Hi I hope you can help. I received a parking ticket ('invoice') back in December. I followed the usual advised route of ignoring the first two letters, but have recently received a further letter threatening Court action. The car park in question is free for an hour, then they expect you to phone and make a payment for anything over the hour. I was there for an hour and a half, having been unexpectedly delayed. As per the Claim Form (which they say they intend to submit), they are claiming the usual contractual breaches, etc. http://imgur.com/a/B1mCN My understanding is, as it was a free cark park (well, first hour at least, not sure of subsequent cost), they have to prove damages/contractual loss, and as that can only amount to a few pence/pounds, their claim for hugely inflated amounts is unfair. Where do I stand? What action should I take next? Many thanks.

***WON*** Judge set aside the demand, but primarily on the basis that Statutory Demand shouldn't have been used as the creditor hadn't exhausted all other routes to reclaimed the alledged debt. The solicitor tried using Carey vs HSBC case-law re: the credit agreement, but Arrow still hadn't provided the original default notice... I expect Arrow to now try other avenues, but without a correctly executed CCA and default notice, surely they have no recourse anyway?

I have a question regarding Letters of Assignment. The one I've received is off Arrow stating that Halifax had transferred legal right to them. Now surely the Letter of Assignment should come from, in this case, Halifax, with them stating they've transferred legal right to Arrow? And, further to this thread (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/196312-invalid-default-notices.html#post2128371) as they can't (haven't) provide a copy of the original Default Notice, then the only amount which can be claimed is any arrears, yes?

Ok, I've been checking all my paperwork and want to clarify some things... 1. I have the copy of the 'agreement' they sent. It does state "Credit Agreement regulated by Consumer Credit Act 1974", but is an application form. It doesn't contain a printed credit limit, but has a hand-written one (from when the processed my application). As I understand, the credit limit is a prescribed term, and its omission invalidates the agreement? 2. The Application Form T&C's contain the APRs for example credit limits. Only on the Account Opening T&C's I received with the card does it state the actual APR. 3. They must provide a copy of the original default notice. They haven't, it's a copy of Arrows' Formal Demand, not the original creditors default notice. 4. The amount being demanded contains unlawful charges (£25 late fees), hence the statutory demand is invalid. 5. Assuming it's set-aside, can I then apply to have any entries on my credit file removed to due CCA non-compliance? Thanks

Actually, isn't it a copy of the original default notice they need to provide? And no, no witness statement.

. .

Update... I filed my Set-Aside and have now received a letter off Arrow a) providing documents which I have requested previously but never received : 1] copy of a Final Demand, but not the original (from the original debtor) 2] copy of Deed of Assignment b) Suggesting that I withdraw my application to have demand set-aside, as I will have to bear their attendance costs should the judge rule in their favour. They still maintain they've sent me an 'agreement', but it's just an application form which doesn't contain all of the prescribed terms, namely a credit limit. Should I reply to Arrow recommending they withdraw their statutory demand, or just wait until I see them in court?

Hi Arrow Global have issued me a Statutory Demand for an alleged credit card debt. On two occasions I have requested from Arrow a properly executed CCA, copies of the original default notice, T&C's, and any deed of assignment. On both occasions they have failed to provide these, instead sending me a copy of an 'application' form, which obviously doesn't contain the required prescribed terms. I responded to a letter stating they were going to issue SD last week, stating the above, breach of OFT guidelines, etc. Obviously, I'm going to apply to have the SD set aside. Can I just use the content of this defense as my set-aside request? Any other advice would be appreciated.

I recently received a response to a SAR / CCA request from Arrow Global. It relates to a Bank One credit card from years ago which i recently found to have a default entry on my otherwise clean credit file. The copy form they've returned is actually the application form. It doesn't appear to have the prescribed terms on the front, i.e. APR and Credit Limit, nor is it properly signed (it has a date stamp with a signature if that counts). Is there any action i can take to get the default removed? Also, i never received the default notice which i understand they need to provide.

It the car is on private property, i.e. your drive, and correctly SORN'd, then they can't fine you for having no tax, nor take it away. I do believe it would be trespass too, maybe someone else could confirm that though.

Unfortunately, i believe this correspondence will count as acknowledging the debt

Makes no difference, it would've still be executed under CCA 74.

Simply write to them stating that you do not acknowledge the alledged debt. Providing you have not acknowledged the debt (verbally, writing, or made a payment) in six years, then yes, it's statute barred.

Bernie, See this thread over at MoneySavingExpert.... URGENT: Cancel your tax disc now. - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums

Noticed this yesterday.... On the Pay & Display machines in Birmingham, and i'm sure elsewhere too, one of the penalty clauses states "Parking with payment made to extend stay beyond initial period". So, basically, you can pay for 2 hours, but if you then pay for a further 2 hours without moving your vehicle, you can get a ticket. But.... the sticker for Park & Pay (whereby you phone or text to pay for parking) clearly states that a 10p fee is payable when extend your parking time. Now that's blatantly a contradiction, and in my opinion, an unfair term for those that don't use Park & Pay. Where would that leave someone who had paid extra in the machine to extend their stay, but received a ticket under the clause mentioned?