to litigation because everything you had asked for had been put on the table.

However in this case, because first of all it would be a statutory breach – and secondly, because I would expect that the storage of your personal data would continue even after they settled, I think you would have a reasonable basis for continuing the action and the cost rules are that if there is a reasonable basis for refusing an offer and continuing the claim then the court can decide not to award costs against you.
However it is a risk – albeit a very small one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you start off by reading up the steps involved in taking a small claim. It's pretty straightforward but you need to know the steps in order to be confident about what you do.

Secondly start reading up about data protection. Don't worry about the Act for the moment. Start reading up on the information Commissioner's site and you are looking particularly for references to the necessity for authority to store and process data.

Start understanding the differences between a data holder and a data processor – and what they are allowed to do and what they aren't allowed to do.

I think you need to be fairly comfortable with the vocabulary in order to move forward confidently

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up to you.

You could spend the weekend reading up and then send the letter of claim on Monday – and then issue the claim shortly before you go.

It depends whether you have access to your email et cetera while you are away.

I would be amazed if they failed to respond – but if they did, then you would put in for a default judgement immediately and then enforcement. However I would imagine that they would respond with an acknowledgement of service giving them a full 28 days to file a defence.

This means that you would receive the defence roughly when you returned.

However you would have to be able to keep in contact with the court system by means of email and also with us.

Of course if you wanted then you could leave it for the full six weeks and we can start then.

You decide

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder would you mind if I left it till when I come back I just literally want this break to be a recharge mentally,physically emotionally I've had to go through a lot of distress and not to mention I've not been able to grieve my fathers loss , so I want to use the time away to break off from all of this so I can mentally recharge ready to fight when I get back hope you understand x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course. However I do think that you should spend the next few weeks reading up on the County Court process and also data protection.

No need to go to the data protection act – but lots of summaries around the Internet – and the information Commissioner's website is a good place to start

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder the subject access request generic documentation was posted out no documents are present with my signatusignaturesm so I can't even check how hes forged my signatures 

 

Can I still sue Aviva as I have a feeling Z had been forging my signatures but I haven't given them any authorisation to process my data .

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well presumably if they had documents which bore your signature then Aviva would send them to you as part of the statutory disclosure. The fact that they haven't tends to suggest that he hasn't even been forging your signature and that the whole thing is an outright lie.

If he has forged your signature and if Aviva are holding documents which they believe are signed by you then by not disclosing them to you that puts them in breach of the SAR.

What date did Aviva provide the disclosure to you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder they sent me the paperwork 22nd July.  Could it be hes referring to the litigation paperwork and the solicitors holding my signatures again I had no communication with the solicitors and there's nothing in the documents other than the litigation script and details of the solicitors that were used 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For 99% of general Insurances, there would be no signatures required. It would all be done remote via Internet or phone application.

 

Sounds like their defence is that you knew what they were doing arranging Insurance in your name and now you are denying you consented to this.  Trying to make it a case of one person's word against another's, hoping the Police will not be able to continue.

 

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

@unclebulgaria67 yes I've asked the police to speak to my husband as well in line with their enquiries as hes using my eldest brother who will give a false statement. 

 

I actually felt sick to the stomach last night, he's known for forging signatures im wondering whether he's forged signatures with the litigation and solicitors 

 

Its actually sickening he's bought my late father into this the fact he'll go to any lengths to save himself is just a cule and disgusting reflection of him as a human 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

For 99% of general Insurances, there would be no signatures required. It would all be done remote via Internet or phone application.

 

 

 

Yes but presumably 98.99 of general insurances are taken out by the policyholder and not simply by a named driver.

I wonder how many policies are taken out simply by name driver apparently on behalf of the principal policyholder.

Here by Aviva's own admission, they opened a policy in the name of a person who was not present and who had not directly given their permission and they had basically simply taken the third parties word for it.

32 minutes ago, Titchytitch said:

 

... he's known for forging signatures  ....

 

 

Have you any evidence that he has forged signatures in the past?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes agree that Aviva should not have issued policies without gaining consent of the person who was going to be the policyholder.

 

Aviva staff would have been trained in data protection and fraud prevention, as well as the processes they have to follow.   They don't seem to have followed the correct legal processes.

 

 

  • I agree 1

We could do with some help from you.

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

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell us what form that evidence is in please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that the statement from your system would be helpful, but that's not exactly "evidence".

Evidence would be a copy of the forged signature and also something in writing from the bank or from the police force from some other authoritative source that confirmed that the signature was a forgery.

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...