Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues.  Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences.  Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered.  I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on.   Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff.  I don't have lawyer or barrister.  I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help.  And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate.  Both ad-hoc. Pro-bono means 'free'
    • The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.
    • Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump.    
    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
  • 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

Payplan payment review


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2018 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

click the link in post 22 and read

 

follow who to send too in post 20

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

who are moorcrofts client?

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

  • 5 weeks later...

I think you may find that ,since Getmeout(GME) has made payments to the assignee, in law the debt is acknowledged.

Requesting a SAR or CCA should have been done before a payment was made & well before Payplan became involved, who in law are assisting the debtor( but not necessarily in spirit).

 

It is far too late to go down that route now.

 

I agree with everything that dx 100 uk says about the selling of debt without documentation but it happens and is immoral but not unlawful.

So what I am saying is that if GME stops paying Cabot and Link could and knowing them would take him to Court, where a judge will simply ask him '' do you owe the money''

- SAR's or CCA's that cannot be produced are totally irrelevant

- the history of the case speaks for itself.

 

A summary CCJ against him with costs and compound interest is a certainty.

 

 

For the record Moorcroft are HSBC's inside solicitors( a couple of guys and a filing cabinet)

& Westcroft are the RBS Group which include NatWest.

 

Since payments are being made the Bank is happy to keep the debt but stop and they will sell with a clear audit trail of debt and more Court cases.

 

My advice to GME is to politely advise Payplan that an IVA is not in your best interest.

 

Trust me I know – if it wasn’t for Priority One back in the day I would not be here.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

urh..

moorcroft are not anything to do with HSBC...and are certainly NOT solicitors

and [who is westcrofts??] if you mean wescot..or wetcloths as we like to call them..they are not part of the RBS group...

 

as for not needing to produce enforceable paperwork the judge will just say well muppet you've been paying it...seems like you've been out the loop for a few years...

just look at the 1000's of wins in the legal successes forum...

 

welcome back to CAG but with 8 posts since 2009..you really must keep up at the back...

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

This is why I don't post - sarcastic and insulting replies with a touch of ageism.

But with £ 150k of shall we say 'avoidance' by reading the wise words of the sages on here and then reading the relevant legislation, some adapted wording (not templates) I have nothing to prove. In fact I might well be in the play offs for legal successes.

 

How many times have you been in Court as a LIP with a watertight case and the judge(clearly wanting his lunch) just asks you the question without reading anything. Then find £10k for an appeal.

 

If you pay an instalment you owe acknowledge a debt. Common law.

Don't pay after one instalment and you start the roulette wheel. Judge lottery.

 

Thanks to CAG True Call was the best £99 I ever spent - never acknowledge that you owe ought.

 

A punter who won but unfortunately can't type quick enough and isn't a techie.

I agree that makes me a dinosaur but with a far larger brain.

 

Lack of posts kept the wolves from the door but what I gleaned on here saved my life literally. Back to La La Land.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm more than a dinosaur than you...

 

glad cag helped you.

that's what we are here for..

 

payment might well be acknowledging the debt..thats not in dispute

but what is ..is the notion one should be blindly paying a DCA at the milking parlour without questioning their legal right to the money.

and yes we all hit judge lottery, but that's rare now.

 

I remember priority1 well very well

but things have moved on and things change....

esp since the CCA changes

just don't like to see people suggesting one should keep blindly pay a DCA just because they have for so many years...

 

yes have had a truecall box from day one too, wonderful box.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...