Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There's another photo.   Damning new Partygate photo of No10 leaving do where staff were told 'the bar's open!' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK The event, which sources said was attended by 30 to 40 staff, is not believed to have been investigated by Sue Gray in her Partygate probe or by the...  
    • Well said Marina, I haven't read that yet. Rafael Behr has a good opinion piece in the Guardian as well posted today.   Sam Coates was great, wasn't he?
    • It’s truly inspirational to think their £460,000 “Partygate” performance piece has not yet reached its final form. That will come as early as today, when a number of the officers tasked with not spotting Boris Johnson in a series of piss-up photos get signed off with stress.   Only when they’ve been on the sick for two years, then retired with a full pension but also returned to a high-paying station desk job, will Partygate have attained the British establishment gold standard.   - Marina Hyde
    • Hi allets, CCA to whoever is the debt owner today, let us know their response, or lack there of, for further guidance   Or you could read up other like threads and the advice will be the same, so you'll know what to expect   BT
    • OK, let's get stuck into these damn fleecers.  Building on last night's version, new bits in red.   LFI, can you check I've understood the POFA bits properly that you suggested (4.  NO KEEPER LIABILITY)?  Thanks.     IN THE COUNTY COURT SHEFFIELD    CLAIM NO: XXXX   HX PARKING LTD  (CLAIMANT) VS XXX (DEFENDANT)   Date: 3rd May 2022   Witness Statement   1. I, Mr XXX, of xxx am the Defendant against whom this claim is made.   1.1. I was the registered keeper of the vehicle XXX.   1.2. The facts in this statement come from my personal knowledge. Where they are not within my own knowledge they are true to the best of my information and belief.   INSUFFICIENT & CONFUSING SIGNAGE   2. I confirm that i was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle which is in question in this case and the vehicle was parked in Alma Leisure Centre, Chesterfield. The vehicle was parked there because the driver went to McDonald’s for eat in (bank statement proof exhibit 1).   2.1. There were no clear signs at the entrance nor in the car park, it was night time and weather was not clear as well.   2.2.  In their Witness Statement opposing my set aside application the Claimant includes a site plan showing the position of their signs and a close up of a sign to make it look like it is featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest billboard in world history.   2.3.  The reality for the motorist is completely different.  I attach photos, some from Google Earth but most taken by myself, which show what a motorist sees when approaching the site in daylight (exhibit 2).  There is no sign at the entrance.  The car then drives past a gym and a cinema without encountering any signs.  When then parking in the car park outside McDonald's once again there is dearth of signage.  Admittedly a motorist who perhaps came out with binoculars might just about be able to make out signs in the far distance mounted on various buildings.   2.4.  The driver visited the site around midnight.  I further attach photos taken at night from the McDonald's area (exhibit 3) and defy whoever is representing HX Parking at the hearing to point out the signs the driver should have read.  There aren't any.  I have not doctored these photos in any way or deliberately not photographed visible signs.  There simply are no visible signs.   2.5.  Even if the driver had seen the signs, they would have been extremely confusing.  A car is normally allowed to be parked for five hours, yet after midnight this is changed to one hour.  This begs the question for how long a motorist entering at 10pm for example is allowed to stay.  Is it for five hours until 3am or until 1am?   2.6. The PCN/NTK states "period of parking 00:02:05".  It is common sense that a couple of minutes was needed to enter the complex, find McDonald's and find a parking space, before the period of parking began, so it is likely the car entered the car park before midnight allowing the driver to park the car there for five hours.   2.7.  Even if the driver had seen the signage - they did not - the mention of a £100 charge is literally the last word on the last line of a long board of text.   UNFAIR TERM   3.  In an interview with the local newspaper (exhibit 4) Ms Ellie Berkeley, HX PCN administration team leader, said: “The five-hour maximum stay prevents workers from close by abusing the land and parking there for free, without using the shops on site" which makes sense.   3.1.  This therefore begs the question of why this limit is cut by a massive 80% after midnight when the cinema and eateries are still open.  The driver indeed ate at McDonald's.   3.2.  Ms Berkeley continued: "Five hours is sufficient time to visit the cinema and also eat at a restaurant".  Certainly five hours are sufficient.  One hour is not.    3.3.  I would maintain this is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 part 2 section 62 (6) ""A notice is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations to the detriment of the consumer".  Such a term has absolutely nothing to do with efficient management of a car park and everything to do with trying to catch diners or cinema-goers out and thus have an excuse to issue PCNs.   NO KEEPER LIABILITY   4. The Particulars of Claim do not clarify in what capacity they believe I am liable but state that the Defendant is “liable as the driver or keeper” of the vehicle. This appears to be “fishing” for liability.     4.1.  The Claimant's PCN does not comply with Section 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.  POFA states that a parking period must be stated and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit.  All that takes time.   4.2.  To transfer liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper, in their PCN the Claimant must include the wording at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)" but they have not. That in itself makes it non-compliant.   LOCUS STANDI   5.  Looking at the contract with the landowner which the Claimant included when opposing my set aside application, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companies have been redacted.  The Claimant is put to strict proof of who actually signed.   5.1.  There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow court action in pursuit of non payers.   In section 11 which is like an addendum it states "the Company shall provide parking control" but does not state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   ILLEGAL SIGNAGE   6.  After checking, I have found out that there in NO planning permission granted for said signs, therefore making them illegal as lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts 1962 and 1991 and no contract can be performed where criminality is concerned.   6.1.  The Claimant is supposed to comply with the law and the IPC Code of Conduct and they have done neither.  The new government Private Parking Code of Practice draws attention as well to s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   ABUSE OF PROCESS   7. The Claimant seeks recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 described as “contractual costs and interest” or “debt collection costs”. No further justification or breakdown has been provided as required under Civil Procedure Rule 16.4.    7.1.  As part of the provisions of the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, on 07/02/2022 a new Code of Practice was published by the government, designed to prevent these “rogue” traders from "ripping people off" (the minister's words) with extra charges, which have been deemed unfair (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/privateparking-code-of-practice/private-parking-code-of-practice).    7.2.  Section 9 of the new Code of Practice, regulates the matter of recovery costs: “The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued” (exhibit 5).   7.3.  Even before publication of the government’s Code of Practice, Parliament intended that private parking companies could not invent extra charges. PoFA Schedule 4, paragraph 4(5) states that “The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper is the amount specified in the notice to keeper” which in this case is £100.    7.4.  Previous parking charge cases have found that the parking charge itself is at a level to include the costs of recovery ie: Parking Eye Ltd vs Beavis (2015) UKSC 67 which is the authority for recovery of the parking charge itself and no more, since that sum (£85) was held to already incorporate the costs of an automated private parking business model and the Supreme Court Judges held that a parking firm not in possession cannot plead any part of their case in damages. It is indisputable that an alleged “parking charge” penalty is a sum which the Supreme Court found is already inflated to more than comfortably cover all costs. The case provides a finding of fact by way of precedent, that the £85 (or up to a Trade Body ceiling of £100 depending on the parking firm) covers the costs of the letters. Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated ‘’Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates [...] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared [...] the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’’   7.5.  In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby the courts went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of Wight & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ‘’It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''    7.6. The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   Statement of Truth    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.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Anyone heard of Castle finance direct?


pebs
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1502 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

A while ago I got a letter in the post from this company offering loans, I went online and filled in the application form, now it is not a website at all...just an application.

 

I filled it in and then started getting phone calls from all loan companys with horrendous APR so I refused the loan.

 

Recently I purchased my credit file and there are lots of searches from all different loan companys

 

I rang them to see why they were searching my file without my permission, they said they got my details from a broker.

 

Now if you take a look at [EDIT] you will see its just a basic form and does not state anywhere that they will pass your details on to a 3rd party, nor does it state they are a broker. I thought they were the ones who would provide me with the loan.

 

I cannot find an address or telephone number listed anywhere for these people and I want to tell them to stop passing my details on.

 

One company citifinacial searched me 4 times in 8 months but has never offered me anything.

Edited by Rooster-UK
Commercial link removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

The website is not compliant with company legislation, and as it stands looks like an identity theft dream.

 

Googling 'Castle Finance' brings up all sorts of high-APR loan sites. Do you still have the letter? Their address and company registration number would be of interest, and help in looking at the best way to stop them.

 

I'd be inclined to report them to Trading Standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A WHOIS reveals that the website is registered to a residential address in Gravesend, Kent, and owned by a sole trader. However, Companies House shows Castle Finance Direct to be a limited company, with a registered address also in Gravesend. As a limited company, the registered number, place of registration and registered office address should be shown on the website.

 

They are registered with the Information Commissioner and Companies House at:

 

UNIT 4

THE MEWS

WROTHAM ROAD

MEOPHAM

GRAVESEND, KENT

DA13 0QB

 

Curiously, there doesn't seem to be a phone number anywhere...

 

Digging about, I discovered that Anthony Clayton, the man behind Castle Finance Direct is also running Wentworth Direct Finance - they share the same address. They were apparently in trouble with the OFT a couple of years ago because of misleading ads. Google the Wentworth firm and you'll find various references to them - none positive. They get paid for passing on your info to loan companies - and also ask for a 'broker's fee'.

 

They should definately be reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for finding out this information for me :)

 

I will definatley be ringing trading standards in the morning.

 

I just hope there is no identity theft going on, I am annoyed with myself now as I am usually so careful.

 

Do you think they have broken the data protection act by passing my details on when it does not state anything on the application form about passing details on to 3rd parties? :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you think they have broken the data protection act by passing my details on when it does not state anything on the application form about passing details on to 3rd parties? :???:

 

Almost certainly. You can ring the Information Commissioner's office helpline for confirmation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

For anyone out there who needs info on this company; I just got there leaflet through the post-there telephone number is 0870 421 4834 address:

 

Castle Finance Direct

FREEPOST NAT 19327

Crossways

Dartford

Kent

DA2 6BR

 

[EDIT]

 

It does state on the paper application form 'In using our services you are authorising Castle Finance Direct to place your loan with a relevant lender who may credit score your application' in tiny tiny writing at the bottom of the page. Note it says A relevant lender-not multiple lenders!

 

Although the accompanying letter makes out like the loan comes directly from Castle Finance Direct & states 'PERSONAL UNSECURED LOANS From Castle Fincance Direct' at the top of the leaflet!

 

There is no registration number anywhere on either application form or accompanying letter?

Edited by Rooster-UK
Commeercial link removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

i wish i had googled castle finance before i filled in the online form! i checked all the small print and everything do you think there is anyway you can retract an application??? the phone number tells you you can fill out the form of you can go online then it hangs up grrr!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just write to them at the above address telling them that you no longer require the loan that you completed an online application for; send it recorded delivery.

Have you not heard from them (or anyone) since submitting your application?

I would have thought that you would need to sign documents/a loan agreement that would be sent by the lender by post before they gave you any money?

 

Mel

Link to post
Share on other sites

hitchin23 as long as you have signed no agreement or contract then there is not much to worry about. filling in an on line form does not tie you into anything with this company they have to have a signiture before anything is legally binding. i have checked the site where the form is and it is pretty standard for an online form. if you get any correspondance from them do not sign anything irregardless of how they word it just ignore them from now on they may try and keep sending you stuff but dont be fooled by them some of these companies can be very underhanded in how they word - unless you put your signiture on anything there is nothing they can do - hope this helps

Link to post
Share on other sites

totally agree with that melly31 but one better is if they send you a load of forms and leaflet with a prepaid envelope just post all thier junk and send it back in thier envelope - that way they get charged for receiving thier own junk mail back - petty i know but it does give you a small degree of satisfaction

Link to post
Share on other sites

totally agree with that melly31 but one better is if they send you a load of forms and leaflet with a prepaid envelope just post all thier junk and send it back in thier envelope - that way they get charged for receiving thier own junk mail back - petty i know but it does give you a small degree of satisfaction

 

Ah, what a refreshing change to find someone after my own heart! Lol.

 

Excellent advice, bravo.

 

x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Everyone be very wary of Castles 'sister' company Wentworth direct finance, they will say that you have already been accepted and then ask you to send a brokers fee of £50, this I stupidly did, only to be passed onto a company that rejected my loan application ! £50 GONE !! I have just sent back the castle form to the Dartford address (Not filled in of course !)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I'd post an adequate response that I'd found on other forums regarding Wentworth; this seemed adequate!!!!

 

Avoid like the plague,

I got the same letter last year, sent off my cheque, and all I got was more hassles.

They pass your details on to another 'broker' who then sends out your details to all the high interest rate lenders, e.g. citi finance, you then have to take time off work, go to their offices, wait for about 3 hours, only to be told you can have a loan but they will not 'give' you the money, they will contact all the lenders etc. directly, !The interest rates were about 40%, totally stupid,

I finally got my money back, less £5 administration fee, after complaining and writing several letters, i told them that the letter was misleading, as they only done what i could have done, applied to any old dodgy company, I had so many calls at work from loan companies saying i must call back an 0906 number etc. to get my agreed loan, they could only have got my work number from wentworth,

sorry to go on but please don't waste your time or money, just bin the letter,

hope this helps

 

End of quote!

 

Mel

 

x

Link to post
Share on other sites

do not give up contacting wentworth to get your broker fee back!! they count on messing people around so much that they give up and they get to keep the fee - so be persistant and annoying and you should get your fee back

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

just to update on the information about these companies - i have managed to talk to someone who actually fields calls at a central call centre for wentworth. wentworth have no actual phone numbers they do not issue them as they do not want the public to be able to harass them for the shoddy practises they have. anyway i managed to find out that after they have passed your details out to all unsundry they then hold your broker fee for a minimum of six months! how many people would pursue these people when they can not be spoken to for six months this is what they count on to keep your money - so although i did not get any numbers i did get the name of the refund manager so that all correspondance sent goes directly to her and that usually when you write and complain strongly enough then they will refund the money before the six months are up so start writing your complaint letters to

jenny sheppard

refunds department

wentworth direct finance

freepost sea 9712

wrotham road

gravesend

kent

DA13 0BR

good luck to anyone needing this information and i hope you get your money back

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Well I am not sure Maverick will see this here-since they have not been on CAG for 15 months !

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

hello everyone,

i actually did not read the reviews before i applied for a loan with castle finance direct and when i gave my details over i was surprise to hear from them next day and they offered me a loan. the APR was little bit higher than what i was expected but i desparetly needed money to by a car to get to work. i accepted the offer and i got the money in 3days. i was actually really happy. i thought i might share my experience with castle finance direct. thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Please do not use Castle Finance. I did, for 24 hours before sending an email and letter of cancellation and only after reading the information on this site. I got my money back minus a £5 admin fee. However I have been inundated with text messages and telephone calls from very high interest rate lenders. Fortunately I can block calls and text messages on my phone. However some of the calls/text appear to be from (on occasion) other "brokers" which strongly suggests that the details I supplied have been passed on (or I suspect from conversations I have had, sold to others). I suspect that there are financial and data protection regularities as a result of what I have witnessed.

I strongly suggest you avoid any contact with this company.

 

If in doubt, no matter how much you need those pennies...............get sound advice and do not give out personally identifiable information to anyone unless you, or someone you really trust can vouch for them/him/it. It's just not worth the hassle, sleepless nights, crying etc etc that trying to sort debt may cause you and your loved ones any more misery than the debt is already causing.

 

Good luck out there and scuse the following spe(ee)lling... semper in feacibus sumus, sole profundum variat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...