Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 27/07/21 in Posts

  1. l'm Abigale and l'll be looking after your case for you. My goal is to help you get a fair outcome and avoid couri action but I see you failed to pay following my previous letter. I wanted to remind you of the case analysis I completed for you. Results of your case analysis: amount owed f170.00 / ls there clear evidence of a breach of the contract? Yes / Are you liable for this charge? Yes / ls the Parking Operator a member of an Accredited Trade Association? Yes / Does the Parking Operator comply with relevant legislation? Yes / Does the parking site have clear signage relating to charges? Yes / Have we completed a full trace of your contact details? Yes / Has the original discount offering now been lost? Yes / Has the right to appeal the ticket now passed? Yes / Are the charges appropriate and fair as defined by the Parking Trade Association? Yes x Can the client evidence that you intend not to pay your debt? No / ls yorr case eligible for court action if you choose not to pay? Yes Monitoring active: intent not to pay evidence I of 3 collected Our cliewho caresserves the right to take 'no response' as evidence of intent not to pay This letter from Abigale is disgraceful. How can she say that she is trying to get you a fair outcome when you are being asked to pay £170? This is followed by a spurious "analysis". 1] There is no evidence of any breach since we do not know if the double yellow lines are council or Premier. 2] are you liable for the breach as the keeper? No-the PCN is not compliant.. As the driver then? No. In any event Abigale cannot set herself up as the JUdge. 3]are you liable for the charge? NO 4] the parking operator is a member of a discredited trade association. 5] no 6] no idea as we haven't seen all the signage. 7] who cares 8] who cares 9] who cares 10] no the charges are not fair nor appropriate There is no debt so there is nothing to pay.
  2. Just looked to see if theyd put the bailiff disclaimer at the end...they have, but its totally unredacted to me.. So ive hidden the post
  3. I'm afraid that I take a slightly different view. Although this will add to your grief and distress, if you make an allegation of theft to the police and eventually persuade them to carry out an investigation and give you a crime reference number then you should have some joy if it is actually considered to be a stolen item. Of course there are a number of difficulties here. First of all you will make things far more complicated for everybody else who is grieving because I imagine that you are not the only one and so therefore you may incur some wrath and resentment from others who decide that you are simply attacking a man when he's not around to defend himself. It will damage your brother's reputation. And finally – and maybe the most difficult – is putting sufficient pressure on the police to consider that it is a legitimate crime report and to give you the crime reference number that you need. If you can get it to be treated as a stolen item by the police then the ownership of the phone remains with you and you should then eventually be able to recover it – but don't imagine it will be easy. CEX could then try to sue your brother's estate if there is any money there and of course if CEX can be bothered – which they probably can't. Alternatively, you could put in a claim against your brother's estate – once again if there is any money there. If you want to go the police route then of course it will be helpful if your brother has got any form for this kind of thing – but I can still imagine that the police don't really want to get involved and will keep on trying to say that it is a "civil matter" which is a standard way of saying you are nobody important and therefore we don't want to get involved. Or if it is you who has been accused of crime – then you are too important and it's going to cause a load of hassle if we investigate you.
  4. Exactly the same thing happened to me a few years ago. I was summoned for speeding on the A127 when it should have been the A12. I went into court and the charge was read. The police officer was already in the witness box and he told the CPS solicitor there was a problem and he told the court. The clerk then re-read the offence with the correct roads. I simply said "with respect, that isn't the charge I was summoned here to face." The clerk looked at the bench who looked at each other. The CPS solicitor then stood and said "the summons is faulty and is withdrawn." And that was it.
  5. Did you ever think that maybe they were embarrassed at only having to pay you such a small amount despite all the pressure they had put on you? So they are giving you a second bite at the cherrry to recoup your other claims for time spent on research etc. No neither did I. You just to have to take their supreme idiocy and greed into account.
  6. p'haps @Ell-enn will pop in she is our master at these speculative repo's by non 1st charge fleecers
  7. Yes, that's fine for now. Practice scanning or taking photos of doc'ts so you can post them when needed as PDF's.
  8. Yes, beware of "warranties" issued by conservatory companies. I had a fifteen year warranty with mine. Twelve months after the installation some of the DG units failed and began to mist. I contacted the installers only to be told that the company that installed mine had gone into liquidation. Meanwhile a "new" company had taken over the business. Same "T/A" name, same premises, same staff, same phone number. They could fix my problem, but unfortunately there would be a charge. Enquiries led me to discover that this company, which had been operating under the same name for forty years, performed this trick about every two years or so. You live and learn
  9. Just like they'd love to hide the disclaimer, makes my teeth itch utter clowns.
  10. Ignore these donuts, they are NOT bailiffs, even though their silly little missive states that they are, in this instance they're simply acting as powerless debt collectors and can be ignored.
  11. The shot putter sophie lives in the same town as me. The she has had to crowd fund her training. While we are disappointed that she did not get threw we are proud she got there.
  12. Thank you for getting back to me. I assumed you were busy. I've got the report and its taken some time for me to redact my personal details out of it, and then re-combine into a new PDF. It seems to have worked out okay. I've also heard nothing back from Tobermore...Which is exactly as you predicted. At least it shows where their loyalty lies. It says letter before action, but as you've mentioned there are no formal timescales etc. I'm assuming these are their tried and tested bully tactics to force payment. I'd be grateful for your thoughts and suggestions on the next steps. I'm going to try and arrange quotations to rectify the work as soon as possible. Its just difficult to get people to attend at the moment Lord Groundworks Report Redacted 28th July.pdf
  13. I put in my DQ and as I am in Scotland the most LOCAL of courts they can provide is in Newcastle. I'm not fussed, as I don't mind going on a little vacation to Newcastle. Haven't been yet. I have a suspicious feeling that I may not have an excuse to go on vacay in Newcastle ... I will follow the dialogue of previous mediations that have been narrated on here.
  14. Get in touch with Zuto who should be able to resolve as they acted as your agent in regard to the finance arrangements. Something has obviously gone wrong with the paperwork submitted when you exchanged the cars and the finance arrangements was revised. Should be easy for Zuto to resolve this.
  15. a dca is not a bailiff and have ZERO legal powers on any debt - no matter what it's type safe to ignore everything until/unless you get a letter of claim with a reply pack dx
  16. The court asked for the 'proper' POC with a deadline of 21st July. I sent it on the 19th recorded, signed for. The courts have been frustratingly slow AFAIAC but we wait. I will provide updates as I receive them. No indication of timelines for anything other than submitting a POC.
  17. Thread locked for now, as it would be a shame to waste a lovely Summer afternoon moderating a political argument. Agree that it would be best if everyone refrained from using inappropriate language.
  18. If you have got the written notification from them that you can terminate within 30 days without incurring charges then I think that is quite good enough. I would certainly attempt to block the charge with the bank. However I can imagine the bank won't be happy with it and you will have to be very insistent and if they refuse then you should immediately tell them that you are making a complaint which you want taken to the ombudsman. Get a reference number. Is your payment simply by direct debit or is it using a card? If the payment is being taken against a regular card number then you should be able to arrange a chargeback if there are any problems. The bank may try to say that is a contract – and you will have to say that it is not and that you have written evidence that you will not incur charges and they have breached their promise. If the whole thing goes on and you end up losing your money then tell us here. If you manage to block the payment then no doubt they will start getting very nasty and very heavy and we will help you there as well.
  19. The difference between your case and Speedy's is that his involved an error on the summons. Yours is on the NIP. The two are judged at different levels, but nonetheless I am surprised that the court did not permit an amendment to the summons. As an aside, minor motoring offences are not commenced by way of summons now. They begin with a "Single Justice Procedure Notice" (sent to the defendant) together with a "Written Charge" (sent to the court). There is a different strategy you could consider. Before you return the Section 172 notice providing the driver's details, you could ask for "any photographs that will help identify the driver." They don't have to provide them but usually will. They don't usually help identify the driver (especially those taken from the rear) but it is a way of avoiding asking for "evidence" to which you are not entitled at this stage. When you have them you can confirm the location and if the NIP and S172 request state it incorrectly you could reply saying that your vehicle was not in the location mentioned at the relevant time. This is a risky business. Unless the police drop the matter out of "embarrassment" you will face a charge of "Failing to Provide Driver's Details" - an offence which carries six points. Whether you are convicted of that depends very much on all the circumstances and it's impossible to give a view here. But it might be worth a try. It is not your job to second guess what the police really mean when they ask who was driving your car at 12 noon in the High Street. You could give it some thought.
  20. Sorry, but I agree with CEX on this occasion. Appreciate you may find this upsetting, but this is my honest opinion. You gave the phone to your Brother and your Brother obviously thought he could sell the phone. You say it was a loan, but do you have any proof such as a loan agreement signed by your Brother, where it stated that the phone remained your property and he had to give the phone back to you on request. Of course very few people in a family situation would formalise a loan arrangement. I think the offer for you to buy the phone back at the amount CEX paid your Brother is a reasonable offer. CEX bought the phone in good faith and should not face a financial loss.
  21. Johnson doesn't care how much 'other peoples' debt piles up - its another consistent part of his history Sunak will though ... even if its not focused on the reasons you or I would be worried
  22. Hi I am fine ty, no effects at all atm xx Only thing I have atm is a cold lol xx I ahve go for an echo-cardigraph when I make appointment as my Doctor found I have a heart murmer ! Never been picked up on ECG Sandy xx
  23. If he has fallen behind on deadlines, then you should write to him about it so that you have got it in a letter and also make sure that it is included in the documents that you supply to the court so the court those as well. Every time he makes a mistake, every time he misses the deadline, it plays to your advantage and you should exploit it as hard as you can. At the end of the day if he litigates unreasonably then you should make a request the court to exercise its exceptional discretion to award you litigant in person costs. These are currently £18 an hour and it would be a good idea if you started putting together a spreadsheet and try to itemise all the time you have spent preparing and dealing with the action so that you have got a solid well presented property calculated claim for costs. It's all got to look reasonable and not like a money grab – but you may as well compile it all on. At the end of the day the enforcement problem is going to be exactly the same. If you can add a load of costs then that is something to give away to him if he is prepared to settle quickly and not cause any problem with enforcement.
  24. Yet allowing incomers from the USA with its rising cases and rising cases of fraud in the US 'covid passports' While the USA still has the UK on its red list? The EU is apparently vaccinating at 4 times that of the USA currently
  25. Cash machine scam alert: Nationwide warns your money is at risk as thieves use 'dummy box' Bank customers are regularly targeted by fraudsters who have no shame in targeting consumers' hard earned cash. Recently, Lowell, the debt management company, conducted research on the most common types of fraudulent activity across the UK. In examining data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) alongside its own survey, Lowell found the most common type of fraud in the UK is debit and credit card fraud (18 percent). Cash machine scam alert: Nationwide warns your money is at risk as thieves use 'dummy box' WWW.MSN.COM CASH machine scam warnings have been issued as fraudsters have been found to use a dummy box to steal money from unsuspecting customers... .............. EDIT: but what about the £100'000's you get out of people every day Lowells on debts they most probably don't legally even owe you....where did that rank in your survey?? - DX
  26. Letter to HMRC :- Dear Madam, I refer to your letter of 26th July. I sent HMRC a SAR on 23rd July and, until I receive a full response including all necessary data, I am unable to decide how to proceed regarding the 3 options you set out in your letter. Please therefore postpone further action until HMRC responds properly to my SAR and I've had time to consider all data and take advice in the matter. Yours faithfully, Alvin
  27. Its a legal right with serious legal repercussions if they fail to comply lEAve those as is imho
  28. Yes seems to cover the main points....just one point your statement of truth is outdated. “I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.”
  29. I’ve think I’ve managed to get this resolved. My existing supplier has objected to the supplier being switched. Energy Advice service recommended this course of action. Hoping that this puts an end to it and a valuable lesson has been learned.
  30. Make sure that photos you take of the pothole show it with some sort of ruler that will show how wide it is and how deep it is.
  31. No problem in sending them the information they are asking for. I hope you took pictures of the pothole et cetera in the cemetery. It will be interesting to go back there now and see if it has been repaired. If there has been repaired then that would suggest that the council has since realised that the work needed to be done. I would send an SAR to the council. I would also send an FOIA request to the council asking them for all copies of any discussions, correspondence, assessments, reports, notes, memoranda relating to the conditions or works at the cemetery from – say, six months prior to the incident until now. See what that turns up. Also you need to make sure that you have got all copies of medical reports and go and see the GP for up-to-date assessments. Make full notes of all difficulties being suffered, pain, inconvenience – everything the lot. Also, get a report from someone authoritative which makes it clear that she is unable to do ballet or to take part in the next Olympics.
  32. great news on Cap1, well done. it cant comeback as its already been removed as the DN was +6yrs old. as for link no never ever speak on the phone to anyone regarding any debt...they will lie and harass people always. why not send Link a copy of that cap1 letter and say to them they are the only debt owner to continue to demand continued payment and would they please think hard again regarding the status of her sever financial hardship. dx
  33. the ICO deal with all data protection rule etc breaches. they often fire a shot across the bows of whom has failed the sar timeline and it magically appears. you should ideally do this before launching a court claim as tempting as it is...
  34. Hi there - I know this is probably a bit overwhelming and unfair. My thread is also about the Brook Retail Park, Ruislip so feel free to give it a read if you want to know what to expect. I definitely recommend reading as many threads as you can to get an idea of how this all works! Best of luck.
  35. Adridude, if you contact our admin address using the email address for the adrdude account and make this request, they'll organise the merge for you. HB
  36. They sent a lost parcel claim form through which i submitted and they replied within a week saying the item had been lost in the network and to contact packlink for compensation. Packlink had already refused to compensate. I then sent the letter before claim to Hermes, 14 days before filing the claim. Now just waiting on a date for mediation
  37. you will need to include and refer to the above the statement charges mean nothing , that does not reset any SB clock. the statements show no payments made by you. The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several years and months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X years and months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and x years + X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.
  38. Well 2 weeks might be a bit quick... or just stop and see what they do in a month or 2 link that is...
  39. Did you have any thoughts about it over the weekend? Any amendments or any new things occurred to you? One thing to point out for anybody who visits this thread is that one advantage of what has happened here – the failure of the original particulars of claim, is that even though it was clear that the particulars of claim were completely inadequate, Santander, rather than asking for the claim to be struck out, actually provided a fairly full defence and that gave an enormous number of clues as to how to handle the particulars of claim. The particulars of claim would have been much more difficult if that hadn't happened so that was a stroke of good fortune. Santander made a serious strategic error by objecting to the particulars claim and then filing a detailed defence. They should simply have pointed out that the particulars of claim failed to identify any cause of action and therefore the claim should be struck out. The court order may well have been exactly the same – a deadline to produce a properly detailed particulars of claim, but we would have not been helped by their detailed defence. In case anybody gets the idea that this is always the way to go, then don't forget that the court might simply have agreed to strike out the particulars of claim and then we would be left with nothing a wasted claim fee Although everything has worked out well so far, it's rather accidental on our part. The best approach is to produce a particulars of claim which clearly identifies the cause of action but after that goes into minimal detail – and maybe if possible says nothing at all. That would then produce a situation where the defendant would be obliged to file a relatively detailed defence containing all the clues without actually receiving much information in return. So a more appropriate particulars of claim in this case would simply have been to say that "the defendant is in breach of the BCOBS regulations by treating the customer unfairly because they have blocked access to his account and are withholding his money without any sufficient discussion or investigation and without any justification." Just that little bit would have been a much more certain particulars of claim which would clearly have identified the cause of action without giving any detail. The defendant would have had to respond probably with exactly the same defence – but without the risk and the stress of having the claim struck out.
  40. Business transactions being hidden in personal accounts, therefore not disclosing to HMRC etc ? Banks may look at such transactions, thinking they could be proceeds of crime related, money laundering. For Santander to close the account and not release the money makes me wonder what information they have, which has raised enough doubt to justify the actions they have taken. And Santander will be restricted in their responses, if they have reported this to authorities to investigate. Or Santander have got this totally wrong, based on a few transactions only, which were only related to private personal affairs, nothing to do with any business that was being operated by the account holder.
  41. Not read the whole thread, but it appears that Santander had reason to believe that a personal Bank account was being used for business purposes, which would not be allowed. Perhaps this has now been resolved by @bradybunch Not exactly sure of the way Banks handle such situations, but closing the account seems like a reasonable action and then there should be a process where the Bank contacts the account holder asking for information to be provided before the money is released. Have we been told the whole story by @bradybunch
  42. Just a thought. On a few of these "supermarket parking" threads there has been a tendency to fob off a first complaint, then if the motorist insists a second time they get a result. It might be a case of 2+2=5 but sometimes it's almost as if there's a policy of only doing something after being pushed twice. It might be worth a quick second mail to Lidl - "Thank you for your reply of XXXXX which I find most disappointing and a shameful refusal to accept your responsibilities. Parking Eye are about to sue me and I will add Lidl as a Third Party to the claim. You can explain in front of a judge how your incompetence delays customers' return to their cars and then allows the same customers to be charged £100 and then sued by the vermin you have let loose outside your stores".
  43. Yes, it's the same parking event. This seems to be a new tactic by PE, send out their demands and then a reminder 10-ish days later, we've had a few such cases recently.
  44. Just to be clear who you're dealing with, as you've mixed them up. Marriott - the organ grinder. They've stupidly decided they need to employ someone to save their car parks from being taken over by non-patrons. They have the power to call PE off. So get onto the CEO. As well as the bits I said to cut out, add a bit to explain that you originally tried to contact the hotel in Luton but got nowhere (otherwise they'll wonder why you are contacting them in July 2021 instead of June 2020). PE - the monkey. These are the conmen you're supposed to appeal to (but they never accept appeals) and they are the ones who take your £100. As dx says, ignore them now totally unless they send you a Letter Before Claim. Legally you're in the right, it was impossible for you to satisfy their silly rules. DCBL - oxygen thieves who have no power to do anything as it's not their debt. You should always ignore anything you get from a DCA.
  45. Well it's up to you what kind of job you want. We have advised you that you are entitled to get a job that is equivalent to the quality/condition of your vehicle. Personally I agree with you that I wouldn't want dent simply filled either. They are charging you £60 for the quotation. That's very reasonable. They suggested that you should not have contact your insurance company. They are wrong because if later on it turned out that you had an accident and your insurance company discovered that they had not been informed about a previous incident, it could be a basis for declining liability. I now suggest that you write a letter to the neighbour and tell them that as they know, they caused damage to your vehicle and that you are proposing to have it repaired and you are now seeking quotes. Tell them that you will be providing them with copies of any quotes that you receive so that they can understand why it is happening and also they can comment. Tell them that there is likely to be a fee for the quotations and that you will be adding that the final bill and you are now giving them a few days to respond and to comment. Tell them that you have already contacted the BMW repairer and they have told you that it will cost £60 for a quotation. You are letting the neighbour know in advance. You can tell your neighbour in the letter that they can avoid those fees if they are prepared to accept verbal quotations. However in the event that they don't reply or that they object then you will pay for those quotations and as you have said, you will be adding it to the bill. It's very important that you lay down a paper trail so that they are informed every step of the way and they are made aware in advance of any expenses which you are incurring on their behalf.
  46. I very rarely make judgemental posts on this forum – but I have to say that children who have found themselves in a position where they have needed foster care, need particular integration and folding into a family unit. The idea of lodging them in an outhouse in the garden – however well-equipped it might be – is repugnant to me – and I hope it is equally repugnant to the council and social workers who might consider your application.
  • Create New...