Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
    • What makes you say that?  I have no idea how I would go about that or why they would even entertain discussions now that they've won the Court case
    • Our main Equity Partner, Cabot Square Capital invests 
    • Yes it’s the garage and warranty company. And then my husband forwarded me the email. 
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

VCS Spycar PCN Claimform - no stopping JLA Liverpool Airport


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 709 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

You dont mediate as you have nothing to meditate over, the claimant is not the party that should be bringing a byelaw infraction claim and not in a civil county court.

 

dont forget 3 copies and dont give the fleecers your email,phone,sig on their copy

 

Dx

  • Like 1

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

For your records as proof you sent rhem 

 

Dx

  • Like 1

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...

Good morning everyone,

 

So I got my case has been allocated to small claims court. Hearing is on July. I need to submit my WS before 17/05/2022. Later on I will upload first draft. I was just wondering, when I will receive VCS Witness statement. Do I need to send them my WS as well? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually Simple Simon's WSs are sent to the defendant a few days before the deadline.

 

Yes, please upload a first draft of yours when you get time.

 

You will need to send yours both to the court and to Simon.

 

Can you please upload the order you got from the court just to be on the safe side?

  • Like 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

What you've prepared is magnificent - well done.

 

Great detective work to find the BPA logo on Simon's contract!

 

I like the way you have put a line through paragraphs which at the moment aren't relevant, but you haven't chucked them completely, as they may well become relevant when VCS's WS turns up.

 

There is a slight typo in (8.1) where you put in a sub paragraph heading 8.1.1 which isn't needed.

 

As the government's Code of Practice is starting to kick in now I'm wondering if the whole of your (9.12) page should be moved to the start of the ABUSE OF PROCESS section between the current (9) and (9.1).

 

If you agree slightly change the current (9.1) so the legal arguments have a logical flow to

 

Even before publication of the government's Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges.  PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.

 

Wherever you put the current (9.12) page, toughen it up.  Put the current (9.12.3) in bold.  That's the bit about made-up charges.

 

Change the current (9.12) to -

 

As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-parking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice) .

 

- as I think it's important to emphasise there is an act of parliament and the government involved, not just an MP.

 

Is it worth a separate section about bye-laws having precedence over the antics of a private parking company?

 

Whatever little tweaks are made or not made you've produced a cracking WS.

  • Thanks 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

Absolutely superb, it gives Simon no wriggle room to challenge, with FTMDave's suggestions it should firm it up nicely.

  • Thanks 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

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

That is a very comprehensive WS. Well done. But there are items that you can do which may help you further. For instance instead of using 9.2 to point out what you have basically stated in your preamble and 9.1, by exchanging it for the new Private Code of Practice  section 9 below this backs up PoFA  Sch 4 s4[5] to reinforce the will of Parliament. [It also knocks out the possible use by VCS in their WS that some Judges have disagreed about the extra charges being double recovery. ]

9. Escalation of cost

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

There can be no doubt now that those Judges were wrong [to be fair they are Judges who don't usually adjudicate on parking matters so unaware of the deviousness of many parking operators who the Government have labelled as rogues.] It also means that VCS are well aware that the maximum they can charge is £100 yet they continue to add fictitious unlawful figures to the alleged debt. And they then continue to aver that they are telling the truth while ripping off motorists who do not have access to  the Acts that cover parking.

 

The Codes of Conduct of both BPA and IPC expect that their members comply with all necessary laws relating to the running of their businesses. Yet they frequently  ignore the necessity to provide planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras. And yet hey know it is necessary since without the permission their signs are not unlawful but illegal. This has been confirmed by the Private Parking Code of Practice February 2022

14 

[g] g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs

Yet still VCS does not have planning permission at the airport. These are the rogues that the new Act is aimed at. The punishment is that they will be banned from accessing the DVLA data. A move long overdue for a company that "loses" so many Witness Statements in an attempt to get Judges to dismiss therefore the Witness Statement of the defendant. It has happened quite frequently in the past few months which if the Witness Statements haven't actually been lost, would represent a serious breach of Court procedures.

 

I would also draw the attention of the Judge to the following part of the new Act

 

F.3 Appeals

In considering appeals parking operators must recognise the following as mitigating circumstances warranting cancellation of a parking charge, subject to evidence being provided:

g) where the parking operator has breached an obligation in this Code relating to the issue of a notice of parking charge, or such that the driver was unable to adhere to the relevant obligations.

 

If you hammer home those points [and add to them if you wish it may be that VCS will not go ahead with your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning everyone

 

I would really thank you very much for words of appreciation. To be honest I used whole body of @Flamjam Witness Statement, and added some small bits of pieces. I also tried to approach this as best as I can. 

 

@FTMDave I have amended those parts which you mentioned in your last post. Posting soon

@brassnecked Thank you very much

@lookinforinfo Thank you mate. I am trying find the source where you got Section 9 with comments, and with F.3 Section. Is it on gov site?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Thanks 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

That part of the Code Of practice should now be the defacto challenge to the Unicorn Food Taxes added, it avoids as LFI indicates any PPC wriggling around a Double Recovery argument.

  • Thanks 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

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've just had a quick scroll through the thread and realised we've forgotten about interest.  So after the ABUSE OF PROCESS section.

 

INTEREST

 

10.  The Claimant's invoice was issued in April 2018 and their county court claim in January 2022.  It is unreasonable to delay litigation for nearly four years and claim almost four years' interest. 

  • Thanks 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

I forgot to ask. Should I include it in my WS, chronological order of events? I mean should I write down - why I stopped? Unfortunately, unconsciously I admitted that I have been driving during that event on my appeal back in 2018. The reason was - car has broken down.

Following @lookinforinfo advice to include Section F.3 Appeals, I would like to emphasise my case. but that would mean simultaneously admitting that I was the driver. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely there must be a way round this.  Maybe state "the driver broke down" in the third person. 

 

Without disrupting your excellent WS perhaps put in another small section FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACT, quickly explain the driver broke down, include any proof, and refer to the government's CoP where it states such events should not be pursued.

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

if your car had broken down then you can use 

 

F.1 Exempt circumstances

Parking charges must not be pursued in relation to vehicles where evidence is provided that they are identified as 

 

e) a vehicle that has been driven onto controlled land due to an emergency which could not be avoided due to the exceptional nature of an incident outside of the control of the driver, e.g. illness or vehicle breakdown;

 

This is backed up to further help you at Liverpool airport

 

 

F.2 “No-stopping” zones

The exemptions listed in F.1 also apply within “no stopping zones’” (i.e. private roads clearly marked with lines and clear, obvious and repeated traffic-facing “no stopping” signs and barriers to deter trespass).

 

So breaking down in a no stopping area is a complete answer for the PCN to be quashed. Of course VCS will argue that these factors have not yet come in to force. Well Judges will see that they will soon be law and the Government have said that some things that can be brought in before the Act becomes final should be brought in straight away.

This below is part of the preamble from the Minister at the beginning of the Act-

 

We recognise that many of these changes – like bringing private parking charges in line with local authority charges – will take time to implement.

The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible. The Code will then come into full force before 2024, when the single appeals service is expected to be in operation.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1st class is deemed 2 days arrival.

  • Thanks 1

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

But get scan and keep a Free Proof of Posting from the Post office.

  • Thanks 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

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

Then if VCS try the we never got them again Y'r 'onour they are bang to rights stitched up like a kipper.

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

No room to wriggle there for Simon excellent

  • Thanks 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

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

You can e-mail the court theirs at the last moment.  This will give you the best chance to ridicule VCS's should it turn up.

 

As dx says Simon's should go first class on Saturday 14 but if it's slightly late who cares given Simon's shenanigans and after all you are a Litigant in Person and are given some leeway. 

 

Given what happened to Flamjam yesterday and lapwing_larry recently I suggest you add a covering letter to VCS's solicitors:

 

Dear Ed and Steve,

Re: Claim no.XXXXX, your client - Vehicle Control Services Ltd

I am the defendant in this case and enclose my Witness Statement for the forthcoming hearing.

I am well aware that your client, Simple Simon, has recently thought up a new wheeze of pretending to the courts to have not received defendants' Witness Statements.  Kindly note that this letter and proof of posting will be shown to the judge if he tries this on with me.

Kind regards,

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...