Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
-
Posts
-
By brassnecked · Posted
The Contract isn't really moot, its a case of as Bylaws or RTA apply VCS cannot form a contract to sue on for anyone they have no locus. -
By BankFodder · Posted
No, we don't have any influence – but we do have a direct line of communication which sometimes can be helpful -
surely its totally irrelevant even if they do produce the contract... -
lets not chance missing something important eh? best to scan both sides of everything up to one multipage PDF dx
-
Thanks to all. What about (much simplified) ------- Dear Sir I am writing to object to the appeal made by the Claimant, Vehicle Control Service (VCS), for claim number XXXXX. I believe the Claimant ignored the learned Judge's second line in the Order that dismissed the claim: 'And upon the Claimant’s representative stating that without such information and evidence the Claimant could not prove this claim’. The legally qualified representative of VCS conceded at the hearing. Having conceded, they cannot try the case at another court. Obviously, they have no grounds to use judicial time to appeal in a case where the learned Judge made a decision based upon a clearly stated position of conceding that this claim could not be proved, coming as it did from a legally qualified representative from the Claimant. Their representative has had their chance to use the arguments, which they are now trying to introduce again. Not only did the Claimant not use that case law but they actually conceded the point, so the case should be considered closed. I would like to take the opportunity to iterate the following points. 1. The legally qualified representative of VCS admitted during the hearing on 30/03/2021 that Southend Airport Company Limited is NOT the landowner. When requested by the Judge ‘who is landowner and where is the evidence’, The Claimant failed to provide the evidence: 1) the owner of the land; 2) the landowner had given VCS the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. 2. The contract provided by VCS appears to be a false instrument. ‘THIS AGREEMENT is made on the 11th day of JUNE 2019 between WEHICLE CONTROL SERVICED LIMITED (Company No. 02881745 ) … and LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT COMPANY LIMITED (Company No. 02078271) …’ According to Companies House, Company Number 02881745 is for London Southend Airport Company Limited, while Company Number 02078271 is East Midlands International Airport Limited. 3. No contract can exist between VCS and the defendant, as the land is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986. It is also subject to the Southend-on-Sea Municipal Airport Byelaws 1980. Airport Act confirms that the road on which the alleged contravention took place is subject to the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA), by virtue of Section 192(1) of RTA and it being a road “to which the public has access”. Even that the defendant DID stop where you should not have done, under Airports Act and Road Traffic Act, VCS has no authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation. VCS cannot pursue such case in County Court for breach of contract, whether or not there is one. 4. I would question the existence of the alleged contract, which the Claimant claims to have been breached by “stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited”. The signage is wholly prohibitive and makes no offer of consideration. In the absence of consideration, no contract exists. It is my position that, the Claimant has no standing, or cause of action, to litigate in this matter. 5. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “Debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4. Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67. 6. Reason for stopping should be considered. The sole reason for the defendant to stop was to ask an onsite traffic warden for directions (the drop-off point in this case). Photos received from the claimant show the driver got off and entered the vehicle. The vehicle stopped for only 30 seconds according to the timestamps. Please refer to my Defence and Witness Statement for more details.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged"- **Judgment for Conversion of destroyed item. **WON**
hellothere124 posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347-
- 32 replies
-
-
Post in Bailiffs in at BBC obtain 7 years interest on overpayment of TV licence
Its WAR posted a post in a topic,
I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
-
-
Post in Court Claim Against Hermes - item sent via Packlink was lost/tampered with **WON at mediation full amount **
jj58 posted a post in a topic,
Hi @BankFodder
Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them.
In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
Picked By
BankFodder, -
-
***Hermes and mediation hints ***
BankFodder posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003-
- 1 reply
Picked By
BankFodder, -
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 4983 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Recommended Posts