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

Getting First Direct to pay by cheque


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5272 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

First Direct have made me a second offer which i am happy to accept if they pay it by cheque, but they are saying they will not do that as i have an outstanding balance with them.


I do not see the point of claiming back charges only to put it straight back in their pockets, and the outstanding balance includes charges i am claiming back.


Has anyone managed to get first direct to pay by cheque? does anyone have any advise on what i should do next?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it and if you have an outstanding balance with them then it is an impossibility. just stand your ground.

I put in my letter that i could demonstrate that FD charges created a snowball effect that plunged me heavily into debt.

Of course they denied any liability, thats why i am standing my ground wanting a refund by cheque and the removal of default.

if they don't shift i ll let the judge decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Normally i do not get involved in threads of other banks as my specialisation is NatWest but think of it this way, the bank are paying back charges that they took from you and by paying you by cheque you will still owe them the debt. The choice is between clearing the debt with them NOW or paying them back further on down the line. So get rid of them now, ACCEPT deal with them later SUE

Link to post
Share on other sites

NATTIE i have to disagree with you.

My fight against first direct is a lot more personal than you think.

I ve been reduced to tears and i was days away from bankruptcy thanks to FD charges... to the tune of £30 overdraft fee £119 excess overdraft fees the recall S/O D/D fees @£37.50 EACH a month.

£225.00 a month on charges alone. In august 2 years ago my son was born and i didn't have te money to feed him...

So NATTIE now thanks to this site i am in control and i will call the shots, i want my money back in a cheque and all FD collection dept. gonna get is £1 a month as i am on JSA.

SORRY for the hijacking of the thread...

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it is worth here is my view. The money that FD have taken from you unlawfully is yours. When you get it back you can do whatever you want with it. If you want to pay off your debts then all well and good if you want to 2476 peanut kitkat bars then that is up to you (a bit irrisponsible but still your choice) you will get fat though!!! :-)

Guide to claiming back your bank charges


Most of your questions can be answered by following this link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phonesurgeon, good luck and my best wishes, my wife and I are in a very similar situation. My view is that it was my money that was unlawfully taken in charges and fee's, I have no quibble about my debts and I am responsible for them and will pay them off but I want MY money paid back directly to me. If I choose to use it to repay the debt that is up to me, if I choose to spend it on white chunky kit kat bars (my favourite) then that is also up to me. What makes matters worse is that we effectively got pushed into IVA and any money that comes back has to go to the trustee of the IVA but also my debt gets reduced by the amount I am claiming back so my total charges in my insolvency run to about 5k if I get that back my debt is reduced by 5k and the trustee gets 5k to pay off the rest of the debt. If the trustee gets the money, perhaps I should go after them for reciept of stolen goods, namely my money !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agrees with speedy.

I am maybe the lucky one that haven t got anything in place and keep a detailed record of our debtors.

FD had too many chances to settle... thanks to a major cock up of mine i was actually acepting 84% of my claim and FD wanted to give the money to metropolitan collection for our debt.

In that way FD wins not once but twice.

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...