Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.🙂
    • and more immediate issues WT* is the UK doing. Ukraine needs these funds and weapons NOW Lets sincerely hope this isnt another Tory VIPal skimming issue.   MoD accused of ‘go-slow’ with half of £900m Ukraine fund unused | Defence policy | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Delays mean just £404m of the money donated by nine countries has been committed or spent  
    • If everyone who wanted or needed a permit could get one easily how would PCM make any money?    
    • Now I dont agree with some of the detail, and its a bit light on showing detailed analysis, but worth a two minute peruse   Tory wipeout and opposition until 2037 – the future facing a disunited right   https://link.news.inews.co.uk/view/61fb0feaaf01060b825d0999kwaja.7ca/e75bba7e  
  • 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

CCA replies.... What's the difference?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3432 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

Now this may seem like a silly question and I may have got this totally wrong.

 

Having read several threads on this forum

 

 

it seems like there are two types of CCA replies for unsecured credit card debt.

 

 

One seems to relate to post 2006/2007 CCA's and

the other to pre 2006 CCA's.

 

 

For the pre 2006 agreements it would appear that only a genuine exact copy of a signed CCA is sufficent

for the creditor to be able to enforce the agreement.

 

 

However for a post 2006/2007 agreement it would seem that an unsigned generic agreement will suffice.

Is this correct or have I got it entirely wrong?

 

Would a forum expert or two (or more) please take the time to tell me what to expect from a CCA request.

 

 

I have several credit cards all either year 2000 or earlier.

 

 

What would any creditor be required by law to provide me with in order to fully satisfy any CCA request made by me?

 

 

I'm somewhat confused, as it seems that different posters have different opinions.

 

 

Some say no signed agreement means that the agreement can't be enforced. whilst others disagree and say otherwise.

 

Please forgive me if this question has already been asked, and thank you for taking the time to read this opening post. I look forward to your replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify for you it is Pre 2007 CCAs that usually require a Original.

 

Who were the accounts with? Always CCA a DCA / Creditor.

Saves you being cashcowed.

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the date in question is apr 2007

 

 

generally unless these were signed up for ONLINE

 

 

any CCA needs your sig if its before APR 2007.

 

 

after that date it get more difficult to claim un-en through a paperwork 'wriggle'

 

 

its always best to start a thread and post the CCA up.

 

 

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

Perhaps you're confusing satisfaction and enforceability. A pre-2007 request may be satisfied by production of a recon but this alone doesn't make it enforceable: a copy of original is needed.

 

For agreements as old as yours, most if not all are unlikely to be found. But every single creditor will hasten to point out that their recon satisfies the CCA request and you should pay up.

 

The key part of a recon is "con".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You all for your informative replies.

 

I spent a while reading the FCA handbook, and came across Conc 13.1.4 updated 01/07/2014

 

That seems to imply that an exact original copy with a copy of any signature isn't required. all that is requirded is a 'true copy' the details of wich are spelt out in section 13.1.4

 

There's no mention of any specific dates when these rules take effect other than Carey v hSBC Bank plc 2009

 

So, that leaves me asking this question, Where do you good people get the above stated information that a copy (I presume an exact copy, IE Photocopy) of a signed CCA must be provided for any agreement started pre April 2007? It would seem that a 'True copy' Is a very different animal to an 'Exact copy'

 

Is there some other part of the FCA handbook, legislation or proven case I need to look at for the answer?

 

I thank all who took the time to reply to my OP and hope that you will be able to answer the above questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yours is pre apr 2007

 

 

they can produce as many 'copies' be them claimed true or whatever.

 

 

to enforce your agreement

they must produce the signed agreement.

 

 

or an application form with your sig and ALL the correct T&C's

 

 

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

Thanks for that reply dx100uk. This is what is being said in earlier posts. Please could you tell me where the date of April 2007 comes from? Was there a court case, ruling or judgement that names this date?

 

Please note that I not doubting anything that is kindly being told to me on this forum, and I sincerely thank all of you who take the time and make the effort to help out. I merely need to know how we get to this date. What event fixes this specific date?

 

Before I launch into CCA's (I've already sent one, which looks like it's gone MIA in spite of being sent recorded delivery) I'd like to be 100% certain that this date of April 2007 is based on a solid event. Something must have happened to make so many quote this date, what was it?

 

You know what the lovely people at the bank will say when challenged via CCA. 'Oh no sir, that didn't happen and in any case, even if it did it won't apply to your account. Now pay up or else!'

 

After all, we all know just how honest and trustworthy our fine banking institutions are..........Dont we? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The provisions of s127 (3-5) were repealed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006

 

but for agreements entered into before 6th April 2007 the provisions of s127(3) to( 5) still have effect.

 

CCA1974 s127(3)to s(5) do not give a Court any discretion at all for an agreement executed before 6th April 2007

 

as if the agreement fails to comply with s61(1)(a) CCA 1974 then the Court has no power to enforce the agreement

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/14/section/15

 

15Enforceability of regulated agreements

In section 127 of the 1974 Act (enforcement orders in cases of infringement) subsections (3) to (5) shall cease to have effec

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...