Not been on here in ages as not needed to as I "won" my case against CRS/Harland’s - with a bit of good legal help... Not only did I get them to withdraw the CCJ which had been "illegally" enforced against me - I also got my Court fee of £150 back from them. Companies like Harland’s and CRS totally rely on the fact that the likes of "Joe Bloggs" i.e. normal average person doesn't know anything about the laws and what you can and can’t do - legally. That's what they rely on. In my case they tried it on - but they lost. Why did they lose? Because they "twisted" what the law stated to their own ends. CRS/Harland’s were gobsmacked when I took them to court - and won ! In-between when mine started back in 2009 and 2012 - CRS & Harland’s have been under investigation by the OFT.. .I think the case against them got resolved in 2012 following an investigation into the questionable conduct & contracting practices of Harland’s/CRS. They signed an undertaking with the OFT on order to avoid enforcement proceedings. If you need more info on what the undertaking states - let me know. All this info is readily available on the OFT website (now archived). Here: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search/result/?q=harlands These were some of the undertakings that Harland’s (and their associates) had to agree to: Extended provision for cancellation during the minimum term where the consumer: Relocates 15 miles from a club, Suffers from an illness, injury or medical condition which prevents exercise for three months, Is made redundant or loses their livelihood, Becomes pregnant. Extended provision for cancellation in the minimum term where services or facilities are not provided or fall below the standard reasonably expected. Extended provision for consumers to suspend their membership for temporary illness or injury and improved clarity of the implications of a membership ‘freeze’ on the minimum term. Ceased using and recommending minimum terms of over 12 months. Existing contracts will be not enforced They were also TOLD to STOP using the contracts that contained terms in them that were UNFAIR... Guess what - they carried on using them... This is how you can catch them out with a bit of good wording in a letter to them. I don't know the full in's and out's of your dealings with Harland’s/CRS but if they are relying on their contract to impose charges/fees etc. - go through it with a fine tooth comb and see if any of the terns are UNFAIR. ..if they are chances are you can get all of this overturned and owe them nothing if the contract terms are UNFAIR... If you can give me any background on this...I would be happy to help as much as I can. Best, Muldy

Hi King12345 Thanks for the reply... Yes I thought as much with regard "apprehending" anyone. They have no more rights to "stop & detain" than you or me do. They have no more powers other than advising that they will issue a FPN for littering etc. - thats the extent of their powers. If they did want to "detain" someone then they would have to go find or call a Police officer to attend. The area that im interested in is the lack of any SIGNS anywhere from the council making it clear of what will happen if someone "litters" in a public space. Section 87 para (6) makes this very clear - thus: "A local authority, with a view to promoting the abatement of litter, may take such steps as the authority think appropriate for making the effect of subsection (5) above known to the public in their area." So...the local council have to "make it known to the public in the area" So...how have they done this? Certainly not by SIGNS - there are none !! My partner doesnt read the local newspapers - so thats a no go as well. And if it was on local news then thats not watched ! Also the local council brought these new scheme in 2016 !! my partner only moved to Brighton LAST year so would have only been on the news over 18 months ago so wouldnt have seen it anyway. How local councils expect the local public to be mind-readers is beyond me !! In answer to your queries: 1. Yes there are several CCTV cameras right on the spot where my partner got "grabbed" by the EO - BUT NONE where the alleged offence took place...unless the EO had a bodycam - which my partner isnt sure of... 2. The area where the alleged offence took place (pavement) is outside the curtilage of the station "canopy" so possibly may be owned by the council 3. Re station property - as I understand the law if someone were to "litter" on private property - as long as the council have been given permission by the Station to issue FPNs on their property then they may do so...so really depends on the Station if they have given that permission or not... 4. In order for the EO to issue a FPN they have to be certain there was "intent" to litter - NO INTENT - NO FPN to issue !! To be honest the council is utilising the fact that most people DONT KNOW the law...so when they get clobbered by a an EO they think they have no rights & the EO baffles them with what they think the Law is (a watered down version that is)...this is their strength. Thoughts please ! Muldy

Hi Caggers Been a while since I last posted on here, but im hoping someone somewhere can give me some help/guidance regarding this matter. My partner was recently given a FPN for a "littering" offence (while waiting for a train) OUTSIDE the curtilage of the station frontage (i.e. roof) - There ARE signs put up everywhere for Non-smoking but NONE for LITTERING - I have since checked. My partner was "grabbed" by the Enforcement officer (3GS) (female) - and then straightaway read his rights before he was even told by the EO what my partner was being given a Fine for.. (disgusting i think) I have since looked up the law they are using and the law is pretty clear when it comes to the act of "littering with intent" - which in this case there was no intent - it was accidental The actual part of the law that im interested in is this: Section 87 - Subsection (6) states: "A local authority, with a view to promoting the abatement of litter, may take such steps as the authority think appropriate for making the effect of subsection (5) above known to the public in their area." So, as I my understanding of the above law says - its down to the Local Authority to make sure that the local population ARE AWARE that they are taking steps to counter littering. I.e. by means of signs etc - I would have thought ? If that is the case - there are NONE in the immediate vicinity. Also - what powers do these EO's have? She "grabbed" my partner from behind while they were walking towards the station platform between the outside area where they were smoking and the interior where the barriers are. I thought they had no powers to "apprend" ?? Are they "allowed" to apprehend said suspect? I think not. I have again researched this and it would appear from the info that I found that they are only allowed to request name, address, postcode & age - NOTHING else. They have no powers of arrest at all - I've checked. So I believe the EO "overstepped" her powers here... 2 points - 1. the FPN states "cigarette" - whereas the law concerning littering only states "cigarette butts" as being litter - I know its a mute point but if my partner can get off on a technicality then so be it ! 2. can my partner "counter claim" against the EO for "grabbing" him? i.e. can the EO be done for assault ? The reason that we both have a problem about this is because down our road the pavements are often littered with crisp packets (non-biodegradable), plastic items (non-biodegradable) and other (non-biodegradable items). And the local council do nothing about it. Cigarette butts ARE biodegradable however. They only contain paper & tobacco both natural products. Can someone give me some guidance/help on this please? We are thinking of letting this go to court and see if we can win the case. Especially on the grounds upon which the FPN was issued (wrongly in my opinion). I dont like the idea of our Local council running what essentially is a money making [problem] at the local populations expense ! I would be grateful for your feedback. Many thanks Muldy

Hi Agy I have read your issue you have with Harlands with interest as I too have had problems with them. They were actually able to slap a CCJ against me! However, with a bit of help I have now got that "set aside". I would be interested in the last reply you had from Harlands - if at all. And how you got on? Muldy

Hi guys Just to keep you updated... My solicitor acting on my behalf has sent a letter to CRS hopefully with the intention of forcing them to retract their original claim. The gist of the letter relies upon the the clauses in the undertaking that Harlands themselves agreed to by signing the undertaking with the OFT, otherwise they would have been subject to enforcement proceedings! The letter was sent last Friday and it gave them 7 days to respond to the letter. Not heard anything yet... You may also like to know that CRS took no interest in attending court on the day. Which in itself is in my favour When my solicitor rang them to find out of they were attending or not. They just said "Its just a set aside application". I dont think they realised what they are missing here!! Muldy

Hi Slick... Comments noted...and no im not offended! lol That takes a lot to do that! I was just trying to cover every angle so that Zinc havent got anything to come back with. Once they see that they cant argue with it - they will return it back to CRS. That was the idea anyway... Muldy

Hi Mike I have now had chance to have a read thro of the emails that you received. I would reply (preferably in writing and sent by recorded delivery (if Slick etc concur with this as well) so that the buggers cant say that they never received your letter- and emails can go walkies too) - with something like this: > I refer to three emails from you the most recent one in March 2014 indicating that you were in the process of passing the matter onto Complete Credit Consultancy. Please note that I do not recognise the alleged debt. This debt is in dispute and while it is, under current debt recovery legislation you may not continue with ANY debt recovery procedures, whether that be by email, letter, door-step collection or otherwise. Further correspondence in any format would then be considered harassment, and would then be contrary to the Malicious Communications Act 1988. I notified the gym in good faith in order to cancel my membership as I could no longer attend the gym as I was moving more than 15 miles away from it, therefore making it impractical to continue with my membership. The gym asked me proof of this and completed the relevant forms to comply with this request. I have copies of these documents as proof of this. I wrote to Harlands setting out my position clearly in September 2013. If they wanted to pursue this matter, they should not have waited 9 months to do so. I understand that CRS is the company who you are acting on behalf of. If this is the case than Zinc are only acting as debt recovery "agents" to recover the alleged debt and therefore do not own it. Legally you cannot enforce a debt unless you own it. The debt would have to be assigned, Please provide documentary proof that you have had the debt assigned. If you cannot then please do not write to me further regarding the alleged debt. I will not be paying any monies to Zinc and if you contact me again, I will make formal complaints to Trading Standards and the Financial Conduct Authority. Point of note - I am aware that with effect from 10 September 2013 Harlands (CRS is the debt recovery arm and trading name of Harlands and reside in the same building) have had to sign an undertaking with the OFT to avoid enforcement proceedings. That undertaking states that: The Company (Harlands) will not, (whether by its officers, employees, or agents or otherwise) continue or repeat that conduct which is described in paragraphs 1 to 5 below. Namely: 1. Using, relying upon or seeking to enforce any of the following or similar unfair terms which, contrary to the UTCCRs: a. ties in a member for a minimum membership period of longer than 12 months. b. ties in a member for a minimum membership period without entitling members to terminate the contract should they supply reasonable documentary evidence of: i. having, for reasons beyond that member’s reasonable control, lost their job; or ii. having moved house to a location which is more than 15 miles from the nearest gym operated by the same operator; or… v. any other change in their personal circumstances, beyond their control, to such an extent that it is no longer reasonable for a member to use their club’s facilities or to remain a member. Only Paragraph 1 is relevant here in this matter. Please note reference to section 1 and 1(b)(ii) Therefore, from this point forward I will not enter into further correspondence with Zinc regarding this matter - unless you can provide documentary proof that you have had the alleged debt assigned - and will ONLY discuss this matter further direct with CRS. Please reply within 7 days upon receipt of this letter that this matter is being returned back to CRS. I look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully > Have a go with this and see how you get on. - Slick can you have a read thro and see what you think? Andy

Hi mih3ymy email address is: removed. Send me what you have so far...but please block out any personal details b4 sending - I also need to know when the contract was taken out - when you cancelled your m/ship and how this was done. Thanks. Muldy

Hi Mih3yAnother thought...can you also tell me when the contract was taken out originally?This is quite important as to how we deal with any reponse to Harlands.ThanksMuldy

Hi mih3y I have had some success with a recent set aside application in connection with Harlands/CRS. I may be able to help. If you can provide me with any letters (redacted of course of any personal data) I will have a look and see if I can help?I the meantime, I would not communicate with Zinc. Harlands use intimidation as a form of debt recovery and reckon that if they make it sound good enough, then yo will pay up. Its intimidation tactics. You may like to know that Harlands have since had to sign an undertaking not to use, or seek to reply upon terms that are unfair or unreasonable. Have you had any letters from Harlands which suggest that they have had the debt assigned to anyone else? If not - then Zinc are only acting as agents working on behalf of Harlands to recover the alleged debt owed .If this is the case then Harlands still own the debt - not Zinc. If you would like to post up the redacted docs or email them to me. I will have a look. Muldy

Hi Slick. Yes of course... I signed up in Sept 2009 for the min m/ship period which was for 12 months - but the contract was worded in such a way that if you wanted to terminate early you could not. It said under clause 4: "Irrespective of attendance or change in personal circumstance, this agreement cannot be cancelled." This was their response when trying to cancel: "In common with very many Health and Fitness Clubs, your Riptide Gym Membership Agreement is payable by Direct Debit and was entered into for a fixed minimum period. Your request for cancellation cannot, therefore, be accepted and we must insist that you reinstate your Direct Debit mandate and pay your arrears…” Yet each time the DD bounced - as I was paid weekly not monthly - I was asked to sign a new contract which had the effect each time of extending the original contract past the original 12 months! Hardly fair!! No separate DD mandate was ever offered. I thought this was very crafty on Harlands part. This type of wording/clause has been deemed unfair by the OFT. This has been agreed by the OFT and the undertaking signed by Harlands. Also the contract did not cancel automatically at the end of the 12 month period. It was worded so that unless you wrote to Harlands before the 12 months were up, the contract would auto renew and just carry on. I wrote to cancel as I was losing my job and had to move back to my mothers in Hastings. Point of note...My solicitors are doing this on a no win, no fee basis and in this particular case will be looking at getting the costs back from CRS as the judge has granted this. This was the outcome of the hearing:The set aside was granted on 2 grounds: 1) That the claim was sent to the wrong address despite the defendant writing to the claimant informing them of a change of address and that the claim was returned as undelivered by someone living at the old address. 2) That the defendant has a good prospect of success in defending the claim on the basis that there is an issue to be determined that the terms that the claimant is relying upon are unfair under UTCCR. Full costs were awarded. I hope this answers your query? Muldy

Hi Slick Yes if course. Well...the course of events after that letter in March 2011 goes like this... - recvd threat of court action March 2011 - lost current temp job April 2011 - moved back to my mothers in Hastings in May 2011 as current flat mate made living there unbearable due to my job loss - long story! - set up postal redirection for 3 months so I would continue to recv post for Brighton address - recvd further letters from CRS until last one dated 5th August 2011, which indicated they had had the debt assigned. This is really a mute point here as Harlands were administering the contract/membership anyway & CRS are only the debt recovery arm of Harlands! - recvd no further communication from CRS after this date even though I'd given them my new address in my cancellation letter - continued to live with mum until her death in Dec 2012 - sold bungalow and moved back to Brighton Oct 2013 - rented a flat in Brighton 2013. It was when I was bring credit checked found out that I had a CCJ against my name - CCJ was to do with the gym contract with Riptide/Harlands/CRS - did some more research on the web early 2014 & came across another site which was extremely helpful - with their help put together a witness statement, & defence. - submitted set aside application May 2014 - court hearing set for June 18, 2014 - had barrister attend with me as had really good case - set aside granted by judge! That's it in a nutshell. It's been a long 5 years to get to this point! I have now been told I have the chance to have the original court cause thrown out of court as it was invalid in the first place This is due to Harlands having to sign an undertaking from the OFT as they were under investigation by them since 2011. Essentially they had to sign an undertaking which says they can't use, or seek to rely upon terms which are unfair or unreasonable to the consumer. I have been told by my acting solicitor that I have a very good chance of getting the court case overturned as it's these terms they are relying upon The undertaking was signed by Harlands in Oct 2013 Full details can be found on the OFT site. As you can imagine I'm very pleased with the outcome! Muldy

Hi guys Just thought you should all know. I have some very good news! I recently submitted a "set aside" application to the County Court and had my 10 minute hearing yesterday. I also was supported by a barrister who attended court with me who is a wizz with contract law. I'm pleased to report that the judge granted my set aside application after looking at the facts presented. Next stage is to get the original court case against me struck out as both Harlands and CRS knew that they were relying upon terms which they had already agreed the previous year with the OFT under and undertaking not to use, or rely upon in any of their contracts! Success!! I hope this is a lesson learned that companies like Harlands & CRS can't use or abuse contract terms willy nilly and think they can get away with it. I'm looking forward to getting the original court case now struck out of court. Muldy

There is a house to sell which is on the market...but that hasnt sold yet....

Hi CaggersPls accept apologies if i have posted this in the wrong thread...Need some advice/pick someones brain or both !!I am currently sorting out the last of my mums debts after she passed away in December 2012.(I am one of 3 executors)I have successfully had all her other debts written off except one....guess who??Yes...MBNA.They are sticking their heels in...and I have already written to them twice to advs that there arent any funds/monies available in any of her accounts. I have also supplied a copy of her last bank statement to prove this.I sent exactly the same letter to all debtors and they are the only one kicking up a a fuss...I have now had another letter saying they would accept xxx amount times xxx payments....I have read up on the web about how to deal with o/s debts relating to deceased persons and as I understand it the creditors (including CC companies) cant ask the deceased persons immediate relatives for monies to personally pay off the debts...Can someone tell me if this is correct or not?? The info on the web says that we arent personally liable. Also please note that Barclays very promplty WROTE OFF my mums debt with them without so much as a "can we have proof??" and that debt was in excess of £6000 !!So we were pleased with that outcomeI am also v tempted to ask MBNA to prove the debt is owed as they have started beiing difficult. They didnt even reply to my statement that we werent liable to pay her debt.Answers on a postcard pls !!Having read with disgust how bad MBNA and the way they treat customers whether exisiting or not it doesnt surprise me in the least....