Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi welcome to the Forum.  If a PCN is sent out late ie after the 12th day of the alleged offence, the charge cannot then be transferred from the driver to the keeper.T he PCN is deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch so in your case, unless you can prove that Nexus sent the PCN several days after they claim you have very little chance of winning that argument. All is not lost since the majority of PCNs sent out are very poorly worded so that yet again the keeper is not liable to pay the charge, only the driver is now liable. If you post up the PCN, front and back we will be able to confirm whether it is compliant or not. Even if it is ok, there are lots of other reasons why it is not necessary to pay those rogues. 
    • Hi 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No  7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice' I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof?
    • lookinforinfo - many thanks for your reply. It would be very interesting to get the letter of discontinuance. The court receptionist said that the county court was in Gloucester 'today' so that makes me think that some days it is in Gloucester and some days its in Cheltenham, it was maybe changed by the courts and i was never informed, who knows if DCBL were or not. My costs were a gallon of petrol and £3.40 for parking. I certainly don't want to end up in court again that's for sure but never say never lol. Its utterly disgusting the way these crooks can legally treat motorists but that's the uk for you. I'm originally from Scotland so it's good that they are not enforceable there but they certainly still try to get money out of you. I have to admit i have lost count of the pcn's i have received in the last 2 yr and 4 months since coming to England for work, most of them stop bothering you on their own eventually, it was just this one that they took it all the way. Like i mentioned in my WS the the likes of Aldi and other companies can get them cancelled but Mcdonalds refused to help me despite me being a very good customer.   brassednecked - many thanks   honeybee - many thanks   nicky boy - many thanks    
    • Huh? This is nothing about paying just for what I use - I currently prefer the averaged monthly payment - else i wouldn't be in credit month after month - which I am comfortable with - else I wold simply request a part refund - which I  would have done if they hadn't reduced my monthly dd after the complaint I raised (handled slowly and rather badly) highlighted the errors in their systems (one of which they do seem to have fixed) Are you not aware DD is always potentially variable? ah well, look it up - but my deal is a supposed to average the payments over a year, and i dont expect them to change payments (up or down) without my informed agreement ESPECIALLY when I'm in credit over winter.   You are happy with your smart meter - jolly for you I dont want one, dont have to have one  - so wont   I have a box that tells me my electricity usage - was free donkeys years ago and shows me everything I need to know just like a smart meter but doesnt need a smart meter,  and i can manually set my charges - so as a side effect - would show me if the charges from the supplier were mismatched. Doesn't tell me if the meters actually calibrated correctly - but neither does your smart meter. That all relies on a label and the competence of the testers - and the competence of any remote fiddling with the settings. You seem happy with that - thats fine. I'm not.    
  • 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 
        • 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

Prohibited Collection Practices In Canada (Harassment)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4037 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

Prohibited Collection Practices In Canada (Harassment)

 

In May of 2001, Federal, Provincial and Territorial Ministers Responsible for Consumer Affairs ratified a harmonization initiative that will enable all provinces and territories to implement a common list of prohibited collection practices. This consistent approach to the collection practices of companies, that are now often doing business in multiple jurisdictions, will ensure clarity for consumers, the industry and regulators. The practices discussed included such issues as excessive pressure, disclosure and privacy. In April 2003, the CMC Working Group on collection agencies agreed upon a revision to the harmonized list.

 

Harassment

 

No [collection agency] shall communicate or attempt to communicate with the debtor, any member of the debtor's family or household, any relative, neighbor, friend or acquaintance of the debtor, or the debtor's employer, by any means, in such a manner or with such frequency as to constitute harassment, including:

 

the use of threatening, profane, intimidating or coercive language;

 

the use of undue, excessive or unreasonable pressure;

 

threatening to publish or publishing a debtor's failure to pay.

 

 

You can read the full Document and download it in PDF at the following link:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/ca01786.html

Edited by stu007
Updated
Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute Of Limitations On Debts In Canada

 

March 4, 2003 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada decided that limitations applied to CRA as well as other Crown proceedings. Section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act and Section 3 (5) of the BC Limitation Act barred collection of the Federal and Provincial portions of the debt since the debt was more than 6 years old.

 

 

 

The following is the Statute Of Limitations laws for the Provinces and Federal Government in Canada

 

British Columbia - Section 3 (5) of the BC Limitation Act sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Alberta - The Alberta Limitations Act sets 2 years as the term which is extended to 10 years if there is a judgement.

 

Manitoba – Limitation of Actions Act, C.C.S.M. c. L150, s. 2(1)(g) sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

New Brunswick – Limitation of Actions Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. L-8.5. sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Newfoundland and Labrador – Limitations Act, S.N.L. 1995, c. L-16.1, ss. 5(b); 13; 14. sets 2 years as the limit for debt.

 

Nanavut – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c.L-8, s. 2(e). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Nova Scotia – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c.258, s. 2(1)(e). sets 6 years*as the limited for debt. However, within 4 years of expiry of general limitation period, court may disallow the limitation period, having regard to circumstances of the case – Listed are enumerated factors to consider including date of “discovery” of claim.

 

NWT – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. L-8, s. 2(e). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Ontario - The Ontario Limitation Act 2002 , came into force on January 1, 2004. It sets two years as the term (Section 4). This limitation will be reinstated where the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes a partial payment towards repayment of his debt. If the default occurred prior to January 1, 2004, the creditor will continue to have 6 years to pursue the claim. However, if the default occurred after January 1, 2004 then the 2-year rule applies.

 

P.E.I. – Statute of Limitations, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c. S-7, s. 2(1)(g). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

Quebec – Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. 64, art. 2925. sets 3 years as the limit for debt.

 

Saskatchewan – Limitations Act, S.S. 2004, c. L-16.1. sets 2 years as the limit for debt.

 

Yukon – Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.Y. 2002, c. 139, s. 2(1)(e), (f). sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

 

 

Federal - Section 32 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act sets 6 years as the limit for debt.

Edited by stu007
updated
Link to post
Share on other sites

In Canada, there are three major credit bureaus: Equifax Canada, NCB Inc. and TransUnion Canada;

 

http://www.consumer.equifax.ca/home/en_ca

 

http://www.creditbureau.ca/

 

http://www.transunion.ca/

 

Canadian Debt Collection, Creditors' Remedies.

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/debt-collection.htm#t

Edited by cerberusalert
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
CONVENTION BETWEEN CANADA AND THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND PROVIDING FOR THE RECIPROCAL RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS

 

Canada-United Kingdom Civil and Commercial Judgments Convention Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-30)

 

An Act to implement a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters

 

Short title

1 This Act may be cited as the Canada-United Kingdom Civil and Commercial Judgments Convention Act.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 1.

 

Convention approved

 

2 The Convention entered into between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, set out in the schedule, is approved and declared to have the force of law in Canada during such period as, by its terms, the Convention is in force.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 2.

 

Inconsistent laws

 

3 In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act, or the Convention, and the provisions of any other law, the provisions of this Act and the Convention prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 3.

 

Regulations

 

4 The Minister of Justice may make such regulations as are necessary for the purpose of carrying out the Convention or for giving effect to any of the provisions thereof.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 4.

 

Promulgation of dates

 

5 Notice of the day the Convention comes into force and of the day it ceases to be effective shall be given by proclamation of the Governor in Council published in the Canada Gazette.

 

1984, c. 32, s. 5.

 

SCHEDULE

(Section 2)

Convention Between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters

 

 

You can read the full document and download it in PDF from the following link:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-30/FullText.html

Edited by stu007
Updated
Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4037 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...