Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK  so you may not have outed yourself if you said "we". No matter either way you paid. Snotty letter I am surprised that they were so quick off the mark threatening Court. They usually take months to go that far. No doubt that as you paid the first one they decided to strike quickly and scare you into paying. Dear Chuckleheads  aka Alliance,  I am replying to your LOCs You may have caught me the first time but that is  the end. What a nasty organisation you are. You do realise that you now have now no reason to continue to pursue me after reading my appeal since you know that my car was not cloned. Any further pursuit will end up with a complaint to the ICO that you are breaching my GDPR.  Please confirm that you have removed my details from your records. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I haven't gone for a snotty letter this time as they know that you paid for your car in another car park. So using a shot across their bows .  If it doesn't deter them and they send in the debt collectors or the Court you will then be able to get more money back from them for  breachi.ng your data protection than they will get should they win in Court-and they have no chance of that as you have paid. So go in with guns blazing and they might see sense.  Although never underestimate how stupid they are. Or greedy.
    • Thank you. Such a good point. They did issue all 3 before I paid though. I only paid one because I didn’t have proof of parking that time, only for two others.    Unfortunately no proof of my appeal as it was just submitted through a form on their website and no copy was sent to me. I only have the reply. I believe I just put something like “we made the honest mistake of using the incorrect parking area on the app” and that’s it. Thanks again for your help. 
    • They are absolute chuckleheads. You paid but because you entered a different car park site also belonging to them they are pursuing you despite them knowing what you had done. It would be very obvious to everyone, including Alliance that your car could not have been in two places at the same time. Thank you for posting the PCN so quickly making it a pity that you appealed since there are so many things wrong with it that you as keeper are not liable to pay the charge. They rarely accept appeals since that would mean they lose money but they have virtually no chance of beating you in Court. Very unlikely that they will take you to Court given the circumstances. Just in case you didn't out yourself as the driver could you please post up your appeal.
    • Jasowter I hope that common sense prevails with Iceland and the whole matter can be successfully ended. I would perhaps not have used a spell checker just to prove the dyslexia 🙂 though it may have made it more difficult to read. I noticed that you haven't uploaded the original PCN .Might not be necessary if the nes from Iceland is good. Otherwise perhaps you could get your son to do it by following the upload instructions so that we can appeal again with the extra ammunition provided by the PCN. Most of them rarely manage to get the wording right which means that you as the keeper are not liable to pay the charge-only the driver is and they do not know the name and address of the driver. So that would put you both in the clear if the PCN is non compliant.
    • Thank you so much. Yes, I wish I had done my research and not paid. It's all for the same car park. Here is one of the original PCNs, they are all the same bar different dates. PCN-22.03.24-1.pdf PCN-22.03.24-2.pdf
  • 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

HFC Loan and DLC/Hillesden assignment?


mcuth
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4047 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

After 3 months of silence, yesterday I received a standard "Notice before proceedings" letter from Ruthbridge advising that a county court claim will be issued in 7 days - apparently, proceedings will continue in Kingston County Court, uhuh, yeah, riiiight :D

 

Am filing this one under "ignore" - if they want to start court action, then bring it on 'cos I can't wait :)

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets better - today I've had a "Without Prejudice" letter from my friend Jason Evans in the Legal Department at Ruthbridge. This states that despite their "many attempts to contact" me, I "have totally ignored or disregarded all [our] efforts to resolve this matter" and they're now advising their client to commence bankruptcy proceedings - of course the letter warns of all the perils that that entails (:rolleyes:)

 

The alleged debt, by the way, is for £765.82, so they could go for bankruptcy legitimately. Whether they do or not makes absolutely no odds to me - I'm actually planning on going bankrupt later on this year, so they'd save me the £500 in fees! :lol:

 

That said, I wouldn't like to miss out on the opportunity to completely humiliate this bunch of chancers (along with DLC/Hillesden) in court - which is what would happen if I accepted an attempt to bankrupt me so I could save the fees! Oh, decisions decisions....:D

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww bless, I've had another Without Prejudice letter from Mr Jason Evans at Ruthbridge - I am, apparently, "hereby given notice that bankruptcy proceedings are due to commence" and they will be advising their client "no later than 14-08-2008 to issue a petition" for my bankruptcy (hmm, methinks they'll have to issue a Statutory Demand first, in order to get the right to petition....:rolleyes:).

 

That said, they are, rather generously, offering a final opportunity to avoid legal proceedings and are prepared to accept a lump sum payment of £513.10 in full & final settlement. And, get this, an added incentive is that their clients would mark the debt as "satisfied" with the CRAs.

 

Wow, what a wonderful offer - let me rush to take them up on it............. NOT :rolleyes:

 

I would dearly love to save £500 on bankruptcy costs, but I think it's time for me to draft a little missive to my new friend....:D

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

My new friend Mr Evans obviously doesn't want to end our correspondence so soon by making me bankrupt - he's written again from the "Litigation & Enforcement Centre" (ROTFL) saying that Ruthbridge have been instructed to recover the debt and there's no mention of bankruptcy!

 

Shame that... :D

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update - Ruthbridge are now offering their "debt counselling service" for this - just written back saying I'd rather they petition for my bankruptcy :D

 

Cheers

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

I am dealing with DLC/Hillesden Securitiies re: Egg card debt. It has been going on now for a few months. I asked for a true copy of the agreement etc which I received - dated 2003 and looks to be my signature etc. I have a 'Lifestyle" sheet to complete and return. Why do I need to include partners income when the debt is in my name? Can anyone advise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am dealing with DLC/Hillesden Securitiies re: Egg card debt. It has been going on now for a few months. I asked for a true copy of the agreement etc which I received - dated 2003 and looks to be my signature etc. I have a 'Lifestyle" sheet to complete and return. Why do I need to include partners income when the debt is in my name? Can anyone advise?

 

Hi Faded Rose - welcome to CAG

 

You say you have a signed agreement but is it enforceable? i.e. does it also have the prescribed terms on it? Many Egg agreements are dodgy.

 

If you want comments on it post it up (minus your personal details) but suggest you do so on a seperate thread in the Egg forum.

 

BTW you don't have to send any I&E details to these people. If you feel you want to negociate a payment plan with them, do it on your terms. Decide how much you are going to pay monthly & suggest they agree to that or take you to court where you will plead poverty & they will get even less!! And do NOT sign a direct debit - insist on setting up a standing order. DDs leave you exposed as you do not have the same control over what is taken from your account & when.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
Well you really don't have aything further to say to them.

 

I really like this part

 

So that would be a reconstituted agreement that is COMPLETELY unenforceable in court.

Oh dear so sad.

 

Time for TS as this is a totally unsubstantiated debt;)

 

I just wondered where a reconstituted agreement isn't enforceable in court and the law that supports your claim because I am in the process of exactly that situation, a charging order backed by a reconstituted agreement and it would be great to know how I can bat the ball back.

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to HFC Loan and DLC/Hillesden assignment?
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...