Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • 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. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

help please new to this


lensue
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5228 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

hi hope u can help we have recieved 3 letters now 1 from lowell portfilio saying they had bought an old debt off capital one. this is an old debt of my husbands (before we met) he thinks its about 6 yrs or nearly since he made any payment on it. The max limit on card was about £250 they are asking for £789. The last 2 letters were from lowell finanical. I have read lots on here and just sent the cca letter today with a £1 cheque. So am just waiting for them to reply now. My husband moved around alot and so if capital 1 had been trying to write to him we would never know so wonder how we stand on that. sorry if i sound a bit thick but this is all new to me and a bit worried these letters are scary. one good thing is they dont have our phone number so havent had any nasty calls like a lot of people seem to have had.Thank you for listening to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lensue, welcome!

Sounds like you have done the correct thing regarding the CCA letter and cheque (hope that you sent it recorded!).

When/IF you receive the info back from Lowell then you can see when the last payment was made. Of course Lowell F may direct you back to Capital One if they cannot provide you with the CCA.

When you have established who is going to be dealing with the debt, then post on here again, using this same thread.

It may be worth while looking at the Limitations Act regarding old debt. i will try and find a link for you and post.

The letters are scary agreed, but this site highlights the scare tactics used by the DCAs and I have been in tears before I knew my rights!

Hope this helps a little!

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly Lowell Financial do appear to be in this forum quite prominently, and I have read that they did cash someone's (think it was NoddY) £1.00, so it will be interesting to see what happens with you. I do not know if the other user's (Noddy?) debt was with Capital One or not though?!

I was interested in old debt as well as I took out a loan with the Halifax some 10 years ago, and they are still chasing me, even tho' I have not paid anything recently.

Diskmandave gave me the following reference to the

The Limitation Act 1980:

I asked the question how long are you liable to the debt for?

"6 years from date of last payment or acknowledgement of debt in writing signed by the debtor."

Not sure if this helps you or not? Guess you will have to see what Lowell Financial reply with?!

Regards

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Diskmandave gave me the following reference to the

The Limitation Act 1980:

I asked the question how long are you liable to the debt for?

 

"6 years from date of last payment or acknowledgement of debt in writing signed by the debtor."

 

Not sure if this helps you or not? Guess you will have to see what Lowell Financial reply with?!

Probably the standard stuff that everyone reports that they send

Regards

Red

 

Nice to be quoted for good reasons for a change 8)

 

Here's my battle with LF.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/59620-diskmandave-lowell-finacial-capone.html

If my post was helpful don't forget to click the star!

Advice is offered freely, without liability and without prejudice.

If in any doubt professional legal advice should be sought.

 

I do not profess to be in any way legally trained, I am a big

oily truck driver and all I know has been learned within the

Consumer Action Group.

 

FAQ's

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

 

Trying to stop smoking?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/give-up-smoking-here/

 

A dummies guide to the forums

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

--

KEEP WILDLIFE IN THE WILD

http://www.bornfree.org.uk

BORN FREE FOUNDATION

--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Diskmandave, you are a very helpful and knowledgeable man!

 

Proud to pass on the help that you kindly gave to me! Thank you!

Lensue - see! Help is at hand - just keep us posted!

 

 

OOOer Red..Up your font size please lol..We're not all young whippers with great eyesight :grin:

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry PMHFC, when I post a quick reply I cant select the font size (either that or my eyesight is so bad from squinting in order to read my own typing that I am missing the button!)

LENSUE, pleased you are finding the help that and support that you need!

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry PMHFC, when I post a quick reply I cant select the font size (either that or my eyesight is so bad from squinting in order to read my own typing that I am missing the button!)

LENSUE, pleased you are finding the help that and support that you need!

Red

 

Fanks Red.. can read it now without having my nose against the screen lol

Just hate every DCA out there

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi. have just recieved another letter from lowell financial. it says we are in receipt of your request for a copy of your credit agreement in accordance with section 78(1) of the consumer credit act 1974

We also in recipt of the prescribed fee from you.

we are requesting a copy of the agreement from the original lender with whom you originally entered into the agreement.

while we endeavour to reply to you with the reequired information within the prescribed 12 days period under the consumer credit act, you will appreciate this is dependant upon receipt of the information from the original creditor.

we will advise you further if it will take longer than the prescribed period.

yours sincerely

andrew bartie.

 

could you please tell me what that means and what do i do now. just wait?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

hi red thanks for your message yep all quiet they recieved letter on 20 march so half way into the last month so fingers crossed they wont send me anything. will keep u updated if or when they send me anything. Thanks for remembering me hope all is ok with you and your fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Lensue for the post and the update, even if nothing has happened, you know what they say "No news is good news" :)

I will keep my fingers crossed for you.

My battles continue, some with better results than others, but if I had not found this site I would be really stressed!!

Thank goodness for the CAG :) :) :)

Happy Days

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi been a while since been on as have had no new from lowells, that is untill today when we recieved a letter from beneficial finance, the letter just says

dear sir re; agreement number *********

we have been attempting to contact you at a previous address held ( he's not been on the electrol roll for years untill last year) however we have been unsuccessful.

we have accessed public informantion in order to ascertain your current address (as shown on this letter) and believe that it is your correct current address.

it is important that you now telephone us on the number shown at the top of this letter, as we hold the above agreement at the address shown, and we need to explain this in detail to you.

if you beleive this is not your account then please telephone within 21 days on 0800 028 0773 to avoid this account being registered against your name at credit bureaux. we look forward to hearing from you

 

yours faithfully,

 

now has anyone heard of this company and do they have anything to do with lowells, or have lowells sold it on because the month is nearly up before they commit offence. please any help would be appreciated because getting very stressed now. ps the month is up on 5 may

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Again Lensue, interesting twist in your tale.

Firstly -DO NOT PHONE BENEFICIAL FINANCE!

I do not know if there is a link between them and Lowells, I will see what I can find out for you!

I think that your hunch regarding the deadlines is probably correct, and I would get your CCA letter ready for Beneficial, so that you can post to them.

Dont panic - we are here to help!

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh, well yes I have heard (but not dealt with personally) Thames Credit. I have a thread of mine regarding 1st credit and CAG user Stormo has had a successful dealing with Thames Credit - all the deadlines have passed!! So this may be good news for you!

If it is ok with you I could ask Stormo to PM you? Or could point Stormo over to this thread!?

In the meantime I absolutely do not allow you in any circumstances to phone these DCAs - any communication in writing only!!;)

Stay strong, happy to help where I can!

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lensue, click on the link to read about Stormo's dealings with Thames. The thread has not quite been updated, but I know that the calendar month following the 12 days has expired, and I will send a message to Stormo to see if there is any advice to pass on to you, my advice get that CCA out asap, along with another £1.00 Red (permalink)

Link to post
Share on other sites

have just looked carefully at the letter recieved and they are part of the aktiv group. as it doest say what the debt is for or for how much for do i just wait for more letters to arrive or send cca now. also is i have SAR cap 1 how do i do this without knowing my hubbys account details ect do i just put his name and that should be enough. I dont know if lowells have sold this on or if this is a new debt, as no imformation in the letter from thames credit/aktiv.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Lensue, send your CCA request to Aktiv/Thames Credit now. Make sure that you do NOT acknowledge any debt what so ever to them, & enclose the fee of £1.00.

With the SAR you will need to confirm hubbys address, DOB and full name, they may come back to you for more info.

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

well good news, got letter today from lowell's, its as follows

 

dear mr ******

 

our ref; *******

original creditor; capital one

balance outstanding £791

 

following your recent request to be provided with a copy of the original credit agreement in respect of the consumer credit act.

after liaising with our cllient in an effort to obtain this document we have been advised that it is no longer available. under the circumstances, we have closed our flies in relation to this account which has now been returned to our client. we can confirm that no further contact will be made by us regarding this account.

 

we trust that the above clarifies matters for you,

 

yours sincerely

 

andrew bartie

cheif opertions officer.

 

So all we have to do now it wait for ackiv/thames to start with the threatening letters which am sure they will and do the same thing all over again, and if the agreement is no longer available theres little hope for them is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...