Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do I wait until I get actual dates or reply saying they are wrong about it not being SB.    Can I fill in set aside form without date as awaiting SAR?
    • 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  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Facebook business


sean110869
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi my wife purchased a chocolate fountain service for her birthday cost 160.00 pounds individual never turned up nor sent refund. Court cost would be 35.00 is it worth doing has any one sued some one from Facebook before is there any issues in proving the claim etc.  Have copies of all messages and proof payment sent. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So no chance of chargeback then.

 

Paying by BACS is not a good idea, we have a steady stream of people on here who have been conned and paying by BACS gives them much less chance of getting the money back.

 

From your description of having copies of all messages and proof of payment it seems you would easily win a court claim.

 

The issue is more if you could enforce judgement against this person.

 

Can you name them and give a link to any FB page?

 

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

Of course it is.  As long as you're telling us the truth - which I don't doubt - there's nothing to worry about.

 

The individual might be known to us.

 

Telling us who it is will allow us to see if it's worth you suing or not. 

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

4 hours ago, sean110869 said:

Hi my wife purchased a chocolate fountain service for her birthday cost 160.00 pounds individual never turned up nor sent refund. Court cost would be 35.00 is it worth doing has any one sued some one from Facebook before is there any issues in proving the claim etc.  Have copies of all messages and proof payment sent. 

 

 

 

 

Hi Sean - not sure who your wife is, if you can drop me a message with details on my mobile number or page so I can look into this for you 

 

Don’t appreciate people posting about my children mt home address etc etc and insuinting I am a scam artist and fake and stolen pictures this is not fair by any means. 
 

if you can contact me so I can sort this as stated not sure who your wife is and this post needs deleting 

any bookings I’ve cancelled have been informed and refunded I’ve been diagnosed with Multiple schlerosis and my health has been effected preventing me working 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure how to use this site bt any means had a message from someone above ^^^^ 

I don’t know who you are Sean I cannot resolve something If I don’t know who your wife is ? 
 

please drop me a message as soon as possible so I can chase your refund that would be appreciate 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have removed the post that offended you.

 

If you & Sean can sort things out between you, then great.

 

I'm sure Sean will contribute to the thread shortly.

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

Hi Dave thank you, 

I did get your message on my page …… least think it’s was you. 

 

Hopefully Sean replies back and can get this sorted asap for him 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • FTMDave changed the title to Facebook business

Any update sean110869?

 

Have you managed to sort things out amicably with BEC88?

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

So sean110869, what's going on here?

 

Assuming that everyone is who they say they are, you asked for help regarding getting a refund from a seller and the seller has been good enough to join the thread and wants to resolve the matter.  So?

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

1 hour ago, FTMDave said:

So sean110869, what's going on here?

 

Assuming that everyone is who they say they are, you asked for help regarding getting a refund from a seller and the seller has been good enough to join the thread and wants to resolve the matter.  So?


inam still none of the wiser who Sean is nor had any contact from anyone in relation to this - as stated I cannot resolve something without knowing who is who, - 

there’s been a couple of customers awaiting refunds but none of the sum of £160 so that rules those ones out. 

 

Refunds are slightly delayed for some people due to finances, I’ve nothing to “hide” I’m honest enough - with covid and no work for over a year, and then my health impacting things it’s been a nightmare thankfully so many customers are very understanding. 

 

There’s the option if Sean wants to go the legal route that’s absolutely fine and within his rights it’ll be paid regardless

 however not much more I can do unless I hear from him. In relation to this matter, which is a shame as I would like to close this thread down on good terms rather than bad and be tarnished, 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Sean, you come here saying you've been conned by a FB seller.

 

The seller makes a huge effort to come onto the thread to sort things out with you and you go into radio silence.  Nowt much we can do if you disappear.

 

It seems that the seller has behaved with integrity and is certainly not "tarnished".  I fully admit that I jumped to conclusions and thought this was a scam, for which I apologise to BEC88 with no ifs or buts.

 

If anyone finds this page while Googling for BEC88's business they will see she bent over backwards to find & refund the customer.

 

Over and out Sean.

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

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...