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. 
    • 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 . 
  • 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

Spinningfish V The Woolwich


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4513 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

 

I've been through the motions with the Woolwich in getting my charges back, ie SAR and asking for it back, during October, November and December.

 

They chose to ignore my request for the charges to be returned and referred the account to Equidebt, as the account was overdrawn by £1800 - basically the charges negated that figure!!

 

Equidebt send me a letter citing breach of the written agreement, ie owing the Woowlich the overdraft and not paying, so I sent a request under the CCA for them to provide me with a signed copy of the agreement, with the appropriate fee. This was sent to Equidebt by recorded delivery on the 16th January.

 

On the 24th January I received a letter from Heatons LLP, on behalf of Equidebt ignoring my CCA request and demanding payment of the full amount. In response, I sent the following letter:

 

"I write in response to your letter dated 24th January 2007, and would like to refer you to my letter, dated 16th January 2007, sent to your client, Equidebt, which has seemingly been ignored by your client.

As stated to Equidebt, in the aforementioned letter dated 16th January 2007, I no longer acknowledge these debts to Equidebt, and subsequently yourselves, and I have still yet to receive the documentation requested.

I have requested true copies of the agreements Equidebt have referred to in their correspondence to me. I remind you that this is my right under the legislation contained within section 77 (1) and section 78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition to this, Equidebt are also required to supply signed true copies of the deeds of assignment of the above referenced agreements.

You are reminded that Equidebt are obliged to supply these documents under section 189 of the CCA 1974.

As you are aware, a credit agreement that is not properly documented and signed by the customer is totally unenforceable under the CCA and therefore is a complete defence to any court claim that is issued.

Take note at this stage, that any legal action you may contemplate will be both vigorously defended and contested. All further communication from either the Woolwich Plc, Equidebt or yourselves that do not recognise that this matter is ‘in dispute’, will be reported to the Financial Ombudsman and the Information Commissioner’s Office, citing contravention of section 13.6 of The Banking Code. Investigations are currently underway with The Woolwich Plc into the validity of the original amount that was claimed to be owed, and I will be in contact with you again in due course. In the meantime please be aware that, as previously stated, I consider this matter to be “in dispute”."

Well, the saga continues... Heatons LLP have sent me another letter, ignoring my communications, giving me 48hours to pay or they will commence legal action.

Please can someone advise me what I should do next?

Thanks

Mr Fish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

 

A couple of questions first.

 

Do you know who now owns the debt? Is it Equidebt or is it still the Woolwich?

 

Did you receive your statements from your SAR request?

 

Also, debt companies nearly always ignore letters that you write.

 

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi spinningfish....

 

I assume Heatons are solicitors ? If so, try this :

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Ref : Account Number :

 

I refer to your letter of xx/xx/xx, which was received on xx/xx/xx

 

Frankly, I am surprised of the need to remind a firm of solicitors about the terms and conditions surrounding my Consumer Credit Agreement request (Consumer Credit Act, 1974); received by Equidebt on xx/xx/xx, followed by a letter dated xx/xx/xx to remind them that the above account was in dispute. I can only assume therefore that they failed to inform you.

 

Should you or your client now persist with threats of legal action within the next 48 hours, I will welcome the opportunity for a judge to look at several offences committed by Equidebt and yourselves under The Data Protection Act, 1988 and The Consumer Credit Act, 1974, as well as your client’s non-compliance with and total disregard for the law on this occasion.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Adapt it to your needs, if necessary... but I think it reads ok. I am not sure whether overdrafts are covered by the CCA.... but Equidebt/Heatons would still need to produce some documentation in order to enforce the amount they claim is owed.

 

 

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this...

 

I actually don't know who owns the debt. It says the creditor is Woolwich on the letter, so I assume it is still with them.

 

This is probably why Heatons/Equidebt have chosen to ignore my letters to them - they probably don't have to provide me with anything!

 

Should I just get my Letter Before Action to Woolwich, directly, in that case? I can then remind them that the amount is in dispute...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are claiming charges back from the Woolwich, then your LBA should go to them.... but as the threats of legal action were comng from Heatons/Equidebt, then I would think that you only need to inform them that the account is in dispute. There should be no need to inform the Woolwich unless the account has been passed back to the Woolwich.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again spinnigfish,

 

 

If it is the Woolwich that still owns the debt, then I don't think Equidebt can take legal action against you.

 

Can somebody else will either confirm this, or correct it?

 

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again spinnigfish,

 

 

If it is the Woolwich that still owns the debt, then I don't think Equidebt can take legal action against you.

 

Can somebody else will either confirm this, or correct it?

 

 

Jeff.

 

Yes, that is true. In order to take legal action, then the company taking that action must have the proper documentation to enforce in court. In this case, no CCA = nothing to enforce...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that is true. In order to take legal action, then the company taking that action must have the proper documentation to enforce in court. In this case, no CCA = nothing to enforce...

 

 

 

Thanks for that PriorityOne, that's what I thought. Just wasn't 100% sure!

 

 

Jeff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this chaps.

 

Does this therefore mean that Equidebt/Heatons they are in default of the CCA request that I sent, and if so, should I still be sending the LBA to the Woolwich?

 

Sorry if I seem dim. Just want to do the right thing!!

 

Thanks again.

 

Fishman

 

Yes, Equidebt/Heatons are in default of your CCA request... and the LBA goes to the Woolwich.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt is not enforceable by Equidebt/Heatons... but it sounds as if they were acting as agents for the Woolwich. This means that they will have probably passed it back to the Woolwich by now, enabling you to deal with them directly.... which is what you intended to do in the first place.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi Sally

 

I did notice in a sticky thread, in this section, that someone else served papers to that Churchill Place address, and the case was deferred for one month, as the Woolwich stated that this address was incorrect.

 

Please advise.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi spinningfish,

 

from my understanding of this you need to name the defendant as barclays bank trading as "The Woolwich". as far as the address goes check out here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/31052-contact-details-banks.html?garpg=19

 

i hope this helps

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul

 

There does appear to be some confusion with some people thinking the defendant should be The Woolwich, and others thinking it is Barclays t/a The Woolwich.

 

Does anyone have the definitive answer before I issue my claim?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

well if the woolwich want to play games and say that anyone putting barclays as the address is wrong then why are they sending the letters on barclays headed paper. all my correspondance to the woolwich all came back with barclays headed paper so thats who i am putting on my claim and i will point that out in court if need be.

 

amandax

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got off the phone to the Woolwich's complaints department and they told me (if it was an Openplan account) to address it to the Woolwich at this address:

 

Jackson House

Jackson Road

Clacton-on-Sea

Essex

CO15 1WH

 

Hope this helps,

SnaXXy

Link to post
Share on other sites

im really concerned about this, because it seems we have different addresses and nobody seems to know which one we actually use, therefore barclays/ woolwich using delaying tatics. if the woolwich say we have to use their address and take them to court why is everything coming from barclays, do they even know what they are doing, they are so incompetant.

 

if anyone finds out where and who it actually is that we take to court could someone let me know asap as i am subbmitting my claim tomorrow morning

 

many thanks

 

amanda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found a thread earlier that said a claim was ent back by court to be amended to include plc after Barclays Bank t/a The Woolwich (plc). Hope that helps :)

3 Active Claims:

Barclays Refund of Bank Charges (Sole account) - Applied to lift court ordered Stay

Barclays Refund of Bank Charges (Joint account) - Awaiting court date

Barclays Refund of Bank Charges (Joint account) Pre-6 yrs- LBA sent.

 

 

3 Wins :

Barclays t/a The Woolwich (Data Protection Act breach costs & compliance)

HSBC (on behalf of brother)

Settled Out of Court - £3,874.76

Alliance & Leicester (on behalf of friend)

Settled Out of Court - £723.41

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...