Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as 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. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage 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 that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY 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 any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not 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. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is 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.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Landlord's mortgage arrears - tenant eviction...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5255 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

After two years unemployment, and having moved back to my parents after living in London for several years, I finally got a new job in another part of the country. I slummed it on a mate's couch for the first month, and finally got a flat to rent in the city centre, took the keys on May 9th, and moved stuff in over the weekend of 12th/13th.

 

The rent is £500/month, with a deposit of £500 (which was agreed I'd pay over two months). I had to pay an "administration fee" of £200 to the letting agent.

 

On the first attempted viewing, the agent's rep had left the keys inside, nipped out to his car and locked himself out of the entrance to the apartment block. I watched him for about half hour trying to break in to the block using various methods without success. I arranged to view the next evening with the Letting Agent himself, a Friday night. I left work early to squeeze it in on my way to the railway station as i was going back to my parents for the weekend. As I was on my way, I got a text from the Agent, "Running late, sorry, can't make it - have to do it tomorrow." It's only an hour from parents by train, didn't have little choice, so I agreed, despite a saver return costing £28!

 

I did view on the Saturday morning - he was late - and I pretty much knew how the flat would look as I'd viewed others with different agents. I did the deal, (he was asking £550pcm - the price that furnished flats are going for in the development, I offered £475pcm - a fair price for unfurnished - and we agreed on £500pcm - slightly over the odds). At the viewing I pointed out that the carpets needed cleaning, the kitchen cupboards, oven and bathrooms also needed cleaning. He promised that this would all be taken care of. I gave him £200 cash "administration and preparation fee", receipt of which was confirmed by him writing on his business' compliments slip.

 

We arranged for me to take the keys on the following Wednesday - May 9th. When he arrived - late - he said he didn't have time to do the business, and could we do it the the next evening. Reluctantly I agreed, he gave me the keys, I gave him a cheque for £250 deposit and £500 first months rent. The receipt of this was again acknowledged on a business' compliments slip. He left (this all happened in the car park, not the property) and i went in. None of the cleaning had been done. I did a pretty thorough inspection, making a detailed list of faults (only minor faults to be honest) which I emailed to him the following morning.

 

Next evening he cancelled meeting me to sort out the tenancy agreement, and said could we do it the next evening, Friday. The carpets, etc., still hadn't been cleaned, and again he promised that it would be taken care of before I moved my furniture in on the Saturday.

 

I phoned him on the Friday morning to make sure he was getting the carpets cleaned, "Yes mate, it'll all be done!" On his track record I thought it prudent to ask if he had keys to let cleaners in. "Yes, don't worry, it'll all be taken care of."

 

I checked in on the Friday evening 5pm - when again he was supposed to be sorting out the Tenancy Agreement - but again cancelled because he was running late, and, yes you've guessed it. No cleaning. I contacted him immediately, and he said that I was starting to **** him off! "How could I get in, you've got the keys?" "Err, that's why I asked you this morning if you needed keys to get in..." "No you didn't!"

 

It just so happened that I was only 10 minutes from where he lives, so I said, "Fortunately for you, I'm eating at the retail park, so you can come and collect the keys, I'll be at the property between 3 and 5 tomorrow to drop my first delivery of stuff in - you will be there to return keys and to sort out the Tenancy Agreement. He sent his cleaning crew to collect the keys.

 

I phoned him when I was 20 minutes away. He arrived with the keys, and the tenancy agreement (Standard Shorthold Tenancy Agreement) and an "application form" - which he filled in "to make it quicker", I signed but didn't get a copy of either (Standard Shorthold Tenancy Agreement) - he said he'd post out my copies shortly. Fortunately the carpets had been cleaned! (But not the oven, kitchen work surfaces or hob top). I found it surprising that we didn't do a thoroughly detailed inspection/an inventory check - and when I pointed out that the vertical blind in the master bedroom had been removed, he said, "I'm sure it was here when we viewed." I said I'd emailed him a full list of things first thing the morning after I'd got the keys, "Oh, I don't get time to look at emails...."

 

The letting agent told me that the previous tenants had done a runner with 2 months rent unpaid (and sure enough, there was plenty of mail to that effect. In fact, on the Friday before I moved in there was letters from the water and electricity supplier threatening to switch off supply - which I took care of straightaway. On my first night sleeping there, the doorbell rang at 3.30am and the previous tenant wanted to "get his furniture" (I didn't open the door!) but just shouted through that there wasn't any furniture there and I'd just moved in (along with a request for him to "go away", and if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a pacifist and was half naked, I'd be giving him a thoroughly good hiding).

 

On the Friday of that first week I got home to find a letter addressed to "Mrs xxxxx xxxxxx AND ANY OTHER OCCUPIER". I correctly guessed that Mrs X was the owner of the property. The letter was from my adopted city's Crown Court and was an eviction notice for her and any other occupants, eviction to be actioned at 10.30am June 5th. I had the name and address of the legal firm who brought the action and who they were acting on behalf of, and the bailiff details at the courts. I called the letting agent who didn't answer his phone so I left a couple of messages and then contacted him by text.

 

I phoned all the parties trying to find out as much as I could first thing Monday morning. The letting agent, who is a total tool, was as flippant as you like and offered not much more than, "Oh this happens all the time, it'll be ok. And if it does happen we'll move you into somewhere else..." (Err, I've just spent a fortune, money and not to mention time and effort, moving in to this place!)

 

By the Wednesday (just gone) the mortgage people got back to me to say that Mrs X had come to an arrangement with them. However, I've had further letters on Thursday and Friday from the mortgage company's solicitors, asking her to contact them immediately to make an arrangement and halt the forthcoming legal action (i.e.: eviction).

 

With it being a bank holiday there's not much I can do before tomorrow and that only leaves a week before E-day. What are my rights, what are my next steps. My mother works as a Legal Sec and one of the solicitors she works for is a property specialist. She's suggested that I make an offer to the mortgage company to pay them the rent direct; but the mortgage company has told me that she hasn't even got a buy-to-let mortgage. Sorry this has been a bit rambling for my first post...

Link to post
Share on other sites

No advise, just wishing you well really, hope everything works out for you.

PLEASE DONATE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN

 

 

A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.

George Bernard Shaw

 

 

 

 

Go on, click me scales (if I have helped) :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus what a mess. No advice also but wish you well. I'm sure Mr Shed or Joa will be along before long with some advice

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the agent was instructed by the owner you have a tenancy as they accepted rent

 

But

 

If the owner's mortgage prohibits letting and consent was not obtained (and from what you say it seems highly likely it was not) the tenancy is not good against the lender unless they accept it.

 

If the agent was not instructed by the owner you have no tenancy, but can sue the agent for breach of warranty of authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all!

 

Wulfrunslade,after reading your posts and in my view(apart from being a bit of a messy situation to be in!):

 

1.If the owner of the property has fallen into arrears with the mortgage the mortgage company would be interested in seeing that the mortgage account is brought up to date.

 

2.If an arrangement has been made,you have nothing to worry about(for the moment anyway) as would seem that the owner has made some payments towards the mortgage arrears.You would not be able to make the payments directly to the mortgage company as any repossession preceedings would be suspended either fully if all the arrears are cleared or completely if an arrangement has been made between the owner and the mortgage company under a court order.

 

 

3.In the worst case scenario,I would have thought you would be given a bit of grace period in order to vacate normally this would probably be around 6 weeks in order to find yourself suitable alternative accomodation.In this case,it is essential that you let the bailiff know that you occupy the property.

 

4.Some mortgage contracts allow "receivers" to take on the management/maintenance and rent collection on behalf of the defaulting landlord and upon the instruction of the mortgage company.In this case,the tenancy agreement would be dealt with in a normal fashion and the only difference would be is that you would pay the rent to the receiver rather than the landlord as this is why the receiver would be appointed in the first place - failure to repay the mortgage payments to the mortgage company.

 

5.You have not specified if there has been a receiver appointed or not but my guess here is no as you would have received a letter from a receiver addressed to the occupier that all future rent payments would be made to the receiver rather than the landlord from then onwards rather than letters from the mortgage company's acting solicitors firm.

 

6.If you have to move out you should be able to sue for any of your losses and possibly for not being told that there were problems with the owner paying the mortgage.I would not worry about that at this stage and any guidance regarding this on my part would be given to you further down the line if needed.

 

I hope you find this information useful.

 

If you have any questions,just ask.

 

Keep us posted.

 

All the best!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a nightmare. I'm afraid I can't offer any advise but wish you well! Sounds like you've been up against it for a few years. I admire you for turning your life around. Keep going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...