Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Clydesdale Financial Services "WON"


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5741 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

My son has a loan with CFS going back to 2005. During that time they have added over £200 in late payment fees.

 

We wrote to them on 5 October under s77(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 requesting a copy of the executed agreement and statement of account. The statement of account came by return (twice) but nothing else. This contains all payments and charges added so we got everything we would have receievd under an SAR.

 

As more than 12 days have passed, we have put the account in dispute until they come up with the agreement. They have until 19 Novemeber or they will have committed an offence.

 

We will keep you posted

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'll keep an eye on you, Steven my lad, as I have a credit agreement ending next month with them, and as I pay my standing order, I'll be paying my last legitimate payment, which means if they want the charges (1 late payment, I had deleted the S/O by accident, doofus, and they plonked about £70 of charge for that), they'll have to pursue me for them. Should be interesting. :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am claiming on behalf of no 1 son. We are reclaiming several lots of £22.50 for letters sent due to late payments on the grounds that the letters cannot cost more than 35p and are therefore disguised penalties. They repaid half of them immediately after receiving the prelim letter. (actually more than half since they seem to be inordinately bad at maths ;))

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

N1 going in tomorrow. We are also asking for default removal since they applied one a couple of weeks ago. I agreed a payment with their agent on the phone and paid it electronically and they still placed the default :mad:

 

They are not goijg to get away with that.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to teach you to suck eggs Steven, but don't accept any cash settlement without removal of the default.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to teach you to suck eggs Steven, but don't accept any cash settlement without removal of the default.
Absolutely. Although there is a problem - they repaid some of the charges by just crediting the account. I expect they will do that again, especially as the 'brink' approaches.

 

What I propose to do is to write and say we don't accept the payment and demand that they remove it. I think that is all we can do given that it is a loan account. There is no way of sending them back the money as far as I can see.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

N1 going in tomorrow.
Went to the court and they were closed :-(

 

They had a notice on the door "Closed until Tuesday 2nd January" :confused:

 

Do they know something we don't?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Two letters recieved yesterday - one from the court with Barclay's (they bought CFS) defence and an AQ, the other an offer from Barclays for the full amount. No offer to remove the default though :(

 

I need to talk to son to find out what he wants to do.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long since it was defaulted, and was it for more or less than the amount of the charges? If it was a while ago, and if he has any more recent ones or CCJ's it might not be worth holding out for removal, but he shouldn't accept the settlement if he wants to get rid of the default.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, IMO he should not accept the financial settlement. The default would not have occurred had the charges not been incurred. You should force them to court if necessary. Jonni2bad is your man on defaults. I'll see if he'll post some advice for you.

 

I don't need to tell you that your son will struggle to get credit for another 5 years and 11 months if he doesn't fight hard. If he accepts the money, he has little or no chance of removing the default.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know that really. You just need to emphasise how important it is to him. Good luck.:)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending them this letter

Dear Mr Anderson,

 

Claim against Barclays Bank PLC,

Claim Number 8LGXXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter of 24 January 2008, the contents of which I have noted.

 

I have read the defence filed by Barclays on 23 January which I note is a standard defence.

 

I note that you have offered me, without prejudice, the entire monetary component of my claim but that you have not included removal of the default notice. Despite what you said in your defence, I contend that this notice would not have been issued if the charges had not been applied to my account. Thus, if the charges are unlawful, so is the default notice.

 

Therefore, I accept your offer only as a partial settlement of my claim and intend to continue with the action.

 

I am willing to let the court decide whether the charges are lawful or not and on this basis will be seeking an order from the court for Barclays to disclose the actual costs to them due to breaches of contract when I submit the AQ (which is due on 11 February). Knowledge of the actual cost base will allow the court to determine if the charges levied are in excess of actual costs. The law on penalties in contracts is well established and this simple arithmetic comparison will settle the issue.

 

I note that you reserve the right to disclose your letter of 24 January to the court. I will be attaching this letter to the documents submitted to the court with my AQ.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

myson

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'll be interesting to see if they pay up on your terms. Do you know of other similar cases with CFS, and how they've reacted?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of similar CFS cases but they are Barclays now and there are loads of BC cases. It all hinges on what they make of "I am willing to let the court decide whether the charges are lawful or not".

 

In their letter to us they say, "We... recognise that it is not cost-effective for either party to take this matter all the way to trial". It's no skin off our nose if it goes to trial (I would relish the chance to be honest) so I expect them to cave in, if only on those grounds.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sounds good then Steven. I bet your son is very pleased. Well done.:)

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...