Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I will try again...................... Even at my age there is quite clearly a PCN envelope by the windscreen wipers on your car on some of the photos.  But as I said in the IPC letter, that is not the dispute. The dispute is that CPM sent you the second PCN on the 28 th day of the issue date of the first PCN. It should not have been sent until the day AFTER the original PCN was issued. Therefore they broke the Act, they breached the IPC Code of Conduct and their agreement with the DVLA. It is something that the IPC cannot ignore since to do so will bring the ICO down on them and the DVLA should ban CPM from getting data from them once they know if the ICO do nothing. The minimum I expect is that your PCN will be cancelled. But it is up to you. I have given you the details, you have copies of both PCNs sent to you on the sar  with all  the relevant dates. 
    • Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card   An HM Armed Forces Veteran Card is a way to prove that you served in the UK armed forces. The card can make it quicker and easier to apply for support as a veteran. It’s free to apply. You can currently only apply for a Veteran Card if you have a UK address. Veterans who do not have a UK address will be able to apply later this year. READ MORE HERE: Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Apply for an armed forces veteran card to prove that you served in the UK armed forces.
    • The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms  when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice  [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next  post. Pofa  asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii)  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.  
    • it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period. you ain't paying anyway..... if this ever gets before a judge. then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play. until then i go get on with your life. you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme  its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.    
    • Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space) guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) but dont get scammed into a DMP. simply tell whomever you call to simply apply for the BS for 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
  • Recommended Topics

AMEX & AIC & Newman


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5322 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

As an update, have received the enclosed.

Can anybody advise how I should respond. Cant afford a Brief, cant get legal aid and their offer is pretty pointless to me. Does anybody feel I still have a case to fight in court and if so whats my next step please?

SD211008.pdf

SD211008 offer.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 239
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The letters look similar to the sort of rubbish I had from another of Amex's solicitors. What is interesting is not what they say, it's what they don't say. There is no mention, for example, that the agreement is enforceable, just a lot of waffle intended to mislead you into thinking that the 'evidence' they mention might have some bearing - which it doesn't.

 

The settlement offer is also familiar. They are attempting to scare you by suggesting a figure you are unlikely to be able to afford, and thus suggest that the court claim must go ahead.

 

However, in my view your defence that the agreement is unenforceable trumps all their bullsh1t - and I suspect that they know it, hence the latest tactic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

mmm........ interesting comments Scarlet. At the end of the day this is what I have been fighting all the way through - and if you go back to the beginning of this thread you will see that the comments indicated it was totally unenforceable - I dont know if I'm playing with fire or not. I have had to take on board what has been said through this site and I have felt reasonably confident all the way through. I suppose realistically only time will tell. I respect yours and PT's comments to date along with all other contributors. Having posted the original agreements on here and being led to believe they were unenforceable I suppose the big day approaches when I found out how true this is!! Frightening really - as never been here before and really gone out on a limb to fight my corner!

 

Other comments are of course very welcome.

Thanks

 

Blue

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can tel you that in my case it didn't get as far as court. I stuck with my view that the agreements (4 accounts) were unenforceable because they did not contain the prescribed terms. I got a threatening letter from lawyers with an equally risible settlement offer, but I maintained my position - and also pointed out to the solicitors the many breaches of the OFT Guidance and CPUTR committed by Amex and their DCAs, after which nothing more was heard.

 

It's worth remembering that solicitors are like prostitutes; they'll go as far as the client wants as long as they're paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well - this is already in court and this is their response to the Judges Order for a One month stay - so I AM in the legal process presumably and have to act accordingly with my response - that is always my fear (that I say or do the wrong thing out of naivety) thats why I always welcome the observations and comments of those more seasoned professionals in this game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Blue Thunder.

 

Stick with it. I'm a little bit further down the road with Amex and Co. Allocation Questionnaires and Court Directions have been dealt with and Amex has failed to supply paperwork as directed by the court, naughty bunnies, so my day in court opposite them is only a few weeks away. As they've ignored court directions the judge should begin with a rollicking of their representative. That's if it gets that far, here's hoping.

 

CP

 

Hey Cunning Plan,

You osted on this thread back in August.

 

Did you ever get further down the road with these clowns??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

As an update.

 

Having had an extended stay from the courts in an attempt to negotiate with these clowns and despite them telling me they were pressing on with their claim against me. I was surprised to receive a leeter from them referring to my original defence and it goes like this.............

" We refer to your defence dated........... Within the same, you allege that the Agreement was not properly executed and does not contain the prescribed terms and is therefore unenforceable in law.

We invite you to particularise the terms you contend are omitted from the Agreement and furthermore, the basis for so contending."

 

They give me 14 days to respond.

 

As I expected to lay the 'facts' down before the judge - as this is the whole basis of my defence - are they entitled to ask and by doing so how does this appear in the eyes of the law. I feel as the 'ace' up my sleeve could be dropped before i get the chance to use it.

 

any thoughts would be welcome.

 

Thanks

Blue

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd tell them to stop fharting about, and suggest they tell you where the Prescribed Terms are? And get them to confirm the where abouts of the Original Agreement while they are at it.

 

It's their Agreement, after all, they wrote the damned thing! So, if they can't tell you, who can?

 

But, make sure they don't forget to confirm that they do have an Original copy of it, and that the Prescribed Terms are contained within the four corners of it.

 

Amex seem unable to hang on to their Agreements, and seem particularly unable to hang on to the ones that were arguably unenforceable. What better way to lose the evidence than to Scan one side, and then swear blind what was on the other side.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi CP,

 

My court case is imminent - they are pushing it all the way - I dont know which way it will go but I am quietly confident. I am really interested to know why they backed down on yours - if you dont want to share the info to all and sundry please feel free to PM me or do you have a thread.

 

Cheers

 

Blue

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Blue!

 

Just had a quick scan through this Thread again, but what about their Default Notice?

 

Their letters confirm they regarded this as being a default situation on your part, and they Terminated the alleged Agreement because of that. There can therefore be no doubt that this is a default termination, so they cannot use s76 or s98.

 

They must follow s87/s88 and must have issued you with a s87(1) Default Notice before Termination.

 

Amex cannot seem to get them right, so I would suggest finding that, or asking/demanding that the Court stay the case until Amex produce the Default Notice.

 

Consider going to the Court and submitting this request via an N244 Application. Do it Tomorrow if you cannot find that Default Notice or they have made no mention of one.

 

They need a valid Default Notice to enjoy the benefits of s87, so cannot Terminate lawfully without one, and cannot ask you for sums that were only otherwise due in the future.

 

No valid Default Notice means that have no right to take the next step of going to Court, and any Claim they do wish to make will be limited to just the sums due before Termination...i.e. any Arrears, less any Unlawful Charges and/or PPI.

 

This is a major issue that seems to have been overlooked.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Blue Thunder,

 

In response to your question in post 94.

 

Amex / Brachers went right to the wire with my case. They posted their consent order with three days to go to the case being heard. I received it the day before the hearing!

Even upto 10 days before the hearing I got a letter saying they would settle for half the amount they were claiming.

 

They pushed all the way but my feeling was to stick it out and let the judge decide. Bare in mind though Amex and co had made some silly, but crucial, mistakes in my case which strengthened my defence. That said they still haven't produced a compliant agreement in your case so you are right to be quietly confident.

 

If it does go all the way and you are in front a judge don't let their rep lead a merry dance away from the important facts you've highlighted in your defence. They will try and cloud the issue, for example, at one point Amex tried to suggest there wasn't a need for a CCA as this was a 'commerical loan' that was a little left field to say the least but smacked of despiration too.

 

Good luck CAGers are behind you.

 

CP

Edited by Cunning Plan
typos
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi CP,

 

Thanks for your update - pleased to hear it went well for you.

What is a Consent Order and how did that affect you with your debt. Did you effectively win the case therefore and it was struck out?

 

Cheers

Blue

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello BT!

 

AMEX did actually issue a Default Notice under Section 87(1) to me - so I'm not sure how this affects your argument?

Please explain if poss?

 

OK, that then confirms that Amex regarded this as being a default situation on your part, so they must follow s87/s88 of the Act, i.e. to Terminate your Agreement following the steps outlined in the Act.

 

They needed to issue you with a valid Default Notice before Termination, if they are to enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

Have a good look at that Default Notice, and I bet it is defective, as Amex have major problems getting them right.

 

Read the first page or two of this Thread to get a handle on the Default Notice issues, and how it can affect the situation to your considerable advantage:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/170345-tale-dodgy-dn.html#post1837307

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...