Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Tangliss, if you can't upload the letter, could you tell us what the heading is please? My understanding is it should say 'Letter before claim' or similar. HB
    • Do you think I should send the CCA request now then instead of waiting? I really can do without the stress. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you for responding.
    • How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")? Or are they acting for you in insolveny? What's the current role of the agent?
    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
  • 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

Rogue company Parking Control Management


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4121 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patrick Troy, chief executive of the BPA, said that a member of staff would be visiting PCM to check that it was complying with the code. He said the BPA preferred to work with member companies and give them the chance to change their practices rather than fining or expelling them.

 

It's a pity the BPA members don't prefer to apply a similar approach to people alledgedly misusing a car park instead of fining or expelling them (banning them returning) for these apparent misdemenours! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr King said that motorists ticketed or clamped on private land should have the same right of appeal to an independent body as drivers who were fined for parking offences on public roads.

 

King's missing the point entirely. How can there be an appeals process? It would mean overturning centuries of contract law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr King's organisation is an insurance company-sponsored former 'motoring' organisation with no members. That said, it is interesting that they are only commenting on those situations where you are a victim of extortion - you don't get YOUR property back unless you pay money to the people who took your vehicle.

 

Since clamping in Scotland was outlawed on the basis of it 'depriving the car owner of the full enjoyment of his purchase', this has the added benefit of stopping firms lifting vehicles from private property, as the same situation occurs. This just leaves Scottish drivers with the prospect of private tickets, and we all know how to deal with those. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

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 ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me how you know they have gone under? I ask as their website has now gone down and I'm trying to pursue them for a fine settlement. Cheers:grin:

 

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 :eek:

 

Curiously under S9 they must reveal their address if you write to them.... err but to what address does one write to?!?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pity the BPA members don't prefer to apply a similar approach to people alledgedly misusing a car park instead of fining or expelling them (banning them returning) for these apparent misdemenours! :D

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did have a fully functioning website a few weeks back which made them look like an A1 firm. ISO badges, BPA logos, plus others. Does anyone know when they entered a CVA?

 

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 :rolleyes:

 

Has anyone ever corresponding with PCM UK and how did they respond?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I got nowhere with them, and now that they're in a CVA there does not seem much point taking them to the small claims court, chances of a refund, nill...

 

Never use private car parks, lesson learnt! especially those operated by this firm, although they'll probably be changing their name again at some point soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

This company behave like hooligans, I have seen them clamping aggressively in the past, now clamping is being outlawed their revenue is diminished and they are under financial pressure.

I hope Mr Ian Cordingley has to find employment in a proper job

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...