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 
      • 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

Welcome secured loans/charge - sold to Alpha/Prime -repo received - ***Claim Dismissed***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1687 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

tough luck on them then..

its only the judge that can force you to pay..and IMHO the whole debacle has not been addressed.

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

  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

DX - are you including charges applied to previous loans that are not part of the current chain? I mean, anything pre-February 2006? This being the date that one loan was settled, then a break of eight months was had before a brand new loan was taken out, and subsequently culminated in becoming the first link of the chain that the current agreement.

 

The charges and interest from the October 2006 loan onwards wouldn't amount to the full balance. You most likely know all Cruz's loans better than me, so I'd like to hear your views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you still that google drive link?

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

it was settled via a re-write with welcome.

 

more soon

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

sadly i'd lost the train of this..

no ..no link in a chain.

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

Loan 1 11/10/2001 For £7369.39 which had £1473.22 PPI and £130.00 Medicare added to it

 

Loan 2 rewrite on 10/06/2003 for £9809.68 and £1804.68 PPI.

 

Loan 3 rewrite on 31/03/2005 for £11423.67 and £1108.79 MIF. 17.80%@ £171.92 x 120 months

 

Loan 4 rewrite On 14/07/2005 for £13886.71 and £1352.87 MIF. 27% @ £272.06 x 120 months

 

Loan 5 rewrite on 29/12/2005 for £14792.00 and £1442.59 MIF 16.8% @ £189.11 x 180 months fully paid off in Feb 2006

 

New Loan no 6 taken out on 31/10/2006 for £8019.62 which had £1485.75 PPI, £180 life-care and £125 homecare with £2768.59 interest added to it.

26.5% @ £170.25 x 120 months

 

Loan 7 rewrite on 03/04/2007 for £14602.15 which had £2425.15 PPI and £175 personal accident plan with £3339.03 interest added.

22% @ £277.95 x 120 months

 

Loan 8 rewrite on 05/10/2007 for £26741.20 which had £4506.20 PPI and £10342.54 in interest added to it.

22% @£489.53 x 120 months

 

Loan 9 rewrite on 30/08/2008 for £30514.32 8.2% @ x £231.49 x 300 months. This is still running

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the other chain that was mentioned before was that they didn’t provide that linking loan in court which was

 

Loan no 7.

 

They provided info on loans 6, loan 8 and 9.

But they didn’t provide 7 for some strange reason in all their exhibits. Seems a bit bizzare especially as they tried to show an application for further advance but missed the linking one 6 into 7, 7 to 8 then 8 into 9!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who knows what their reasoning was, but I recall the charges that were applied to that particular loan being the worst of all.

Maybe that was the reason for them excluding it, or maybe it was just an oversight.

It's not relevant now anyway.

 

As I see it, let's just agree which charges and fees can be legitimately offset against this balance, then hit them with the revised balance and tell them they'll not be receiving a Penny more.

 

Furthermore, tell them that as they've chosen to ignore your constant complaints on this specific matter, that you have no other option but to advise them of your position and that they are welcome (pardon the pun) to, finally, engage with you on the matter.

 

The side issue is the monthly repayment amount. I'd like Andy's view on this.

 

DX - do you have a view on what Cruz should be paying each month, assuming there is a balance after fees and interest have been removed?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was Loan no 8 the fees and interest were the worse.

 

Sorry...I mean in terms of the size of them and number relative to the short term. I recall it only lasted a few months before the next rewrite, but they blasted you with charges in that time. The cumulative total of charges on other loans were probably higher, yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Dx in middle of composing a letter with shams help.

 

The basis of the letter is deducting all fees but what we need to be sure of is wether I start from first loan in 2003 right the way through 8 loans. Or start at Oct 2006 onwards to last loan 2008 (4 loans) as there was a break of 6 months without a direct rewrite from Feb 2006 to Oct 2006.

 

As you can imagine There is quite a bit of difference between putting all the loans in. But I can’t go after welcome for the 1st 4 pre 2006. Due to the scheme. But as you know from your calculations there is sums outstanding there.

 

We are working out the balance and need to get this correct. As I don’t want to be in **** if it goes back to court. However I understand it’s prime who would have the prove the link/ no link.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check in later

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

working on getting lots of newer email stuff over to the google drive

i'll get there.

 

might give us a better idea when done..

 

in all the stuff.. is there clear proof the last loan before the gap and this chain resulting in this litigated loan number WAS paid off by was it a mortgage or something...??

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

:thumb::thumb:

 

clear break then

thought id not lost the plot that much.

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

On all the ones before 2006 a new legal charge was applied each loan with the previous ones being removed . The land reg doc new charges were Changed to date of charge being exactly the same as dates of newer rewrite

 

But from Oct 2006 charge applied on that date but the further loans/charges were not amended date wise on Lr. So in 2007 2006 Charge should have come off and registered charge should then have been April 2007 then Oct 2007 then Aug 2008

Link to post
Share on other sites

think that tallies with the changes around that time

and I think andyorch has previously related to this if not here elsewhere.

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

I know that too. But just seems strange welcome didn’t do what they done on the last 4 that they consistently done on the first lot.

 

last loan legal charge was not witnessed and not signed in the presence of anyone it was left blank. Plus the signature on that one is well dodgy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fun and games with these again. I’ve recieved 2 arrears letter 10 days apart.... so that means I’m 2 monthly payments of 231.49 in arrears in less than 2 weeks.

 

Loan agreement states money is due a month after agreement date and every month after that. Agreement date is 28th of the month. So I’m presuming they were closed for 2 weeks over Xmas hence the date 4th of jan instead of 28th of Dec.

 

But how on earth can there be another month of arrears on 13th jan? When payment not due till 28th jan? I can count shame this muppets can’t..

 

Plus on the back of their letter they list their fees which are £51.60. But there’s £61.60 on these arrrears statment so extra £10 a time going on there 😂💦

 

Even in court the last judge said I’m paid up to July 2019 on 231

 

Prime are saying

Nov arrears 74.83

Dec arrears 231.49

Jan arrears 231.49

 

Total arrears £599.41

Prime 4 +13th Jan .pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...