Jump to content

a_bx

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Defo find out who the landowner and site operator is- is there not a sign at the carpark?. When a similar thing to me happened the clamper replied with the usual "we can do what we like" style reply but once the landowner/operater was contacted wanted to wash their hands of their "agents" activities. On starting legal proceedings against both the clamper did pay up but i suspect partly because either the landowner didnt fancy a CCJ so nagged them to pay up, or the clamper volunteered it not wanting to upset their relationship with the landowner/operator. Also if the landowner.operator is based a long way from your local court, the hassle and cost of travel there may be a useful. £345 is so high it seems like a penalty being applied rather than the recovery of losses experienced. Also if its a car park and you've exceeded your time limit, the loss incurred by the landowner/operator is only calculated by the fact another car cant park there and pay for that spot. In effect they will have suffered a loss of another hours worth of paid parking....£2~3 perhaps, so this could be offerered as the sum you will pay for exceeding your stay beyond what was agreed! Oh, and does the sign at the carpark warn of towing? If not threatening it may be an act of extortion which helps your case further. Ps. going after the landowner is probably best anyway because I suspect a lot of clampers will go fully insolvent next year with the law changes coming in
  2. Firstly I would check out if the solicitors here are actually guenuine solicitors, and secondly not admit or deny how many persons may or may not have use of this IP address, afterall we dont want to give them more info than they already know so easily! Im also puzzled how they know who the IP address is in use by? I would have thought ISPs wouldn't just hand out such information without a court order as they would need to comply with the Data Protection Act. They may be random mailouts in the hope of someone paying up The opportunist air of intimidation to the letter and especially the assumption that somebody doesnt reply to you automatically makes them liable harks back to the days of witch hunts to me! So even if they are guenuine solicitors I would refer them to the Ministry of Justice and/or Solicitors regulation authority for their conduct...... unfortunately even fully qualified and 'legit' solicitors aren't excempt from behaving unprofessionally.
  3. You could try a Subject Access Request but I fear they may say they dont keep ANY records over 6 years again. If youre planning to take action against them its harder to do it after 6 years anyway.
  4. I'm not at home at the moment so can't do much about PDF'ing the agreement, and although i do have it (HFC also honoured a S78 request) it appears very well written against the CCA '74. The loan was to be paid over 180 monthly installments and the first 12 were fixed % rate and the remainder variable (all specified in the contract). During the first 12 months the payment would be £160.19 which was both specified on the contract and debited from my bank account. All OK. Once into the variable rate period the interest rate changed the monthly payment debited didn't quite match what any online ammortization calculator, loan checking PC applicaiton or MS excel's functions could come up with. ummm. With each change in interest rate up or down this discrepency has got bigger and its only a few quid a month but over 180 payments is going to add up Bizarre. Even more bizarre the discrepency get worse each time the % rate goes down
  5. Looking through previous posts here about HFC it appears they come up with some creative figures when asked about settlement amounts. Has anyone encountered a situation with HFC where the monthly paid is higher than it should be for a given interest rate?
  6. Hello, I suspect what the OR is trying to do is find out what your share of equity on the house was, and did your wife/ex-wife pay you market value for your share of the house. If they think your wife/ex-wife didnt pay you full value for your share this is what the OR may call an 'under value transaction' and try to get your wife to pay them directly the difference. Firstly though you might want to think about how was the equity in the house divided between you was it a 50%/50% split? Anything to prove she has a bigger share than 50% would help protect her- eg. - Has she paid more mortgage payements than yourself thus contributed more? - Has she paid for any significant upgrades to the house recently? - Was the house legally owned as 'owners in common' rather the 'joint owners' and what was the percentage split? Did you take any secured loans/increased the mortgage against the house to gain cash to help your own personal financial plight for which she received nothing? If so you could always say you have already realised your equity share and thus received the benefit of your equity already. Better still, I notice though the mortgage balance is higher than the value of the property so i appears there is no equity in this property for them to chase, plus if your wife/ex-wife has already paid off some of your debts by buying out your share of the houses equity already, may mean the OR will not do anything more! A year or so back i was in a similar situation to your wife/ex-wife but the OR didnt achieve anything against me for a combination of all the reasons above.
  7. I have sort of had a similar problem with the same company and some some 'odd' monthly payment amounts. Has there been any more progress with this one?
  8. Hi Darren I know this thread is a few months old but has their been any progress on this miscalculation issue? Funnily enough I have now spotted a repayment 'descrepency' with a loan I have too and I think it may be a Unfair Relationship issue as a result.
  9. I believe there was a recent case of McGuffik vs RBS where RBS failed to supply a copy of the credit agreement when requested, and the judge decided without the agreement he couldnt enforce the debt but he didnt prevent RBS defaulting the claimants credit file as he didnt consider this an act of enforcement. Its unclear what would happen if the debt was declared irredeemably unenforceable rather than this case, so I guess that means the lender might report you to the credit agency. If your trying for a F&F settlement this could be open to negotiation as it doesnt financially disadvantage your lender not to report you!
  10. I cant remember off the top of my head, but it may be a year or so ago- companies house website Im sure says if you hunt around. The firm overseeing their CVA is the same firm who was the administrator of the predecessor company would you believe. Looking at the BPA website I do wonder what the link between the two are as it maybe more than just association and member relationship....but who knows for now Has anyone ever corresponding with PCM UK and how did they respond?
  11. In short BPAs business model is licencing out their logo. nothing more. Intrisically voluntary 'regulators' cant work because they cant punish their 'customers' who pay to licence their logo who would just threaten un-join their membership. They are also often set up by industry insiders to pretend legitimacy to their conduct.
  12. Aha, Lamma thats the one. Interestingly its an offence to make the company address invisble like this punishable by a level 3 fine. Im sure they have been trading for at least a couple of years so the fact the website is still under construction suggests they have committed the offence under S7(2)© for years on end Curiously under S9 they must reveal their address if you write to them.... err but to what address does one write to?!?!
  13. Companies house website contain details of insolvent companies and those in a Company Voluntary Arrangement, but be totally sure you look for the correct company. Often a company goes under with big debts then reopens under a near identical name and carries on again:mad: Also the insolvency service might have a record too. Just for the record: Parking control management limited is insolvent and shouldnt be trading at all. Parking control management uk limited is in a CVA and still trading pcm-uk.co.uk is live but empty, but they are hiding their address which is a breach of the law i believe (but dont ask me which one off the top of my head)
  14. hi there, I dont know if this threads a wee bit old now but I am about to have a legal tussle with these lot! Funny though because PCM ltd went under a few years ago and miraculously PCM UK Ltd appeared. The latter has also now in liquidation but still trading in the same manner. Coincidence or just a jinxed company name maybe? They will be my little warm up court case before i tackle far bigger banks ;-)
×
×
  • Create New...