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

Robdblynd V Abbey (Round 2)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5188 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

Well, here we go again. This time it's my own account, main thread refers to joint account with OH. :)


Originally requested statements online in late Feb.

Got letter 01/03 to say needed £10 etc. Received on 07/03.

Rang 07/03 and authorised payment over phone. Got 14 months statements within days.

On 23/03 sent official SAR request to make it formal.

Pam Speeds dept answered on 28/03 with bog standard, 'sending them to you' letter. Mentioned years 01 to 05 then usual 'don't keep records of manual intervention' stuff.

Letter dated 17/04 with 'summary of charges' spreadsheet arrived. Covering letter says refunding £10 as apology for delay and if account opened pre 2004 then details of charges to follow. Received this letter on 19/04.

On 18/04 had written to them saying that I required all information on account back to date of inception in Nov 1998. As yet no response.

Today, letter dated 23/04 enclosing microfiche photocopies from 01 to 03.


Shame I've got all the rest of the statements I need. OH called me a compulsive collector but he's changed his tune since reclaiming hit the news.


Now it's down to getting a spreadie filled in and seeing just how much they've taken.


Will update you all as it happens. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks Karne.


Quick update.


On 3rd May I spoke to Abbey about statements cos I'd got letter dated 30th April saying they couldn't supply details of account from when it was opened as it went back beyond 6 years and they don't keep info before then.


When I rang young chap was very pleasant and said that was right. I told him I knew for a fact they held records, albeit archived from 1925 onwards. He sent away for a minute, came back and said there's a £10 charge for info. Told him No, I'd already paid for a full S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and that was what I wanted, the stuff they'd sent me so far was incomplete and insufficient.


He went away again then came back on the line and said that's fine, they've been ordered and will be here in approx 14 days but it might take a bit longer. I told him I'd give them no more than 21 days to get everything to me as the original request went in late Feb, was made formal in March (I did quote dates as him) and that was sufficient time to get the things photocopied.


I told him I'd ring again if they weren't here inside 21 days and an official complaint would be lodged with the relevant authorities.


So now I'm getting info from December 1998 up to January 2001, another two years. When it comes, one claim going in and I'm gonna have a look at the idea on another thread about restitution. Seems only fair they give back what they've earned while they had my money, equality and all that.


Updates as they happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I phoned and harrassed the you know what out of them.


I've sent a letter to their Data Controller complaining and I've also PM's Zootscoot who put up the info but no answer from her.


I've sent off prelim for the first 6 years cos I really don't think there were any charges before then but I just wanted the info to annoy them.


We shall see what comes back.


I turned gold and didn't even notice but the crowns will have to wait a day or so, I've got my hands full with the court bundle cos given the way Ms Kirkham responded to concat I rather think I'll be getting the snotty email about mismanaging my account any time soon. I've copied GaryH's response into a doc so it's handy if that happens and the offer to settle without wasted costs will be withdrawn, so need the bundle handy for then.


Besides, the court office told me I might only have 3 or 4 days to get it filed by the time I actually get the notice from the court, they're so far behind with the paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update time:


LBA posted 12th July, delivered 13th July.


Today got the usual, "we've looked into it, we're right,charges stand, we're open and fair, don't contravene any regs and here's 10%, now go away" letter.


Am about to send email to them giving them 48hours to respond saying basically I''ve sued you once and you settled, I'll do it again in 48 hours so why not settle now for just the charges? Will file Thursday and then another 8% gets added plus court courts. Make it commercially viable for yourselves, settle now".


Anybody think they'll listen? ................. Nah, me either but it'll look good in court don't ya think?;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want it to look good in court give them at least a week, but i would put my house on Inga getting back to you in say 3 weeks saying that she is not willing to settle your claim early unless it is "commercially palatable " LOL



Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed


Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...