Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I agree with what you are saying, I only mentioned the governing body code of practice as a nod to the fact that I wasn't dismissing the BPA or whoever out of hand, thought that would go in my favour before a judge. I wrote a long post about the BPA CoP earlier but then deleted it because I realised I wasn't talking about points of law but a set of guidelines drawn up by one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans. It is ludicrous that the 5 minute consideration period doesn't apply if the motorist parks, such nonsense. As for legislation, I was referring to the government legislation (if it is legislation?) document which has been withdrawn. Does that stand until it has been reintroduced? In the explanatory document it is quite clear. Otherwise, how does one hold them to the consideration and grace periods? Or is that at the discretion of the judge?
    • Thank you all   JK, I agree; if they were to accept my full claim today, then the interest would be around 8-9 pounds. If I were them, I would have offered to pay the interest and said no to the 12 pounds for the letters. These have not been mentioned, which is my mistake.   As you pointed out, if the judge were to award at 4% and I did not get the letters, I would get less.   Bank, thank you. I do hear what you are saying. If I am to continue with this, then I will need to pay an additional trial fee of £59. If I win everything, then great, but if I win less the claim and court fee, then I lose out. I am not sure what the judge will think about the interest. I think we have to remember that I won the item and, therefore, did not pay a penny for it. Yes, I have had to purchase an additional one, but maybe the judge will hold this against me. I am content that this is a win. I have not signed any non-disclosure clauses, and they do not ask for this either in their offer. 
    • Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..
    • Well you would think that would be the case. Sadly i doubt there is one honest broker within the BPA or IPC and most of their members. they are there to take as much money as they can from motorists regardless of PoFA.   Take the Consideration  period for example. This is a minimum of 5 minutes to allow motorists to find a parking space, read the T&Cs giving them enough time to leave the car park without having to pay if they decide not stay. Simple. Well it would be simple if it were any other company than BPA [or IPC who have now fallen into line with BPA's "reasoning"].  You see if you decide to stay then despite the fact that during the Consideration period when you still weren't classed as parking , once you accept the terms [with all the underhand little tricks designed to trip you up] that five minutes is now included in your parking time. [No not the parking period because the poor dears who ANPR cameras are apparently unable to work out what the exact parking period is since their ever so infallible cameras [yeah right] are incapable of tracking cars once they are in a car park]. After 12 years they still haven't worked out a way of doing it. Some of them fudge and the majority [with a wink fro their ATA [Accredited Trade Association though it should be Discredited Trade Association] just ignore the parking period all together. This is what BPA claim is the Consideration period Entrance grace period: This is for when motorists enter a car park, read the signs and/or attempt to make payment then leave. In these instances, motorists must be offered a reasonable amount of time before an operator takes enforcement action, but we do not define this time, due to the variance in size and layout of car parks. An entrance grace period for a small, permit-only car park could be below 5 minutes, whereas for a large multi-story this could be 15. But  heaven forbid that anyone should leave 6 or 7 minutes after entering  their member's car parks. . They are dutybound to receive a PCN. This is regardless of how busy the car park would be [Christmas eve for example ] .Our minimum is their maximum. Moving on to Grace periods. Again BPA gobble degook. Exit grace period: This must be a minimum of 10 minutes and this is when a motorist intends to stay – for example, if you paid for an hour but spent a total of 1 hour 10 minutes on-site, you will not receive a PCN. It is important to note that the grace period is not a free period of parking however and should not be advertised as such. If that ten minutes in not free parking what is it. their members all think they can send out PCNs for anything after 1 minute after the exact time never mind ten minutes. Our snotty letters have stood the test of time. Do not try to reinvent the wheel -especially with DCBL . They don't even know what a non compliant PCN is for goodness sake! You already know more about PoFA then they do. However if you include that they will find a way to disabuse the Judge of your logic and the law. So don't give them the chance.  I am sure you have the Parking Prankster going on about the rogues misusing the rules on planning permission by lying and stating that they had "retrospective permission". There is no such thing in English law yet Judges were swallowing it until one Judge pulled up Parking Eye about one of their Witness Statements alluding to "rp" by claiming it was "tantamount to perjury".  It wasn't tantamount,it was plain and simple perjury. Parking Prankster: The great private car park planning approval scam PARKING-PRANKSTER.BLOGSPOT.COM Guest blog from shuteyepark, from the Consumer Action group forums In December 2013 my daughter received a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) fro... Hope it wasn't too long winded Nicky Boy.🙂
  • 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

Whocallsme - The truth and nothing but...


F_DCAs
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4489 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

As some of you may know already, I seem to be hitting a nerve with certain debt collection agencies (ie Lowell) by my posting links to CAG on whocallsme.com.

 

Therefore, it seems the only logical step is - keep making people aware.

 

I've given regular plugs for CAG on my 'dcamaggots' Youtube clips, with some success, but intend to do the same on whocallsme, as I believe that there are still not nearly enough people who know their legal rights are regularly being abused by bailiffs or debt collection agencies.

 

Therefore, it's high time that as many people as possible are made aware of this site and the help it can offer.

 

So, what I'm looking for are as many phone numbers that these companies use as humanly possible. For instance, Lowell mainly use 01133086000, but do use several others. I'm hoping to create CAG links to every single number that is used by a collection agency or bailiff firm. Reasoning for this is because whocallsme appears to be the main site used to check on phone numbers.

 

I'm well aware that there's CAG links on many numbers already.

 

There is nothing malicious or illegal about this - whocallsme is there to inform the public about the companies that use these numbers, and what the public's experience of this company is like.

 

I already have drawn up a short template that I will post on each number, and I think that this is a good way of attracting more profile to CAG and offering support to those who may not already be aware of us already.

 

What does anyone else think?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If people want to start submitting DCA/bailiff firm phone numbers to this thread, I'll see that each number given has at least one CAG link.

 

The world is becoming more reliant on internet access, and more people are becoming more distrustful of private companies - with good reason.

 

So, many want to check word-of-mouth before having any dealings with a company they've never had any contact with before. And whocallsme is very often used for that purpose.

 

By doing this, and the more numbers I get, I think that companies that use telephone as a medium to threaten and bully - like DCAs or bailiff firms - will eventually find that means of communication to be pretty ineffective if everyone knows who they are and what they do.

 

Even if they change their number, then if this thread is made a sticky, it's only a matter of time before the new number gets disclosed on this thread again and hey presto, the whocallsme entry for that number will have a link to this site also!

 

I think that this idea has the potential of cutting a fair percentage of telephone harassment by companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 4!!!! numbers for Apex Credit Managment and proud to say not answered 1 of them yet;)

 

01789 265999

01789 265392

01789 775800

01789 775899

 

Beau

Please note: I am not a lawyer and as such any advice I give is purely from a laymans point of view;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another key point I've missed is that I cannot see any feasible way that CAG can lose out with this idea. In fact, it can benefit massively - better yet, there's nothing illegal about it.

 

Anyone suffering telephone harassment from a certain phone number can copy and paste a template onto a whocallsme entry for that number. Or ANY call log site, for that matter.

 

The more people who get to be made aware of this site, the more likely it is that we can help a great many more people than we already are.

 

Then, the more likely it is that donations will be received to keep this site going. Plus, as I mentioned before, using telephone as a medium to convey threats can be cut at a stroke, and will become a markedly less viable tool for such companies that choose to use it.

 

If nothing else, it shows solidarity and a good opportunity to return the favour if you feel that CAG has helped you.

 

Besides, these companies profit from other peoples' lack of awareness as regards where they stand in relation to debt matters. Now, CAG has a golden opportunity to profit from their dishonesty and give some measure of redress to those who've suffered past victimisation.

 

Let's face it - CAG has dented these companies' profits and the threat-spew industry is hurting because of it. Now, there's the potential to increase this and possibly even drive some crooks right out of business - because the government and the law as it stands clearly isn't inclined to do it for us!

Edited by F_DCAs
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I mean - something like that, but a list that also takes in the numbers of bailiff firms as well as DCAs. That list does look a little short, but that's the kind of thing I mean.

 

Once that list is drawn up, and if constantly kept updated, then template messages can be pasted into each entry that exists for that number, which takes about 20 seconds to do for each number.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

01132979698 ge money

01158431407 cap one

01158431411 cap one

01158783301 cap one

01204677400 argos

01204770421 frederickson

01252576460 capquest

01254302200 studio

01268297673 cred card

01412283050 allied

01514732528 mercers

01565220162 frederickson international

01612460200 alliance

01614752812 moorcroft

01614752875 moorcroft

01709376553 debt managers

02031034000 halifax

02082282900 citibank

02084958760 cap quest

02087634511 credit solutions

7795805597 allied

08000150948 citibank

08000190905 VANQUIS

08000515503 littlewoods

08002794783 monument

08004220280 debris legal

08004220294 capital one

08004220295 capital one

08445811014 halifax

08450349748 fredericksons

08450349913 frederikson

08451262663 ge money

08453000674 calder

08453005961 mercers

08453007021 mercers

08453007022 barclaycard/mercers

08453007026 littlewoods/barclaycard

08453007027 littlewoods/barclaycard

08453008109 credit card center

08453070700 triton

08453304800 newmans

08454019111 barclaycard

08454019113 littlewoods

08456021111 argos

08456029441 bank of scotland halifax

08701240200 ge money

08707513077 howard cohen

08708500831 albion collections

08708503491 halifax

Edited by dizzyblonde1966
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...