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

SCM Defence - Any help appreciated


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5278 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

Just received back 'Notice of Transfer of Proceedings' from my local court, i'm trying to claim back £2100 from Lloyds tsb including 8% interest to date, i received this defence from SCM:

1. The Defendant Lloyds TSB Bank Plc is a Bank whose registered office is 25 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HN. It is admitted that the claiment has been a customer of the bank at all material times.

2. By opening an account with the Bank, the customer enters into a commercial arrangementwith the bank for the provision of banking services. The bankis entitled, as part of that arrangement, to charge for those services. At account opening the customeris provided with details of the banks charges, currently in a leaflet a guide to our banking charges. By usingthe account, the customer acknowledges that the charges are incorporated into the contract. For personal customers, a number of services are provided for free, notwithstanding that they are an expense to the bank. Such services presently include, but are not limted to providing; cheques, bank statements, the facility to make payments by direct debit and standing order debit cards, ATMs (cash machines)

3. By maintaining the account in credit, or within any limit agreed with the bank, the customer may avoid most if not all charges. If the customer fails to ensure that there are sufficient cleared funds in the account to cover payments, whether by cheque, debit card, standing order or direct debit, the customer makes a request for payment to be made from the banks own funds. If the bankmakes payment, or returns the payment, it provides a service as specified in the leaflet and makes a charge in accordance with the terms of the contract. On page 1 of the leaflet, the bank explains that there are normally charges for everyday banking at Lloyds TSB when your account is in credit. When you use an agreed overdraft, there is no monthly fee and we only charge interest on the amount you are overdrawn each day. Where you go overdrawn without an agreement or where you use special services, such as copy statements, we will make a charge. This guide explains how these charges work, and when they will apply. If you want to use a service that we haven’t listed, we’ll tell you the cost of that service before you give us the go-ahead.

4. There is no breach of contract; the charge cannot therefore be a penalty, consequently there is no requirement that the charge be a pre-estimate of the banks loss.

5. The customer is given advance warning of charges beings imposed; statements show the charges, if any, the cutomer has incurred during the course of a month, and which will appear as debits on the following months statement. Customers are warned by letter when they go overdrawn or over their agreed limit without arrangement with the bank. If the customer fails to remedy the position, and payments such as standing orders and direct debits are refused, then again the customer is warned by letter.

6. The charges are fair and reasonable, and it is denied that they are unlawful.

7. The customer is notified of the charges in plain intelligible language at the conclusion of the contract, and on each monthly statement. The charges are terms which relate to the price payable by the customer for a service provided by the bank, and pursuant to regulation 6 of the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999, are not subject to the assessment of fairness…

They then summarise the above saying I can basically swing for it if I think I’ll get any money…

Did anyone else get this response from SCM? Help because I obviously need to do something now, it suggests on the front that


1. The filing of an Allocation questionnaire be dispensed with in this case unless the district judge at the court of transfer orders otherwise

Will this be sent to me?

Many Thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites



If it helps that is almost word for word what I received and seems to be the standard defense. Have you read http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/81799-issues-raised-llloyds-bank.html and looked at court bundles etc?


You are in the same position as me as the court hasn't asked you to file an allocation questionnaire. This seems to be a fairly new thing, and I am currently asking questions on my thread about what to do now. I guess we just wait for a court date to come through and start preparing the paperwork.


Good luck!




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome Swartie,


Firstly don't worry - this is their standard defence from the looks of things. Check out the defence we got from them here.


At the moment you don't need to do anything apart from waiting for a court date. It sounds as though they are transferring the claim to your local court and the IT IS ORDERED THAT sentence means that unless the District Judge at your court particularly wants an Allocation Questionnaire to be completed, then it is not necessary. I think the courts are starting to do this now as they're seeing it as unnecessary - the majority of the banks are using the court process to waste time etc.


Good luck. Lucid :)

Mindzai & Lucid vs Lloyds TSB

*Won unconditionally with contractual interest (29.85% compounded)

Lucid's Account - £749.62 * Joint Account - £2019.64 * Mindzai's Account - £595.65

*All settled in full - 6/2/07

*Hearings - 7/2/07

*Prelims sent - 9/8/06


GOT A COURT DATE? A guide to the later stages



Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...