Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Car Insurance on Private Property


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4701 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

Yes you do!

 

Without going into legal specifics, the general rule of thumb is you need Road Traffic Act cover (Similar to Third Party Only) if the area where you're driving is accessible to other members of the public.

 

So a private farm that has a long access road used by the postman in his van having to deliver the mail, then you would need to ensure that your vehicle is insured if it used here.

 

The large privately owned car behind the factory, that has an access route to a unit at the back, then you would need to ensure that your vehicle is insured if it used here.

 

There are always exceptions, but...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A vehicle used on a road or public place is required to be covered by insurance, section 143 RTA 1988. If it is private and neither a road (within the meaning of the act - which generally means a public road) or public place, s. 143 doesn't apply.

Edited by Raykay
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think also that if it is a gated, you do not need it .

 

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

just becareful on this gated bit.

it's NOT the old wives tales of 'it must be closed one day per calender year' [that applies to some private roads], it must be a perm closed gate, only opened for access then closed again.

 

there is an old thread somewhere on it.

 

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

The trouble is who would be stilly NOT to have insurance? Never mind the damage to other vehicles (Third Party) what about is someone decides to lob a hammer over a wall or a slate falls off a nearby roof? You could claim n your own policy, but not if there was no cover if force.

 

I have a vehicle that is SORNED, but I still have it covered for 'off road' in case the garage is broken into - no cover is not an option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So a private farm that has a long access road used by the postman in his van having to deliver the mail, then you would need to ensure that your vehicle is insured if it used here.

 

This specific instance does not make the driveway a public place within the RTA.

 

Many farm vehicles are never, taxed or insured (think combines and tractors) and can be driven by anybody of any age. I was 12 when I started driving the Land Rover on the farm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I telephoned the DVLA to clear this up. A new law has just been passed through parliament that has not yet been activated. However, I was advised that persons should act on it anyway to avoid being caught out.

If your vehicle is on private property and taxed it must now also be insured. Previously you could have a taxed car on your property without it getting sorned.

 

Now, if it is taxed you must return the tax disc for refund and SORN your vehicle until you wish to re-insure it.

 

If it is not taxed or insured it has to be SORNED.

 

Hope this helps. Best wishes. Etta:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, if it is taxed you must return the tax disc for refund and SORN your vehicle until you wish to re-insure it.

 

If it is not taxed or insured it has to be SORNED.

 

Hope this helps. Best wishes. Etta:-)

 

..and there lies the first problem...

 

If you wish to surrender a tax disk it is only refunded in whole months. So lets say I have a car taxed and insured, but insurance runs out on the 10th of the month. I don't wish to re-insure it because it is off road and I don't intend driving it for another 4 or 5 weeks.. If I SORN it I will loose 20 days tax, (and have to wait upto 6 weeks for the DVLA to send my refund). But if I don't SORN it I have to pay for insurance that I don't need for a month or more. On an insurance policy of say £500 per year, that will cost me 40 odd quid for something I don't need.

 

There are all sorts of other complications with this law, that in essence, appears to be have been designed purely as another motorists stealth tax. Remember, when they introduced SORN, the ministers involved specifically stated it was designed to "catch repeat offenders and criminals" yet has mainly turned into an instant fine against "innocent" or forgetful people that had no intention of breaking the law but get caught anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree. That is how I came to be on this forum, searching for that info. I am disabled. My car needs work done on it and is off the road for three weeks. I have had to go and re-insure it today simply for the pleasure of placing my car, on my own drive, with tax.

 

It's riduculous. I could have sent my tax disc in but it is such a rigmarole getting fresh disabled tax disc and do we think the DVLA have the tax department up too date. Bet you they haven't and I can see all sorts of problems with this.

 

I think the Insurance should have a clause that states if you inform them the car is off the road, and the periods of time it will be there, the insurance should revert to a private propery parking insurance and carry the relevant deduction in payments for that time. Would that happen? Never!!

 

I think it's 'clobber the motorist' year. Etta:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
I fully agree. That is how I came to be on this forum, searching for that info. I am disabled. My car needs work done on it and is off the road for three weeks. I have had to go and re-insure it today simply for the pleasure of placing my car, on my own drive, with tax.

 

It's riduculous. I could have sent my tax disc in but it is such a rigmarole getting fresh disabled tax disc and do we think the DVLA have the tax department up too date. Bet you they haven't and I can see all sorts of problems with this.

 

I think the Insurance should have a clause that states if you inform them the car is off the road, and the periods of time it will be there, the insurance should revert to a private propery parking insurance and carry the relevant deduction in payments for that time. Would that happen? Never!!

 

I think it's 'clobber the motorist' year. Etta:-)

 

I totally agree with you on that one as I have suffered from having to pay tax and insurance on THREE cars that I could not drive!:-x Car number one was hit (clipped) by an uninsured forty ton lorry. Once the spare wheel was fitted it was sort-of drive-able but the police slapped a Prohibition Notice on it so it had to be transported by lorry to my home address. As it was parked in the lane it had to be kept taxed and insured yet it was illegal to drive it until it was repaired! A spare car was got out of mothballs but the discs had rusted, did that, got it a fresh MOT and tax then two weeks later Saturday night vandals put a plank through the windscreen!:-x Fixed that but six months later the gearbox shredded - back into mothballs.:-( I then bought a Rover 820i, a twin-cam 16 valve jobbie with a TIMING BELT duh! I knew that I was risking it with no service history but winter was coming and the cold dark nights were drawing in. The plan was to leave the belt job until spring when the clocks went forward and the better weather came. Sadly the belt didn't last that long, it failed in Southsea 180 miles from home.:-( At this point I discovered that my "Full breakdown recovery" must have been an introductory offer that reverted to a tow of up to 20 miles at renewal. To get the car home would be £456 the RAC said! I left the car in Southsea and got home by bus and train. (now paying tax and insurance on TWO dead cars) As car number one, a Rover 800 turbo-diesel was taking a long time to repair it seemed to be a good idea to buy a 4x4 to round up all my eBay stuff and rescue the twin-cam. A Land Rover Discovery 300Tdi was bought, OK it had tax ready on it but I still had to insure it and the "No No Claims Bonus on the third car" rule applied! £s£s£s. The Disco lasted three whole days, first a universal joint played up at fifty miles but much more seriously it boiled-up once the Devon hills were reached and only just made it to North Cornwall. The head gasket has blown because the radiator was devoid of its cooling fins. At this point I was paying tax and insurance on THREE DEAD CARS! I've since repaired the Rover 800 turbo-diesel and its been doing the work that the 4x4 was bought for, so now I'm only wasting tax and insurance on two dead cars. It really is a disgusting money-grabbing system that the government has put in place - and don't forget that they get Insurance Premium Tax as well as road tax! I do think that there ought to be a vehicle-out-of-service insurance rate as being stung for insurance on non-runners just isn't fair:-x Oh by the way the Land Rover Discovery 300Tdi is infamous for boiling over and blowing head gaskets unless the radiator is new or as new. The excellent Land Rover agents at Whitstone said that lots of people replace cylinder heads and head gaskets but unless a NEW radiator is fitted the engine will blow again. Yup I'll agree with that!:roll: Look on the bright side - the government NEEDS the money!:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a quick look at the link and the "uninsured driving" bit is the biggest load of bol@cks that I've read for quite some time. IT IS NOT ABOUT UNINSURED DRIVING AT ALL its about getting money in. When did you ever read of of a "joyrider" being fined for driving without insurance? Oh never? I did hear of a Plymouth joyrider who already had a three month suspended sentence when he went joyriding again. Allegedly he ran red lights and exceeded the speed limit whilst trying to evade the police (60 in a 30 limit not 32!) Of course with the roads in Plymouth being somewhat congested he was soon stuck in a traffic jam and he was then arrested. In court the beak said that the crime was "really serious" so he increased the villains three month suspended sentence to a six month suspended sentence! In effect the joyrider was let off and allegedly he was later seen laughing outside the court. Absolutely disgusting when decent people get the full force of the law (fines and points) for the slightest misdemeanour's such as parking or being a couple of miles an hour over the limit. The problem of course is that the system cannot put points on a non-existent driving licence and nor can it fine drug addicts who have spent their last brass farthing on drugs. Locking these people up costs money so the system makes do with giving out Police Cautions or Suspended Sentences neither of which cost anything. Duh!

Link to post
Share on other sites

the general rule is if members of the pubic have access to were you intend to park then yes

 

for example if the local landlord of the pub says you can leave it on his car park then yes because other members of the public use it. you can be prosecuted for drink driving private car parks

 

as for farms thats different. if he had a farm shop the farmer normally has a small car park. the rest of the farm is off limits so its ok to ride quad bikes uninsured cars etc

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

When did you ever read of of a "joyrider" being fined for driving without insurance? Oh never?

 

 

A 21-YEAR-OLD joyrider who took a double-decker bus on a terrifying journey around Amesbury, which ended up on YouTube, has been jailed for six months.

Sam David Hobson, of Lyndhurst Road, Amesbury, was sentenced at Salisbury Crown Court today for aggravated vehicle taking, driving while disqualified and driving without insurance and other than in accordance with a licence.

 

http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/8678155.Amesbury_bus_joyrider_jailed_for_six_months/

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem of course is that the system cannot put points on a non-existent driving licence and nor can it fine drug addicts who have spent their last brass farthing on drugs.

 

Complete rubbish you can get points if you don't have a licence and can get banned without ever holding a licence and being a drug addict has nothing to do with the topic at all most drug addicts don't drive and rarely steal cars I think you have been reading the Daily Mail a bit too much!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing happens to people who have no insurance.

 

tell this to the people who have had their cars seized and made to walk home with their fixed penalty notice of £200 and 6 points on their licence.

 

oh and if they have no licence they still get banned and penalty points. when they apply for their licence they do have points on and if they recieved a ban one will be issued until the ban has expired.

 

a drug addict has an addiction. treatment is the answer

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...