Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

2*CEL PCNs - Royal Oldham Hospital - now Emails from ZZPS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2333 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

Oh I agree, as long as everyone is equally accountable to law and doesn't rely on the fact they aren't to completely ruin my life up for a few extra quid.

 

However, here I am, and I don't seem to be going further towards a position of safety because financial interests other/bigger than mine dictate that I don't and the people responsible for implementing law (or basic commonly decency) to protect little man cant be bothered So yes, you and I are morally right, but what do I do now?

247 Moneybox - balance written off, default removed

Cash Genie - bogus default removed

Peachy - interest refunded, default removed

1 Month Loan - interest refunded, data removed

Peachy - balance written off, default removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

nothing for you to do.

 

ignore until/unless you get a letter of claim or a claimform.

 

CEL are easily defeated if you do.

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

Ok, thanks dx. And sorry. My frustration wasn't aimed at you.

247 Moneybox - balance written off, default removed

Cash Genie - bogus default removed

Peachy - interest refunded, default removed

1 Month Loan - interest refunded, data removed

Peachy - balance written off, default removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

just typing on a screen doesn't bother me

 

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

Well that's rare enough these days :cool:

247 Moneybox - balance written off, default removed

Cash Genie - bogus default removed

Peachy - interest refunded, default removed

1 Month Loan - interest refunded, data removed

Peachy - balance written off, default removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

still another threatogram,

CEL are crooks and will make up any amount to get past the £600 mark so they can get a bailiff to enforce if they win by a walkover.

However, they always lose at court on these issues because their costs are just made up and easily challenged

so the worst that you will get is to be told to pay the original £100 for each event.

 

The whole point of sending you this letter is to make to wet yourself and pay up without asking why it has gone up to £600

 

Note that their solicitor, Paul Rice is also a solicitor at Wright Hassall, that well known company of rated only slightly more competent that Gladstones.

Perhaps CEL are too toxic for his employers so he is moonlighting on this one.

 

Another director not listed on the SRA roll at this co is Ian Besant of Right hassle as well.

 

Tine to send a denial letter,

I would start off by being rude to them about their associations with Wright Hassal

 

so address it to Paul Rice (named sol) and say,

 

Dear Paul and Ian,

I note that you have taken a few days off from your day job at Right Hassle so you can send out threatograms on behalf of a company that even they wouldnt associate themselves with.

 

Could you please inform me as to whether this letter meets the requirements of the new Civil Procedure Regulations for a letter before claim

and also explain what exactly the claim is for, namely monies due under a contractual obligation of for a breach of contract.

Likewise can you supply evidence that I, as the keeper of the vehicle have any liability for this supposed debt.

 

After you have done that I am sure you can magic up the missing permissions and authorities to occuply the land in question because neither the landowner or the council seem to be able to help them out in this matter.

 

When you have sought all of that for your client ask them why the amount claimed has gone up from £200 to £600 and how that fits with any contracual obligation, credit agreement or CPR for additional costs as I am again stumped as to how they arrive at this figure other than just making it up as they go along.

 

Now, you have an obligation as part of your enrolment to the SRA to act honestly so you have a duty to the courts as well as your rapacious clients and can you honestly say that you have shown due diligence in this manner.

 

As you may have gathered any debt to your client is vigourously denied and will be resisted in court and a full costs recovery order sought as their actions are manifestly unreasonable.

 

As your client has not created a keeper liability under the POFA i am minded to sue them for breach of the DPA for telling lies to obtain my keeper details. let them know this, VCS v Philip (Liverpool CC 2016) is the persuasive case for setting damages.

 

Forgot to mention CE Ltd/ZZPS have now passed this to their solicitors, QDR, who want £618 off me.
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks ericsbrother - they haven't written to me yet, but I think I'll enjoy replying to them when they do... :wink:

 

meanwhile it also looks as if my MP is going to intervene.

247 Moneybox - balance written off, default removed

Cash Genie - bogus default removed

Peachy - interest refunded, default removed

1 Month Loan - interest refunded, data removed

Peachy - balance written off, default removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

then let him know that the hosptal trust is employing the only parking co to be dragged before the criminal courts by Trading Standards and that their track record of inflating their claims to ridiculous sums that have no legal basis is well reported.

 

Also let him know that Ashley Cohen, the real controlling interest in CEL is in breach of Companies House rules on listing those with a controlling interest in a company and that there has also been investigation into CEL and Ashley Cohen for forgery of a solicitors signature and using someone who is not on the SRA roll as their mouthpiece claiming they are a solicitor on their paperwork.

 

You could add a note at the bottom of the letter you send to the new solicitors that they should be careful as Ashley Cohen has a habit of forging solicitors signatures (amongst others, he also signed claims as the managing director of the Co-Operative society) and they may well find their monikers on all sorts of dodgy paperwork in the near furure.

 

All of this can then be used against them in a claim to show unreasonable behaviour

 

my betting is that the matter will get dropped when they realise you arent going to pay.

 

In many cases this was on the day of a case management meeting at court so they could be directed to either put up or shut up. they didnt attend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Meanwhile, an amusing little note from QDR, signed by Tim Hawker, Head of "Debt" Recovery Operations:

 

"Car Parking Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd

Instructed by: ZZPS Limited

 

Thank you for your recent contact. We have updated your address on our records.

 

The parking charge notice was issued at The Royal Oldham Hospital on 15th April 2017 as ‘Payment Not Made In Accordance With Terms Displayed On Signage’

 

Please note on entering a car park and parking your vehicle, you enter into a contract with the Car Park Operator (CPO). The signage sets out the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be payable, if the conditions are not met. As the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions, the CPO was at liberty to issue a PCN.

 

Should payment in full not be received our client may review this for further legal action."

 

[yawn]

247 Moneybox - balance written off, default removed

Cash Genie - bogus default removed

Peachy - interest refunded, default removed

1 Month Loan - interest refunded, data removed

Peachy - balance written off, default removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

me thinks mr hawker is in someones pocket or could it just be..its the ZZPS robot pretending to be someone else...

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

me thinks mr hawker is in someones pocket or could it just be..its the ZZPS robot pretending to be someone else...

 

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/timjhawker

 

Hmm...

247 Moneybox - balance written off, default removed

Cash Genie - bogus default removed

Peachy - interest refunded, default removed

1 Month Loan - interest refunded, data removed

Peachy - balance written off, default removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah the old wright Hassall third person letter

totally safe to ignore as only the PPC can issue any claim anyhow.

 

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

...and a reply from the council:

 

"With regards to your question about finding more detailed information on applications,

you may use link I provided previously to the Council’s website to search for applications.

 

However, if you are looking for more historical records,

you may carry out a local search on the area you are interested in to reveal all the relevant planning history. https://www.oldham.gov.uk/info/200203/commercial_property/355/search_local_land_charges

 

I must make you aware that an advertisement application does not have to be submitted by the “advertiser” themselves,

similarly a planning application does not have to be submitted by the owner of the land/premises for an application to considered.

If the parking enforcement company has changed over the years, details on existing signage can be changed without requiring advertisement consent.

 

In light of the above, and the advice previously given about deemed/express consent, no further action can be taken and this matter will now be closed."

247 Moneybox - balance written off, default removed

Cash Genie - bogus default removed

Peachy - interest refunded, default removed

1 Month Loan - interest refunded, data removed

Peachy - balance written off, default removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

a third party cannot instruct them and they know it or they are just crap solicitors.

 

This means they are stretching credibility to beyond its elastic limits here.

 

However, it is just another threatogram so can be added to the pile.

 

Meanwhile, an amusing little note from QDR, signed by Tim Hawker, Head of "Debt" Recovery Operations:

 

"Car Parking Operator: Civil Enforcement Ltd

Instructed by: ZZPS Limited

 

Thank you for your recent contact. We have updated your address on our records.

 

The parking charge notice was issued at The Royal Oldham Hospital on 15th April 2017 as ‘Payment Not Made In Accordance With Terms Displayed On Signage’

 

Please note on entering a car park and parking your vehicle, you enter into a contract with the Car Park Operator (CPO). The signage sets out the conditions under which a motorist is authorised to park, be that by payment of the appropriate paid parking tariff or by parking within a limited stay period or similar, and that a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) will be payable, if the conditions are not met. As the vehicle was parked in breach of the terms and conditions, the CPO was at liberty to issue a PCN.

 

Should payment in full not be received our client may review this for further legal action."

 

[yawn]

 

so yet again the council are telling you they cant be arsed to even look into things,

well there is no point as far as they are concerned because they cant fine the company so no incentive for the minion writing this letter to even wake his boss up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...