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

Lulan7 v FD


lulan7
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5138 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 All,

I received my bank statements on Thursday from First Direct, 3 days before their 40 days was up!

I've started to go through them and noticed that one particular month they charged me an excess overdraft fee of £119 and also took £9.68 interest out of my account too.

Should I be claiming this back or just the overdraft fee?

Thanks in anticipation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine is not quite that much £3.5k but I think they take longer for higher amounts and dont make early offers.

 

Keep posting updates though - good luck :-)

If at first you don't succeed, dig your heels in!!!!!!!!!!:D

 

First Direct - SAR 27/2/07 ; Statements received 30/3/07; Prelim sent 31/3/07

 

Barclaycard - SAR 27/2/07; Statements to '04 received

 

Hit List - Halifax; Lloyds TSB; M&S Credit Card

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi all,

I received this letter today

 

First Direct does not agree with your contention that the charges which have been applied to your account are unlawful and are therefore unenforceable. The contract between the bank and its customer is governed by our terms and conditions. In respect of overdrafts, I would refer you specifically to Part 2: Operating your account, clause 6.9, which states:-

 

''If your account goes overdrawn without an agreed overdraft, or you go over an agreed overdraft limit, we will charge interest at our Unauthorised Overdraft Interest Rate on the amount of unauthorised borrowing. We will also charge you an Overdraft Fee for any statement month when the balance on your account exceeds your limit, whether for one day or more. An excess overdraft fee will also be charged for any day where there are subsequent increases in the excess or a reoccurrence of an excess during the statement month. Our Overdraft Fees are published in our Interest Rates and Charges Leaflet.''

 

Our fees and charges are clearly stated in our published Interest Rates and Charges leaflet and in the circumstances in which these charges apply are clearly set out in our terms and conditions which you will have been provided whith a copy of when you opened your account.

 

We are therefore unable to agree to your request. If you wish to escalate your concerns to the next stage, you can write to Robert Kernighan, Customer Relations Manager, at the above address.

 

If we do not hear from you within the next 8 weeks, we will consifer matters resolved.

 

Complaints we cannot resolve may ultimately be referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service, further details of which can be found in our 'listening to your comments' leaflet

 

Yours Sincerley

 

Melanie Dyson

Customer Relations

 

I am planning to go ahead with my LBA on Friday but this letter has made me a bit nervous. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi my LBA expires today (not heard a thing from them), cant decide whether to send them a nice email saying i will be filing at court next week unless a full offer is made, or to just file next week?

GE MONEY- Settled 5/06/07

Capital One - Won 15/06/07

**Treat everyone as you would expect to be treated yourself**

Link to post
Share on other sites

LBA posted 4th May 2007

I haven't heard anything yet but am sticking to my timetable. I gave them 14 days so have another week before filing my claim.

 

That's the bit I'm worried about, I'm not too hot at filling in forms!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont worry I filed using MCOL yesterday, was quite straight forward really. The info mentioned in the thread above is really helpful. Will keep you informed how things are going

GE MONEY- Settled 5/06/07

Capital One - Won 15/06/07

**Treat everyone as you would expect to be treated yourself**

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to the courts they were really helpful when filing the N1 no problem, FD did make me an offer of about half, after the N1 added a few hundred more. Didn’t acknowledge I have a legitimate claim against them but to save their costs etc etc….

 

Good luck Dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All,

 

I've checked again today on Moneyclaim and FD have filed a Defence and it says that the case will be referred to my local court.

 

I was hoping that it wouldn't get this far but I have had no offers from them whatsoever - all I've had are 2 letters from them basically telling me to get lost!

 

Does this mean that I will definitely have to go to court?

 

L

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I've checked again today on Moneyclaim and FD have filed a Defence and it says that the case will be referred to my local court.

 

I was hoping that it wouldn't get this far but I have had no offers from them whatsoever - all I've had are 2 letters from them basically telling me to get lost!

 

Does this mean that I will definitely have to go to court?

 

L

 

They will settle when you get your court date..They dont want to stand up in court even more than you dont.

.

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

Hi Lulan

 

Don,t be concerned about going to court, just be prepared, the law in on your side! Have you recieved a copy of there defence yet? If you dont mind me asking, on what grounds are they defending your claim? It will be interesting to see what/if they will throw at me in another 14 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Joeyboo

 

I haven't heard anything further yet. I filed on MCOL, my claim was issued on 21st May and when I checked over the weekend I noticed that the status had changed to Defence. It just says that I cannot progress online and the case will be referred to my local court. I've been expecting to receive something in the post but nothing so far.

 

I'm not sure how long I should wait if I don't hear anything.....

 

L

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lulan I would wait until friday, that is a week after the defence filing date, i think, and call Northampton Bulk Centre to see if the case has been transferred to your local CC and where is your copy of their feeble defence. I await your case with interest, because I think they will head the same way with me, but are dragging their feet for another 14 days! Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...