Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Had a previous car loan with this lot. Included in the amount (prior to added interest) on this agreement, is the outstanding balance from the previous loan. This outstanding balance had already been subject to hefty interest on the 1st loan, yet on this agreement they added interest to it again! Also, where it states that the particular Ts and Cs (ref # removed) form part of the agreement, the Ts and Cs they've sent, which they say are part of the agreement, but they are not- they have a different reference number to the Ts and Cs which form part of the (original) agreement. agreeandterm.pdf
    • I would only rely on your solicitor in this regard. The other two should not have a view.   And, you are responsible for how the court perceive you. They only have your words and deeds to go on. Expecting them to magically see things your way is not a great tactic.
    • Yes, I don't think there is any downside to doing this. If they decline then you can say that in your witness statement
    • Ok! Do you still want me to work on that letter you discussed above in post #26?
    • Thank you for posting up the required details and well done for apparently not revealing the identity of the driver. I am assuming you are the keeper? The depth of ignorance of the parking companies is absolutely amazing. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 is the law relating to private parking and allows those rogues to be able to transfer the charge from the driver [whose name they do not know] to the keeper after 28 days . This is dependent on them complying with the Act. So many of the don't and Alliance is no different. It would help if we could see what you appeal was and to post the back of the PCN as it is lacking so much of the wording necessary to make it compliant so that in your case only the driver is liable to pay the charge. And of course just entering the ANPR arrival times means that they have failed to specify the parking time which is a requirement..  Because the car park was so busy you had to drive around for quite a while before finally finding a place to park which is when the parking period may  actually begin. The poor dears at Alliance have not grasped that particular part of the legislation as yet. To be fair the Act has only been in place for 12 years so one must make allowances for their stupidity . We shouldn't really mock them- but it is fun. You weren't to know but the chances of winning an appeal against Alliance and the IPC is around 5%-and that is high for them. If they allow you to cancel they lose the chance of making money and they would have had a field day when you were there with so many people being caught overstaying because of the chaos in trying to find a parking space then trying to pay.  Your snotty letter could go something like this- Dear Cretins, Yes I mean you Alliance. After 12 years one would have thought that even you could produce a compliant PCN. Did you really think I would pay you a penny extra considering the time I wasted trying  to pay with  long queues at the parking machine, then trying to get a signal to call Just Park. On top of that you then had the cheek to ask for an additional £70 for what dubious unspecified pleasure? You must have made a killing that day charging all those motorists for overstaying because the queues to pay were do long and even walking to pay from the over flow parking fields takes time. And yes I did take photos of the non existent signs in the fields so please don't give me the usual rubbish about your signs being clearly visible. Oh yes that £70. Please tell me and the Court whether that charge included VAT and if it did, why am I being charged to pay your vat? I am sure the Judge would look carefully at that as well as the Inland Revenue. The truth is you had no reasonable cause to ask the DVLA for my data given the chaos at your car park and I believe that you therefore breached my GDPR...................... I expect others will give their views as well.          
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Appealing a CCJ and subsequent Charging order - IG Index vs me


ssnichani
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5681 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

Below is brief history of my case.

This maybe slightly off topic as it is not the conventional creditor but a credit account with a spread bet company.

I opened an account online with IG Index in 2006. This was then upgraded to a credit account and for this there is one e-mail correspondence from them confirming that the credit limit is and another supposedly from me confirming that I was happy with the credit limit. There is no signed credit agreement nor were there any prescribed terms of a credit agreement in the email correspondence. While I do not recollect this I have had suspicious activity in my e-mail account (emails getting deleted) which was reported to yahoo who could not help.

Later on things went horribly wrong and IG closed my positions in a huge loss of tens of thousands of pounds. Immediately they started sending threatening letters followed up by threatening letters from their solicitors asking me to allow a voluntary charge on the property giving me three days time for this. The solicitors then followed this up with a county court claim "saying I made a written application to open the account and in doing so accepted the terms and conditions of the account". With threats and intimidation from the solicitors I was led to admit the claim. At the time I answered the allocation questionnaire there was an option to stay the matter for a month in order to try and resolve it privately. I checked that option of a stay of one month. In spite of that I had a judgement without any hearing and this was then immediately followed by a charging order and the charge registered on my property. I went through a redetermination process and had a hearing for the redetermination and the charging order but at that time when I was disputing the judgement, I was told that the hearing was for redetermination and charging order only and month payment was fixed along with a charging order on my property.

By this time all this had taken it toll on my and I was in a state of depression.

Having recovered from my past now, I sent a SAR to IG Index recently and received a big pack from them by special delivery containing screen prints of my account information. There were some account notes with references to phone calls, saying spoke to client and the client is happy with the account etc.

I then replied back re-iterated my request for ALL DATA including any phone conversations etc. In response to that I have a letter stating they do not index their calls by client and it would mean going into a vast quantity of storage media to retrieve the information which would cost them thousands of pounds. Why should this matter to me as to how much they have to spend in order to satisfy my perfectly lawful SAR?

I would like to appeal the CCJ, i.e. set aside the judgment and the following are the reasons I feel why this should be set aside.

1. Although a request for a one month stay was made in the allocation questionnaire this was not taken in consideration and the judgement a judgement was made without a hearing. Not only did this not give me a chance to SAR IG at that stage and get some sound advice on the contrary it led me to submit to the threats and intimidation of IG and their solicitors.

2. On doing the SAR recently the following facts have come to light:

a. Although in the claim form they have stated that I made a written application and in doing so accepted the terms of the account, I had not made a written application nor recollect accepting any terms.

b. As it stands it appears there seems to be just a couple of e-mail correspondence regarding upgrading the account to a credit account with allegedly one email from me stating that I was happy with the credit limit.

c. Although there is a credit limit in this e-mail there are no other prescribed terms whatsoever and as it stands it was not even signed by me nor do I recollect the alleged email correspondence accepting the credit limit.

d. The SAR request is not complete as requested for reason mentioned above.

Can you helpful people here help me in preparing a case for the judgement to be set aside and then battle the IG Index claim after that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Early on in your post you say this:

 

'The solicitors then followed this up with a county court claim "saying I made a written application to open the account and in doing so accepted the terms and conditions of the account". With threats and intimidation from the solicitors I was led to admit the claim.'

 

Later, you say you returned an Allocation Questionnaire.

 

Those two pieces of information indicate to me that you perhaps filed a part admission and a defence to the other part. Would I be right? If so, what happened to the part of the claim that was disputed? If I'm wrong, was the whole of the claim admitted or was it entirely disputed? If entirely disputed, how was the claim finally decided, by which I mean, was it at a trial, or at some other kind of hearing?

 

Answering these questions will assist in deciding what further rights you may have.

 

x20

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time due to threats and intimidation from the company and their solicitors claiming that if I were to not co-operate then they could fore a sale of my house, I actually admitted the claim. I do remeber that I disputed the amount (which was the interest they had added). The judjement initially was for the amount I admitted but soon followed with a correction to add interest and costs.

Edited by ssnichani
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have one letter from their solicitor stating that their client would like a charge on the house and then can discuss installments and requested a response in 3 days failing which they would take legal action.

 

Other than that this was mostly dealt over by phone. They also said we could make me bankrupt and get the money that way. Again this was over the phone. Which is why I have requested them to provide me with all data including phone calls under the SAR.

 

The claim was for an amount plus interest. At the time I admitted the amount but disputed the interest. I did not withdraw my dispute on the interest part. The judgment initially came at the full amount without the interest. But following the judgment they were then allowed to add interest and costs back on which is what I was told in subsequent redetermination/charging order hearing.

 

As I have never been in such a situation before at the time I was depressed and also did not get any good advice. I did not even read that they were stating that I made a written application and thereby agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions nor did I request for a copy of the alleged written application. Moreover the one month stay that I had requested through the allocation questionnaire to try and get some advice and resolve the matter did not materialize as the judgment was given without any stay and without even a hearing.

Edited by ssnichani
Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble with setting aside a judgment in these circumstances is that the judgment was obtained on an admission. That is, an admission in the case. A somewhat worse situation than for example, an open admission pre-litigation. Plus, it would seem the judgment on the admission was entered some time ago.

 

To set aside a judgment on an admission and this old is an uphill struggle. The grounds you have put forward would not in an ordinary case on a contract be overwhelmingly sure-fire, let alone a case where judgment had been entered on an admission years earlier.

 

Then I thought like this. As a matter of public policy, Parliament generally seeks to strike a blance on one hand to permit responsible gambling and on the other to control gambling where necessary to protect citizens from overreaching themselves and so forth.

 

If the admission was of an obligation arising from an event which in fact the law prohibited or sought to control or make unenforceable owing to public policy consderations there may be a chance if an application could be dressed up in the right garb. I would anticipate that a court would not be slow to set aside a money judgment where it could be shown that the money claim arose from, for example, the price for bringing an illegal immigrant into the country.

 

Just a thought, no more than that. You might want to do a bit of research yourself on this topic and get back to us when you think you may have something to go on.

 

x20

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...