Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Referring back to to your initial post... So not a judgment ?
    • I have never heard of any such law. Please post a link to what you have read online that explains this law. And please confirm whether you were ever married to or in a formal Civil Partnership with your Ex.
    • Today has been hectic so  have been unable to complete the whole thing. If you now understand it and want to go ahead with a complaint to the IPC, fine. If not then I won't need to finish it. But below is my response to your request  on post 64. No you don't seem stupid, the Protection of Freedoms Act isn't easy to get one 's head around at first. The part of the above Act referring to private parking is contained within Schedule 4 which you can find online under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Section 9 of SCH.4 relates to how the parking scrotes have to perform so that they can transfer their right to pursue the keeper from the driver when the PCN is still unpaid after a certain amount of time. In your case the PCN was posted to you the keeper and arrived within 14 days from when they claimed a breach occurred. That means they complied with first part of the Act. The driver at that time was still responsible to pay the charge demanded on the PCN and PCM now have to wait for 28 days to elapse before they can write and advise the keeper that as the charge has not been paid, that they now have the right to pursue the keeper. They claim they sent the first PCN on the 13th March, five days after the alleged breach and it arrived on Friday 15th March. So to comply with the Act they have to observe Section 8 subsection 2f   (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (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. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So the first PCN was deemed to arrive on the 15th March and for 28 days to have elapsed is when the time is right for them to write and say you are now liable as keeper. So they sent the next PCN on the 12th April which is too early as you could still have paid until midnight of the 12th. So the earliest their second PCN should have gone to you was  Saturday 13th April so more likely on Monday 15th April. The IPC Code of Conduct states "Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses." So by issuing your demand a day early, they have broken the Act, the IPC Code of Conduct, the DVLA agreement  to abide by the law and the Code of Conduct not to mention a possible breach of your GDPR .   I asked the IPC  in the letter on an earlier to confirm that  CPMs Notice misrepresenting the law was a standard practice for all of PCMs Notices or just certain ones. Their distribution  may depend on when they were issued and whether they were issued in certain localities or for certain breaches. Whichever method used is a serious breach of the Law and could lead to PCM being black listed by the DVLA . One would expect that after that even if the IPC did not cancel your ticket, PCM could not risk going to Court with you nor even pursuing you any further.
    • thanks jk2054 - do you know any law i can quote (regarding timeframe) when sending the email as if i cant they'll probably just say no like the normal staff have done? thanks.
  • 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

RMA, Newmans, Threats, etc


mrdonk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6005 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

Hi all,

 

A credit card account (Morgan Stanley) was passed to RMA collections back in July who I CCA'd in September by recorded mail. No reply. The debt then got passed to Newmans DCA in November who I wrote to explaining the unanswered CCA to RMA. Ignoring anything I wrote they consequently threatened me with bankruptcy. I wrote again basically saying "Fine, whatever but if you don't produce the CCA I will vigorously defend". I got about a week later a blank credit agreement looking like it was laser printed off a website - unsigned and looking like nothing I would have signed anyway - seriously it looked like a word document or something!

 

I get two letters this morning - Newmans telling me to contact them urgently as well as one from RMA threatening me with "serious action".

 

How can two different agencies hassle me for the same account? Is this reasonable? Also how would I proceed when neither have responded to my CCA request appropriately?

 

Thanks all.

 

MrD

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know Mr D.....your alleged debt cannot be passed from DCA to DCA while it is in dispute (the fact that you have requested a CCA is enough to classify it as disputed)....IF you can take off your personal details on what they call a CCA, then post it up here to see exactly what they have supplied.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them this

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Thank you for your letter dated **********, the contents of which are noted

I note that to date you have not complied with my request for a copy of the credit agreement for this alleged debt which you are pursuing me for

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter.

 

My request remains outstanding. All you have sent is a pre-contractual application form, which does not contain the prescribed terms contained within Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553). Without production of the said agreement I am unable to asses if I am indeed liable for any alleged debt to you, nor does it give me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’.

 

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

 

 

For the avoidance of any doubt I have included section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which states…

 

78 Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement

(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [£1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

(a) the state of the account, and

(b) the amount, if any, currently payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor, and

© the amounts and due dates of any payments which, if the debtor does not draw further on the account, will later become payable under the agreement by the debtor to the creditor.

 

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

(7) This section does not apply to a non-commercial agreement, and subsections [(4) to (5)] do not apply to a small agreement.

 

 

Clearly the agreement which was supplied in no way complies with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and I now draw your attention to section 78 subsection 6 which states If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;

 

Clearly this is a situation as described in s78(6) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the debt is unenforceable at this time. In addition, I draw your attention to section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states

 

127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

 

This situation is backed by case law from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (House of Lords) the highest court in the land. Your attention is drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the agreement cannot be enforced.

 

 

To clarify s61(1) states

 

(1)A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless—

 

(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner, and

 

(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms, and

 

© The document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in such a state that all its terms are readily legible

 

In addition the prescribed terms referred to in section 60 CCA1974 are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following—

 

1.Number of repayments;

2.Amount of repayments;

3.Frequency and timing of repayments;

4.Dates of repayments;

5.The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

 

 

Therefore based upon the Consumer Credit Act 1974 this debt as it stands is unenforceable and should this proceed to litigation, a court is precluded from making an enforcement order under section 127(3) unless a true copy of the signed agreement is produced. I will re-iterate that this is clearly not a true copy of the executed agreement between ********* and myself.

 

In addition, I draw your attention to the Office of Fair Trading’s guidance on debt collection

 

The OFT guidance which was issued July 2003 (updated December 2006) relating to debt collections and what the OFT considers unfair, I have enclosed an excerpt from page 5 of the guidance which states

 

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

 

h. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

 

 

What I Require.

 

I require that you send me a true copy of the executed agreement and all documents referred to in it as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. If you are unable to supply the requested documentation because no such agreement is in existence I require written clarification as such.

 

I require that you comply with my request within 7 days of the date of this letter. I will not correspond any further with you until I either receive a copy of the requested documents as laid down in section 78(1) CCA 74 or clarification that such agreement doesn’t exist.

 

No other correspondence will be accepted

 

I trust this out lines the situation

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...