Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

London Personal Loans Limited


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5201 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

Hi All!!

 

First post here although have been reading around for quite a while indeed..

 

I have a couple of technical questions that I can't find an answer to so far:

 

My partner and I took out a secured loan (regulated under CCA 1974) with London Personal Loans Limited - signed and dated by us on 7/6/06.

 

The loan agreement was executed on their side 13/06/06.

 

Mortgage Deed dated on their part 13/06/06.

 

However, after looking up the details held by Companies House London Personal Loans Limited changed their name to LANGERSAL NO.2 LIMITED on the 2/5/06.

 

Does this have any legal bearing on the validity of the agreement?

 

Next question:

 

According to recent letters from them and also included as part of Lightstones evidence pack this loan has been transferred to Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited t/a London Personal Loans.

 

Should we have received a formal notice of assignment when this took place?

 

Also, I notice that all letters from them are letterheaded with a London Mortgage Company logo & with a footer stating that London Mortgage Company is a trading name of Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited. However, doesn't the assignment imply that a legally correct letter should be headed with a London Personal Loans logo and with a footer stating that London Personal Loans is a trading name of SPML? Are these letters still technically legal then?

 

One final question: I've just found another letter dating from 13/06/06 (the letter that accompanies the cheque) that states, 'from today, your loan has been legally assigned to Southern Pacific Personal Loans Limited trading as London Personal Loans' - is any of this any use in creating a defence?

 

Many thanks in advance!!

 

ZillaK :)

Edited by ZillaK
corrections..
Link to post
Share on other sites

Slight correction to the above post:

 

'from today, your loan has been legally assigned to Southern Pacific Personal Loans trading as London Personal Loans' and not limited as I stated above.

 

Additionally, this letter is on headed paper that states LPL is a trading name of SPPL Limited (company reg no 4096093)..

 

The evidence documents used by Lightstone state that the loan was assigned to Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited from London Personal Loans Limited and the charge on the property held by the Land Registry also states Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited.

 

Does this mean that I have evidence to challenge the registered charge held in title & that technically this is currently an unsecured loan because SPML don't actually have rights to title - SPPLL do?

 

ZillaK:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...