Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • 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.
  • 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

Helping sister with Capital One PPI claim.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2302 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

Hello all.

 

I've just found this forum and have been reading through some of the very helpful guides regarding PPI.

 

I am currently in the process of helping my sister with a PPI claim against Capital One.

We've never done this sort of thing before so do have a few questions we were hoping you could help with.

 

Initially we contacted Capital One to ask if she had PPI.

They emailed back and said yes.

 

I then sent off a SAR to see what information they hold on her as we're not sure if she was mis-sold, so are trying to establish a few facts.

They responded with a pack that contained loads of statements, memos etc.

I don't think it included everything I asked for,

they said to ask again for specifics (like which telephone call exactly) and they will provide them.

 

In the statements it shows PPI,

there is also a signed copy of the CCA which indicates my sister asked for PPI.

 

She is a bit suspicious of this but that is neither here nor there,

the fact is it's signed and she has signed up to it according to this document.

 

We want to know whether it is possible she was still mis-sold though.

Ideally, we need a copy of the literature explaining what exactly PPI is and its policies that you would expect to have been sent out at the time.

This will allow us to check if she was eligible or not and perhaps claim on those grounds if she wasn't.

If she was eligible then we can at least draw a line under this and not bother complaining.

 

Is there any way of obtaining this document or information?

I understand a CCA request will just be the loan agreement which they already provided a copy of in the SAR.

I imagine they must have sent out a PPI leaflet as opposed to discussing it over the phone with her,

as the memos do not indicate any phone calls prior to the start of the PPI agreement (although they are hard to comprehend).

 

She was in part time employment at the time,

had not been in full time employment for six months prior to the agreement

which elsewhere I have read may be deemed as reasons for ineligibility and thus a mis-sale.

 

So we're not really sure how to proceed from here, if at all.

 

Thanks for reading, I appreciate any help regarding this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m not sure if this helps but I didn’t do any of that.

 

I simply completed their online form stating I believe I’d been missold as I had enough cover elsewhere and 6 weeks later I received a letter stating I was due a refund of over £3,000. The cheque took a couple of weeks after that to arrive.

Edited by Maki
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

when did she take the card out please?

  • Confused 1

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

so within the period whereby online sign ups started

and within the period whereby it was known several online sign up cards had faults with their sites that had the PPI box already ticked

but I don't think that happened with the CAP1 site.

 

there are known issues with cap1 in that era too over the little white card activation sticker that was on the card

the card was already active

the sticker was to activate the PPI, but all it said was activate me and a number.

 

id p'haps go against the grain of normal cag advise and follow what maki did

just blindly put it a claim

 

there no get out being part time

nor unemployed as such

I think you are mixing that up with self employment.

now that would be a reason

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

Right, I see. Thanks.

 

Yeah, I think she must have signed up online then got sent a paper document to sign after.

 

What I find strange is on her account page on the print outs they have sent, it says 'N' next to PPI.

 

I have read several sites claiming some policies had exclusions relating to working hours and employment status in general, that is why I was thinking of trying to get the original policy document off them. I wouldn't really know what grounds to complain on otherwise.

Edited by Hurley31
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find strange is on her account page on the print outs they have sent, it says 'N' next to PPI

 

id mention that only for now

with a covering comment that she was well aware of the PPI issue as it had already been widely publicised that it is a bad thing at that time when the whole PPI debacle was just starting.

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'm not sure I understand.

 

Just to clarify,

she has physically signed a CCA with a tick next to PPI opt in and signed it.

 

I'm not sure she can really claim she didn't sign up to it,

though it does seem to be something she mindlessly went along with rather than actively sought out

(not that constitutes a mis-sale).

Link to post
Share on other sites

she ticked the box

or it was pre ticked

or she didn't and someone ticked it later?

typed tick or written.

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 is ticked with her signature underneath.

 

She must have ticked it as she has signed for it as well underneath where it says it requires a signature for PPI opt in.

 

It is a photocopy of a CCA so it's impossible to tell if it was pre-ticked but it makes no difference really as she has signed for it anyway so for all intents has consented to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

whats the PPI worth

have you done the spreadsheets?

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

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

Thanks for that link, I'll do that now.

 

I assumed you just take the total and add 8% or whatever on top but obviously it is calculated differently.

 

Do you know where it says 'claim from - claim to',

 

do I put the date the card closed in the 'claim to' section?

Link to post
Share on other sites

claim to is the date they stopped their int

then take that sum and pop it in the statint sheet as a whole figure the day after they stopped int for the 8% calc

what are we looking at here...

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've filled in all the charges in to the CISHEET,

 

I put the date the card closed as the claim to date as I wasn't sure if it was meant to be that or something else.

 

I also put 29.94 as the interest rate, as that is what it says on the CCA.

 

This gave me a sum of £392.64.

 

I've not done the second STATINT calculation as I'm not really sure what to do there.

Edited by Hurley31
Link to post
Share on other sites

£392.64 as one whole sum

the day after CISHEET claim to date

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 put the day after the account closed in the 'from' section and it automatically filled in today's date for the 'to' section, underneath I put in the whole sum and it gives a total of £550.72.

 

This is assuming I've done it all correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep so that auto updates each day.

so

and that's only a guide.

reclaim could be worth about +£500

 

and don't for get

if the PPI reclaim fails

 

you can always get them on secret commission under a plevin claim.

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 you have the sar with the info

and I assume a copy of the comms/account log and the agreement

on those it will tell you what her employment/status was from the info she told them.

 

what did she put down..thats the only info they will have

what does it say?

 

not what she knows as her situation then...

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 agreement only shows the last page with her signature.

 

Her account page states she is in employment as a sales assistant, with an annual wage of £5000.

That's all it says.

 

I thought you said there were no exclusions regarding employment status though?

 

This is why I'm confused,

there doesn't appear to be a valid reason for a complaint if I can't mention her part time/temporary employment status.

 

This is why I asked about ways of obtaining the original PPI agreement to see what exactly the exclusions are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...