Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What you have uploaded is a letter with daft empty threats from third-party paper tigers.  Just ignore it. What we need to see is the original invoice you received last October or November.
    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
    • This is simply a scam site.  It's been shown to be a scam in the national press and on national TV. Please fill in the the forum sticky and upload the invoice you've received. In fact what you have is an invoice, not a fine, a private company doesn't have the power to issue fines.  
  • 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

anneshiku v citicards


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6436 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 first i want tothank all who gave a reply regarding my citi card, but istill don't know what to do with the cheque for those ho are new to the thread, i filed a claim against citi cards to the courts and theywere very quick to reply using their solicitor Brian Smith.

 

I act on behalf of citi financial and am writing in regard to your complaint of default charges applied to your account

 

I assume that your complaint was made as a result of the recent statement by the OFT on default fees charged by the UK credit card industry.

My client has adopted the same practices as the entire UK credit card industry and, with that industry, disagreeswith the OFT's interpretation of the law relating to default charges. Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretation does not have the force of law, having never been decided by a court, and therefore merely persuasive.

 

Moreover, the OFT did acknowledge that default fees are not themselves unlawful' but simply confined itself to stating that it believed that the level of default charges imposed by the UK credit card industry to be unfair. Therefore, if you breach your contract, we are and always were, entitled to levy a default fee, just not one in excess of £12.00

 

The oFT did not say in its statement that all such default charges are unfair; it merely set a recommended threshold of £12.00 to reflect the balance of information given to it bymany of the banks that these charges are based on a number of factors and not just, as is commonly supposed, the price of a stamp or envelope, etc.

 

In line with the OFT statement, therefore, I have advised my client that, in your case, as a current cardholder(This is a fib as ipayed them offin 2004) who has been charged nine late payment fees of £25.00 and nine over the limit charges of £25.00, which is a total of £450.00,( the full amount i am claiming from them)it would be appropriate to write off the difference between our charges of £25.00 and the OFT's recommended level of £12.00. Having reviewed your account, I have therefore recommended that the sum of £234.00 be written off, reflecting the difference between £450.00 and £216.00 had the charges been £12.00(i'm being conned somewhere between these words) Accordingly your account has been reduced by that amount,( idon't have an account with them so shouldn't that money be sent to me in form of a cheque?)putting your account in credit by £211.00. This has been requested to be sent to you as a cheque, which you should recieve within the next seven days( it came the same day as these letter but i haven't cashed it yet)

 

In the event that you are not satisfied with this nd proceed to issue a claim for the full amount, Citifinancial will defend this on the basis of the OFT's own statement and analysis of the lawful level ofdefault charges.9sounds like a threat to me)

 

Any defence will also excercise the defendant's right to seek to have the claim transfered to its home court, i.e. Salford county court.(i live in london) The legal presumption is that justice should be local to the defendant as the dfendant is deeemed innocent until proven guilty and ought to be disadvantaged in defending itself. ( they re now playing victim after ripping me off)

 

please some one help me as to the next step and what to do with the cheque. A template to the reply would be handy please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...