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

Littlerich's girlfreind vs RBS

Little Rich

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5209 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

The story so far..


We had my girlfreinds statements going back 6 years and added up all the charges. These came to just under £3000. Sent a prelim letter. Waited for 2 weeks got a standard "these charges are fair" letter sent a LBA. WIated 2 weeks and got a letter saying the were investigating. Sent a third letter saying as a gesture of goodwill will let them investigate as long as they could give me a date when they would have completed their investigations. I gave them 2 weeks to respond. I have now received an offer of approx £300 less than the charges we are claiming. Am I right I have 3 options:

1. Accept offer (Not planning on doing so)

2. Accept as part of full claim and tell them I am taking them to court.

3. Just take them to court.


Is there any advantage of either. Think of option 3 at mo.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. 2 and 3 are pretty much the same, just an extra letter. In order to keep things formal and ensuring you have followed every step correctly, I would do number 2 so you can prove that you have rejected their offer. Don't send them a letter informing them you WILL take them to court - don't give them any more notice. File your claim ASAP, then send them a letter accepting it as part settlement and inform them you HAVE filed your claim.

  • Haha 1

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know


Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have sent a letter accepting their offer in par settlement and gave them 10 days to respond. The 10 days have now past and unsurprisingly no response. I am now about to go to the moneyclaim site to start proceeding's. My question is with regards to date the account was opened. How accurate does this need to be? It was 15 years ago so my girlfriend can't remember the month. will this matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can pin it down to the right month I think that should do. It' not really all that relevant to your case, but shows you have had an account for some time.


I Just put 'account opened around August 1989' because that's when I started my first Job that needed a bank account....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would use the local branch address as this ties it to your local court. Alternatively use the litigation address in London.



RBS Litigation,

1 Princess Street,




The branch address is perfectly valid as it is, but if you use the Litigation address make sure you specify your local court as the location for the hearing (this is a box to fill on the MCOL form I believe)


Clicky scales if I have helped at all....thanks



  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I send a schedule of charges including interest to the bank (using the address on the court documents) as well as the court. I have sent 2 copies to the court.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmm...I'm not entirely sure about MCOL, but I think you possibly should have sent all 3 copies to the Court. They get bundled with the claim, sealed and sent out. 1 Copy each for you, the bank and Court.


I'm sure somebody more knowledgeable will be along to correct me if I'm wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

RBS acknowledged day on the 13th day. Cobbetts have submitted what from what I can see on the posts is the standard defence giving 14 days to repond. Do I wait for the court to send info or do I reply direct copying the court. I am having trouble finding posts that suggest what response should be ( Me prob being blind! ). Can someone suggest a response or point me at a post that could help? Not 100% fluent in legaleese.


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...