Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

court gave order to return payment of £68k for arrears and to repossess property


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4151 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

panic!

 

no

 

far too little info for anyone

to be able to even begin to help you.

 

tell us the FULL story

 

and name names if you want too. [mortgages companies/solicitors/dca's etc etc]

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Full Story, a long fight, please read all

 

My Name is

I have property in shoreditch london which i place in trust in 2003 and consist 6 floor 7 flats, bar restaurant club

 

In 2005 Commercial first business limited gave a refurbishment loan for the sum £877,000 to foster property services and i was the grantee to loan

 

After my builder did not keep to is agreement of paying the monthly loan payment the account got in arrears

 

On the 03 June 2008 in the clerkenwell shoreditch county court made on order to £3000 extra per month to Commercial first business limited and once the payment is made in full the order cannot be enforce.

 

In July 2011 i have conjoined commercial first business limited with land registry in the high court to interpret section 23 and 34 of the land registry 2002 act

 

Reason

 

1) Commercial first business limited charge my property under first registration (cannot be done under the 2002 act

2) Commercial first business limited is not regulated to give mortgage

3) agreement with Commercial first business limited is for £1000. commitment fee

4)Commercial first business limited has not got the capital from there report to given loan

and to charging property for money they never lent is fraud

5) i did not sign any agreement with Commercial first mortgage limited

This case is of public interest and it still waiting to heard by the civil appeal

 

 

The story will continue

 

 

I was petitioned for bankruptcy by Davenport Lyons solicitor in June 2011 for a court order payment of £17,063.

while making of payment £50 per week ,

the case .....came to court on the 03 10 2011 be fore district judge hart,

on the day the hearing was adjourned until the 14 of November 2011 for Davenport Lyons solicitor to amend the statuary demand and petition and re serve

 

On the 11 October 2011 Davenport Lyons solicitor re serve statuary demand and petition together with amending statuary demand.

I appeal to the appeal court on 13 October 2011 appeal number----------- on the grounds

1) defective statuary demand company on the petition does not ex sis

2) never got 21 days been statuary demand and petition

3) was refuse cost

4) asking the high court to to stop the ..... until the out come of the appeal

 

On the 10 November 2011 i wrote to district judge hart asking her to adjourned the hearing on the 14 November 2011

i had urgent appointment with my doctor on the 14 of November also can the court wait for the out come of the appeal.

District judge hart reply she will make the decide on the day.

 

on the 14 of November at 12,15 while i was been treated for diabetes i was bankruptcy by district judge hart

 

secretary of state was appointment was made on 18 November for Rob Horton of Leonard Curtis recovery as trustee

 

on the `18 November 2011 i made on application notice .......in he high court to set aside the order on the 14 November 2011 with my doctor report and detail of the appeal for the 03 of October 2011

 

official receiver Sean Dempsey state that commercial first business is secure and his not in the bankruptcy

 

Rob Horton trustee closed the bar club restaurant which is out many limited which is not in the bankruptcy

also foster property projects limited also not in the bankruptcy

 

taking from bar club restaurant about £28,000 per month

flats about £14000, per months

 

Rob Horton trustee wrote all tenants not pay foster property projects limited

 

justice Roth on the 13 December 2011 stayed the appeal on the 03 October and the Application notice for 14 November 2011 to be heard on the 10 02 2012

 

on the 22 December 2011 Rob Horton trustee applied to the high court with out notice to remove the stay of the application notice as appeal of bankruptcy and to transfer ......to the high court

 

The order was granted by justice Richard

I appeal this order to civil appeal case number .....

 

on the 17 January 2012 Rob Horton trustee made application to high court under formerly .......to added foster property projects limited out of many limited Lawrence Campbell

my daughter and grand son which is 4 years old to join to the bankruptcy injunction on all not to take rent, not go to the property are to communicate to any one in the property

and for date get summery judgement

This order has been appeal to civil appeal

 

on the 10 of Feb 2012 justice sitting appeal judge find the appeal for the 03 October 2011 with out merit

and the application notice for 14 November 2011 refuse as an appeal

i appeal the order for 14 November 2011 to civil appeal

the master reply that i could not appeal on appeal, i must go back to judge.

after written to justice Roth , he reply he sort it was appeal and i should appeal on pro regularly

I appeal to civil appeal .......

 

Commercial has now been paid up to feb 2012

march commercial first business limited seeks eviction

trustee wrote to the tenants letting them that bank is enforcing it charge

 

on the 31 may at the summery judgement hearing iin front judge pelling

because of my deeds of trust the case had to go to trail on the 12 12 12

 

application was made to conjoined trustee and commercial first business limited because the both wanted the property

justice vos refuse to conjoined

this order was appeal to civil appeal

 

commercial first business limited apply to the clerkenwell & shoreditch county court to amend his from june 2008

this application was granted to enforce eviction

 

Rob Horton trustee step down September 8 2012 with out notice

Neil benett of Leon curtis recovery was on record on the insolvency record on the 13 October as appointed of ......

 

I made application notice to the high court for 49 hour notice for cost and damage and to re move the injunction

we had to re apply given 72 hour notice

While here the application on the 1 of November 2012 were given the order of block transfer in bankruptcy which Neil Benett was appointed trustee of .....( not my case)

 

Commercial first business limited service his eviction notice on the 18 October 2021 also giving us the option to make payment

on the 27 November 2012 a payment of £68,000 was paid to commercial first clearing all arrears

 

The trustee has written on the 20 10 2012 stating because commercial first business limited is enforcing is charge the court has vacated the trail for 12 12 12

 

All appeal has been conjoined

lord justice lewson refuse all appeal stating has no merit to each one

the conjoined appeal been commercial first business limited and the trustee, they should not be joined.

and i have no more domestics remedy

 

on the 12 12 12 in the queen bench high court, commercial first business limited use the alleged trustee solicitor witness statement with out proof to sway the judge to refusing payment and validating the trustee allegation

 

 

bit of mouth full

all documents r available

 

thanks guys look forward to here from you

 

edited

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...