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

TTB V's the HELIFAX


 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5178 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 have been a reader of this site for a long time and finally (after paying a £800 overdraft off) decided to hit the Halifax,

I sent my SAR on the 6th March and the cheque i enclosed was cashed on the 21st March,

Having not even received a letter to say they are processing this i rang them this morning and have been told my order has not been received:? and that the lady i spoke to will re-order them today for free, so i asked if i get my £10.00 back she said not as that was to pay for the first request which they didn't get :-x , LOL i know i am going to get this back at some stage but am ammused at how thick these people must think i am, i have had enough so i am off to the post office to send the Failure to comply with DSAR letter by recorded delivery that should speed things up,

Sorry for the long post but this site is fantastic and i will be following the halifax with a claim to A&L as well.

thanks all for a great site

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be well on your way lol.

Keep updating the thread so we see how you get on.

 

Any worries just shout.

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

**Update**

Still not received my list of charges which should have been ordered last week,

tried to ring today and find it ammusing how they are closed at 5pm,

Its a shame the collections departments didn't close at 5pm i would have had far less episodes of Corry and football matches interupted if they were :x

I will be sending the next letter tomorrow by recorded delivery

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

**UPDATE**

received the statements and sent request for repayment of charges on 1st May 2007 for £509.00

received fob off letter this morning, sending LBA tomorrow recorded delivery, they have 14 days or they will be in court soon,

feels good this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received my fob off letter today, quick response in less than 7 days!! My next letter will be even faster. Watch this space I am angry now at the generic letter sent out. So much for the catch phrase for Halifax, ''Get a little xtra help .. '' for what I ask? to get further in debt !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

**update**

after a hectic few months with a newborn i have finally caught up with Helifax, after sending them 6 yes 6 letters by recoreded delivery they finally acknowledge my claim and made an offer of a measily £254.50 sent a rejection and letter on the 9th July and am going to court this aft to put the N1 claim form in.

after this i will tackle my other Halifax and then A&L

thanks for all the advice guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to have control!

 

You only had to send 6 letters?

 

I have a sheaf of Orange *Signed For* receipts and a sheaf of *Special Delivery* receipts as well!

Dummie's Guide to CAG: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

Me v BofS: Charges: £13,048.10 #2a/c Statements from 08/01/01 received. Charges:£5,156.39 Information Commissioner's Office informed June 12th who wrote to BoS, June 22nd for non-compliance. #1a/c: passed to BoS Senior Review Team. Discovered 2 further a/cs, and 3 Loan accounts. "Goodwill offer" of £7,424.23 06/07/07. Accepted (partial repayment). 20/07/07 Top-up payments of £2,558.10 & £1,154.00

£11,136.33 paid back thus far.

New claim issued: 9/07/2007 for 3rd account: £500+ PRESSING ON!

Don't forget - when you win - a donation to CAG would be welcome!

If anything I've said has remotely been of any assistance, then please tip my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe the cheek, of Halifax,

they rang me yesterday to say they had my offer refusal letter and offered me a total of £381.xx. And then said it is my right to reject this but they would not advise me to with regards to the court case that is now plastered all over the news, not sure what to do now should i go put my claim to the court or accept the offer.

i am also wondering whether i should begin proceedings on my other account with them

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...