Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Application forms and TS.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5931 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

i have to disagree im afraid Michael

 

as long as a document contains the Prescribed terms in accordance with Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and is readily legible, it could easily be argued that the document weather headed Application or not could be enforced by the courts under the Consumer Credit Act

 

so we would need to look at the document itself to ascertain what terms are present

 

 

many applications i have come across don't cut the mustard but i have seen some that do and have been enforced in the courts

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is shaky ground. an application form only shows that you APPLIED for an account. what if the application was turned down?

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have scanned the application form, they also enclosed a copy of the T&C's, but there are no prescribed terms actually on the form, although it does state in the Right to Cancel box " Once you have signed this agreement, you will have a short time to cancel it" and also in the top right hand column, Credit Agreement regulated by the CCA 1974.

Image0002.jpg

Don't know if i'm coming or going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is shaky ground. an application form only shows that you APPLIED for an account. what if the application was turned down?

 

 

Highly likely that there would be no debt as non successful application rarely end in a lender lending money on them;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PT,

 

You're obviously very knowledgeable about CCA's so I wonder if I can run this by you PLEASE:

 

To re-cap re. Barclaycard.

 

CCA'ed and THEY signed on 24.12.07.

 

Just received intitial reply and to 'briefly' summarise:

 

Please find enclosed information as follows:

 

A signed copy of your Application Credit Card Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974,

A copy of your Barclaycard Conditions regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974,

The current credit limit on your account is £XX,

The current outstanding balance on your account as of today's date is £XX,

Your next minimum payment of £XX is due XX January 2008.

 

The information enclosed completes our obligation to supply information and copy documents under the Consumer Credit Act, I trust that this is suitable for your purpose, however please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further assistance.

 

Unfortunately I don't have a scanner (just a digital camera !) so can't post the attachments on here but they are 'basically' as described:

a) A large (slightly bigger than A4) photocopy of "Barclaycard Conditions",

b) A further sheet (A4) which is a photocopy of an "easy application" form, as allegedly signed by me ! Worth noting this is a poor photocopy and the small print cannot be read (although I gues their copy is legible !). This is literally a (very short) handwritten application form just showing title, sex, first names, surname, address, postcode, e-mail, DOB, Work tel, Mothers maiden name, annual income, partners income, bank account no., and bank sort code.

This is followed by a box containing a few lines about the C C A 1974 followed by my (alleged) signature and a date.

Below this ia a space to fill in other Credit Card details including name of provider, their (other providers) account number and thirdly the amount of balance to be transferred !

 

I can't help feeling my CCA request hasn't been fulfilled BUT I'm no expert by any means !

 

And that the crux of it really................

 

Look forward to your thoughts.

Thanks,

R

Link to post
Share on other sites

based soley upon what you have described, i would say the document is non compliant, the fact that you have not mentioned any of the prescribed terms would indicate they are missing

 

of course it is extremely difficult to say for sure without seeing the document itself

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Following on from my contact with TS regarding this application form, I have now received the following from Tesco:

Image0002.jpg

 

Image0001.jpg

 

Image0003.jpg

 

Image0001-1.jpg

Tescoletter2p2.jpg

 

I am still not convinced that this is a fully executed agreement despite what Tesco want me to believe, but am I correct?

Dibs x

Don't know if i'm coming or going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just an update, Intrum Justitia are now chasing this debt, correspondence as follows:

 

Image0003-1.jpg

Image0004.jpg

 

I had hoped after receiving the above letter from Intrum Justitia that I wouldn't be hearing from them again, wrong,

received this one today:

Image0005.jpg

 

So have sent a letter to the FOS reporting them for harassment.

It does seem that Tesco feel they have the required documents and are intent on going to court with this one.

Don't know if i'm coming or going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

These DC get more foolish by the day.

Do they not realise if they took you to Court on the above they would not win.

 

Hak

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tesco Personal Finance must be pushing Intrum Justitia to take legal action, Tesco made it clear in their last letter that they intended to persue this account, I feel that Intrum Justitia would perhaps prefer not to! It will interesting to see what the FOS has to say.

Dibs x

Don't know if i'm coming or going!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...