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

accepting 65% offer?


saka
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5254 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

Hello,

Being new to the forum, I'd appreciate your advice.

A friend recently informed me about my right to reclaim unfair bank charges. I have now sent off a letter to my bank requesting a refund of all charges applied within the past 6 years.

I'd be interested in your experience with regard to claiming the full amount back and not only the difference based on the 12,- per item, as I consider this as still too high a charge.

My friend advised me to just accept the amount they will offer on a goodwill basis and not to be too "greedy", but I consider this not as being greedy but as my right as a customer to claim my money back. If somebody is greedy, it's the banks!

Have you got any experiences, perhaps with Barclays in particular? Has it happened to you that they refunded the full amount? What arguments did you bring forward when they tried to offer you a much lower amount?

My charges are 1745,- altogether.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Full amount, please read the self help material and when you're ready start a thread in your banks forum to keep us informed.

 

Nothing greedy about wanting money that has been taken from you unlawfully.

Ex CAG helper ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi,

 

Barclays offered me 1200,- in response to my 1750,- claim, which I am tempted to accept, since it is more than the usual 50% offer.

 

It means Barclays considers 7,43 to be a "fair" charge for each of the 74 charged items during the past 6 years (550,- difference :74 items). On the other hand the 550,- they would keep is still a lot of money for me - and for them it's just peanuts...

 

Do you think it is worth going to court for this amount? What if the court agrees with Barclays and considers 7,43 to be a fair "charge" and I would in the end get nothing at all....?

 

If I would decide to go for the full amount, would the next step have to be the formal "letter of rejection of offer"? Or could I first try it with an informal letter "in my own words" and ask for a better offer as a compromise. I'd be happy with 1500,- as an out-of-court settlement.

 

I am not an English native speaker and am a bit afraid of going to court and not be able to defend myself good enough with my not perfect English (compared to the Barclays solicitor...???).

 

Thanks for your advice!!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

firstly, I am assuming your amount is £1700 BEFORE interest???

if so youd prob be looking at around £2000

 

If you decide to carry on, you need to accept their offer as part settlement with the intention to continue to recover the full amount

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barclays have a culture of dishonesty. That was explained on the recent BBC programme.

They have taken your money. You should take it all back.

If you don't want it all then you can donate the excess to us as we ned the money.

 

I have no idea why you should want to let them keep part of your money.

Are you French?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply, BankFodder.

 

I'm German (not a very popular nation in this country (still), I'm afraid...) - but this is irrelevant really - I must however say my German bank would not dare demanding such high charges. Germans tend to complain immediately, which is sometimes annoying, but in cases like this it's a preventative advantage (I've already become more English, I suppose) ;)

 

I will certainly donate something to you, that's for sure anyway.

 

Would you be able to give advice with another problem I have just encountered, oh dear:

 

Having now listed all charges by date on the interest calculation template sheet, I noticed that I actually claimed too much, because I didn't notice that Barclays sent me some print-outs of my statements twice. The amount is now 1585,- and not 1750,-. But - plus interest of 458,63 I could now claim 2043,63 which is what dar3n assumed :rolleyes:

 

Is it advisable not to mention this mistake in my next letter (it could make them think I have no idea of what I'm doing and be a sign of weakness)? I could just mention: "After calculation of the interest the amount comes to 2043,63 and I therefore do not accept the offer of 1200,-..." (and would amend the template letter "refusal of the offer" accordingly).

 

Would you agree with this?

 

Thanks for your help!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Saka,

I too was offered an offer( just like everyone else!) of about 60%, and I ummed and aahed for about 30 minutes before I decided that the Bank have been wrong to overcharge me, and need to be taught a lesson as on behalf of the public. They cannot get away with this easy theft from our pockets, so I hope you take them all the way and get the interest that they have also stolen from you. There are some excellant spreadsheets here to help you calculate the interest, and my preference is for (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/6964-spreadsheet-interest.html?highlight=vampiress)Good luck, and just know that there is plenty of support here,

 

Red

Claiming £590 in unauthorized OD fees, and £100 in interest from Barclays.

 

Remember "He who pays the piper calls the tune" well I've paid Barclays far too much so bloody well dance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just mention the new figure in your next letter and issue your summons for that.

 

Their culture of dishonesty is no doubt so profound that they will be incapable of recognising your corrected figure as a gesture of honesty so don't waste your time giving any explanations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Bankfodder, simply accept their offer as part payment but continue to reclaim all that is owed, this is all very standard practice,

you request your money, they offer silly amount, you accept but continue to court, thay say they are sorry you cant reach an agreement and then they shut up until about a week before the court date.

 

if you get stuck try here:

if you are still stuck just shout up we will soon come to your rescue...

 

good luck.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm German - but this is irrelevant really -

 

I suspect the question was because you said your first language was not English, and if you had been French, you could have had some assistance. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have all been very helpful, thank you!! :p

 

Could I also ask you to have a quick look at my next letter to Barclays?

 

Would you recommend to enclose the interest calculation sheet (I had not included the interest in my first claim)? This would mean, however, that from the calculation sheet they will notice the difference in the corrected new amount and the original claimed amount (I had claimed 200,- too much because of Barclays' confusing bank statement printouts).

 

I tend to just mention the new amount including interest without enclosing a detailed list. By doing this I am not being dishonest, as it shows the amended total of charges plus interest. But should they ask for the calculation sheet, I can still send it to them.

 

Here is my draft letter:

 

 

 

Re: Penalty and unfair charges - account number xxxxxx, sort code xxxxxx

 

 

Template letter removed.

 

The draft you did was fine send that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as your letter has been removed i am assuming you had personal information displayed,

be careful what you post on here, i.e account numbers etc.

 

send in your 'letter of rejection' but make sure you refer to the new amount, i.e thanks for the offer, I accept as part..... i will continue to recover £xxxx.00 plus interest and court costs.

but you wont be including the interest until you register with MCOL or complete your N149 form.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, dar3en.

 

Sent letter off yesterday....also noticed that they upgraded me to an Additions Account (from my Basic Current Account) and charged me more for that - without asking me!!! Also mentioned this in my letter of rejection of offer....

 

By the way: The Federal Court of Justice in Germany ruled that it is illegal for German banks to charge customers with a flat-rate "compensation" for bounced cheques or failed direct debits. The Dresdner Bank had charged its customers 6 Euros (4 GBP) per item. Bank customers in Germany can now also claim back their past bank charges. German courts argue that a "compensation" could only be claimed by the banks if the debtor (bank customer) commited any breaches. It argues that this is not the case with failed direct debits or cheques due to the fact that the bank customer is not obliged towards its paying bank to hold sufficient funds for the payment of the direct debit. The paying bank is not acting on behalf of the debtor (bank customer) but accesses its customers' bank accounts on request of the creditor bank - so, without the direct order of the bank customer. This system of direct debit payments implies that it is to be of no interest whatsoever to the paying bank, whether the debtor (bank customer) has given order for a direct debit at all and also of no interest whether the debtor (bank customer) owes the creditor anything.

 

Hope this sounds not too complicated....to summarize:

 

It is unlawful under German law if German banks charge their customers for informing them about a bounced direct debit or cheque payment due to insufficient funds. It is a duty of the banks to do this and naturally expected as an additional service by the banks towards its customers. Also, DPA information (bank statements, list of charges) must be free of charge if this is required for a reclamation purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My story so far:

 

- 26 January: sent DPA letter

- 18 February: received statements of past 6 years

- 20 February: sent letter of request of refund

- 28 February: received letter "we are looking into your concerns and will let you have an answer no later than 21 March

- 22 March: have not received an answer - sent a reminder

- 23 March: received answer - 65% offer as "gesture of goodwill" (tempting, as they promise to pay it within 7 days of my response - but not good enough!)

- 25 March: sent letter of rejection of offer accepting the offer as part settlement only and demanding full amount - within next 7 days

 

Am going to wait until 5 April - will send LBA letter if I haven't received a reply by then:

 

"I refer to my letter of..... to which you have failed to respond in the way I would have hoped.

Once again, I request repayment of the full amount of charges taken from my account during the past 6 years. I calculate that you have taken ..... plus 8% interest in the amount of ......totalling....

If you do not comply fully within 14 days then I shall begin a claim against you for the full amount plus interest without further notice. An extra £0.77 will also be applied to the total each day until the date of judgement/settlement, plus the cost of any court fees incurred.

Furthermore, I shall submit a Consumer Credit Act 1974 complaint to the OFT upon the basis that you have failed to comply with the OFT's direction of 5 April 2006 and are therefore not a 'fit and proper person' to hold a consumer credit licence under the 1974 Act.

Yours faithfully"

 

Is this letter appropriate, do I need to mention anything else?

 

Thank you everybody for your help so far. Will keep you informed :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Saka

 

I am new to this also, I think you need to reign in your timescales(I mean stick to the time given in your letters). They need to take your demands seriously. The longest time allowed as far as I am aware is 40 days and that is with your first letter subsequent letters are 14 days grace, no begging reminder letters pls, this is not in your interest just be praying it gets to court stage when you can claim the interest on top.

 

If we go by your refund request letter of the 20th Feb the alotted time has expired in my opinion that means you can file in court, I think. Maybe I have got it all wrong. Can a MOD help out here plzzzzzzzzzz.

 

Good luck with it

Deeks1

Link to post
Share on other sites

saka,

Personally, I would take your letter of rejection as being your LBA.

Barclays are NOT going to communicate with you now that you have declined their 'offer of goodwill'

On 5th April begin proceedings with MCOL.

They will know youre serious then.

it is only when you get a court date that they begin to take you seriously.

 

Ive been where you are, sending polite reminders, emails etc, they dont respond, theyre too busy too now.

 

you need to get to court stage as soon as possible now.

Something that may be in your favour is the fact that the stage of ALLOCATION QUESTIONAIRE is being written off by most judges cos they are now aware that Barclays have no intention of attending court.

 

Keep us posted okay?

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Dar3n and Deeks for your advice. I will do as you recommend and won't send another LBA but begin with the proceedings straight away end of this week. You are absolutely right. If they don't reply positively, then why bother with another letter. They won't give in anyway. Just a waste of time.

I was just not sure whether, before going to court, I would have to send a formal LBA giving them another 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have patiently waited for 3 weeks (gave another few days because of Easter, pffff I'm just too generous) for a reply from Barclays. They've had sufficient time now to send a reply to my rejection of offer letter, but I have received no answer, they just seem to ignore it. My initial letter was sent off 20 Feb. I think I have wasted enough time, so have just submitted my MCOL.

 

Do I understand it right that all I now have to do at this point is send a letter with a schedule of charges and interest to MCOL to be attached to my online claim? And then wait for a letter from the court?

 

Do I also need to send a letter to Barclays and inform them of my MCOL or do they get a letter from MCOL directly? :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saka, you will prob better off focussing comms on Litigation at Churchill PLace, London from now on.

 

Now you have filed with MCOL they will take it from here, and let you know that the order has been served and if and when B's decide to defend, dont be too hasty and get over excited at the 28 day deadline as B's are entering defence late these days.

 

Yes send a copy of SOC's one for court and one for B's

I sent mine directly to B's, some people send it to the court to send on.

 

Remember all comms via Recorded Delivery.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...