Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hobnail you don't know Elms too well yet. I am surprised that they got as close as they did to adding up to 30. I think the poor dears get confused because most other letters they send out are to give 28 days notice. They even  have difficulty with their two times table and often consult with the char lady to confirm that 2 plus 2 equals 4.  Just act on the notion that they are total numpties and you won't be far out.
    • To carry on from the above post it may be helpful to go through their WS using their numbers. 9] motorists do NOT accept the contract when entering the land. First they have to read it and understand it and then they realise that a] "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract. b] 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 the creditor be identified.  10]There is no mention of £100 charge for breaching the No stopping request or if there is it is far too small to read even for a pedestrian. 11] no matter how often VCS say it, it is NOT a contractual clause   22]" the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site". No it hasn't. This is a road leading to the airport. All sorts of people are going to the airport-travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers, buses. It is absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS wth any sort of permissions. The land owners yes, but not VCS . There can be no sort of analogy between a car park and a major thoroughfare where VCS have no place as it is not relevant land.   23] there can be no contract as there is no offer only a prohibition. And it is not relevant land no matter how Mr Walli attempts to prove otherwise. 25] VCS may have won a few times but none quoted was on an airport covered by the RTA and its own Byelaws. They also have lost more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs. 26] First one has to consider if there is a contract. Is it relevant land? No. Does a valid contract exist betweer VCS and Peel? NO.  27] the signage at the bus stop may show the conditions ie  no stopping, and restricted zone but not the terms ie is there a charge for stopping and who is the creditor. The last section of the sign is illegible  29] already stated that a WS between VCS and peel is not a valid document 31] it will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant no matter who was driving. 32] there is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employedd relationship. VCS are muddying the waters because they have no way of transferring the driver's liability to the keeper 33] this a red herring. There is no list of highways at all  on the Highways act 1980 so this is 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. 34] there ican be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. Totally fatuous analogy.  35] yes the landowners can bring in their own terms but what the cannot do is overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. 39] surely the paralegal cannot be that ignorant of PoFA. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and so the specious argument about FGW is rubbish   36] what on earth is he talking about with Permits. There is no mention of permits on the signage and even if there were  would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on No Stopping roads? There are enough examples on CAG to counter act their idiocy on continuing charging the extra £60   46] VCS had NO reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. No 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 a motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP so not valid the WS contract does not appear to 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.   48] what is this guy on? You weren't in a car park you were on a bus stop 59] this case is totally without merit. I am not surprised that the paralegal will not be turning up. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. Could have been said in at least half the time without the repetition and trying to make a case where none was there. One particularly bad example of misdirection was 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.      
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote...   your defence doesnt need any return of docs.. carefully read what has been posted here and in the other threads i pointed to in your old thread merged here too.   redwood/harwood or STA or brachers.   just use our enhanced google search box.   uni fees is useful too.   this guy is just in front of you    
    • Tech firm CEO Jeff Lawson warns bosses not to make hasty judgements about their employees.View the full article
    • I have just spent last few hours registering and signing up and filling in all the details.   Below is a POC I have drafted.   The defendant is a parcel delivery company DPD (UK) LIMITED On 09/08/2021 the defendant agreed to deliver the claimant's parcel containing a PlayStation 5 Disc Version value £530, to an address in the UK. The delivery fee of £7.79 was paid by the claimant. Parcel tracking number: ???????? Parcel reference no: ????????? The defendant failed to deliver the parcel and have reported it as lost on 20/08/2021. The defendant refuses to refund the full value of the item and the delivery fee. The claimant seeks £530 being the value of the item, £7.79 delivery cost and legal fees.        (Sorry for being stupid but this POC is supposed to go where it says    " Claim details Why you believe you’re owed the money: " right? Reason why I'm asking is because I don't see anywhere it specifically says what are your particulars of claim)   Tomorrow being the 15th day, I will be ready to click it off (assuming the POC is ok)    I have read a few more hermes/packlink etc stories where they were resolved and gives me hope I will regain my lost money.  Will carry on reading up as much as I can.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Woolwich/Barclays.....no court bundle yet.


Colinmac
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5277 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

Seven days to go to court hearing - still no bundle from Barclays Legal, so I 'phoned the court today. They were very helpful and said that they haven't received anything either - yet.

 

Is it worth dropping a letter to Churchill Place pre-empting their settlement offer along the lines "I know you are not going to appear in court...." and detailing my claim + costs, or should one let the thing run it's natural course?

 

Colinmac

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for suggestion - Have tried to get in touch by 'phone - constant answerphone - I expect they are snowed under!! I might try dropping Adrian Ryffhead a letter with my settlement terms.

Colinmac

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a direct number for tom hickey 0207 116 4523. ring hime and ask who is dealing with your claim. ruffhead is just a name they put on all defences. hes gone i think!

 

barclays litigation is like a conveyor belt :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well - have emailed Ruffhead - [email protected] (a quick google suggested he is fairly high up in Litigation and Disputes) and have sent hard copy by recorded delivery. The email hasn't bounced back yet, so may have been noted.

 

I am sure that the turnover in that department is quite rapid with extra teenagers in cheap suits brought in to cope with the demand.........

 

Court is Tuesday next, so here's hoping.

 

colinmac

Link to post
Share on other sites

conveyer belt lol

 

the one who is dealing with mine is adrain st john

 

amandax

 

he was on all my barclays ones aswell as barclaycard ones but wasnt the guy on any of them dealing with my claim.

 

explains now in above post. quite high up :rolleyes: :rolleyes: (in his backside!) :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well - have emailed Ruffhead - [email protected] (a quick google suggested he is fairly high up in Litigation and Disputes) and have sent hard copy by recorded delivery. The email hasn't bounced back yet, so may have been noted.

 

I am sure that the turnover in that department is quite rapid with extra teenagers in cheap suits brought in to cope with the demand.........

 

Court is Tuesday next, so here's hoping.

 

colinmac

 

still think you ought to phone aswell day is looming rapidly and knowing them yours is at the bottom of a very very big pile. they have only 3 working days to get the money to you before court. and it has to be cleared funds before court date. barclays are getting very sloppy now! :o

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the same situation. I rejected an offer from them this week was about 10% short of what I am claiming. They have three days to settle before court. I'm getting ****ed off now but there is no way i'm backing down!

Link to post
Share on other sites

he was on all my barclays ones aswell as barclaycard ones but wasnt the guy on any of them dealing with my claim.

 

explains now in above post. quite high up :rolleyes: :rolleyes: (in his backside!) :p

 

 

he is the one that has been names on the acknowledgement from court hmm

 

amandax

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...