Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • 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

Lost with Hillesden Securities and Limitations Act


irhut
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5963 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

Hello everyone,

 

I posted this in another thread, but I think it may have been a thread that was too old, so I have started a new one.

 

I had lots of financial problems a few years back but 4 years ago I paid off all my debts - or so I thought. Since paying them off I have had a mortgage with Northern Rock which was accepted with no problems. I have been trying hard to rebuild my credit rating by very sensibly using a credit card from capital one and I thought all was great.

 

Two weeks ago my partner and I had a mortgage turned down because an Experian credit check shows a defaulted entry for Hillesden Securities for over £1000. This was a great shock because I thought I had paid all the debts. I can't remember this company, but bear in mind I was in debt with at least 10! But I can't have had a letter from them for at least 4 years because I paid all my debts of 4 years ago and have not had any threatening letters since that time.

 

I have read about the Limitations Act

 

"Should the creditor fail to maintain contact with the debtor, for a period of 6 years or more, it is possible to claim that the outstanding debt is "Statute Barred" under the conditions of the Limitations Act 1980."

 

However, I do not know when the last time Hillesden Securities tried to contact me or even if they ever have. Also the debt is registered with an address that I lived at over six years ago, if Hillesden Securities have tried to contact me at this address then presumably they could argue that they have tried to maintain contact. Also if I contact them to ask about all of this then presumably the six year period starts all over again.

 

I really don't know what to do. If anyone has any advice I would really appreciate it, I am starting to feel like I did 4 years ago when I was in so much debt - thought this was all behind me.

 

Thanks for any help

 

Ian edited

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bigmac. I was suddenly worried because I realise that I have posted this in the wrong part of the forum - sorry about that.

 

I have included the credit report entry below. Does anyone know what File updated for period to means? Is the date significant here?

I will now write to Hillesden to find out what it is all about.

Ian

 

Entry Number:

Name and address:

Date of birth:

Company name:

HILLESDEN SECURITIES LIMITED

Account type:

Credit Card / Store Card

Started:

15/01/2000

Default Balance:

£1,299

Current Balance:

£1,020

Defaulted On:

06/02/2002

File updated for period to:

21/03/2004

Status History:

(brackets indicate most recent status)

[ ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you again.

 

I thought that the six years was from the time that they last tried to contact you, not from when it was defaulted. The trouble is, I don't know when they last tried to contact me because they may have been writing to the original address. I am worried that if I contact them, then they will then contact me, thus starting the whole process all over again.

 

Just on another topic why on the credit entry below is a loan that was satisfied 2 years ago still having the file updated in 2007. File updated for period to:

04/02/2007

 

 

 

Account type:

Loan

Started:

22/11/2000

Default Balance:

£2,776

Current Balance:

Satisfied

Repayment Period:

Monthly Payment £71 over 84months

Defaulted On:

10/02/2004

File updated for period to:

04/02/2007

Status History:

(brackets indicate most recent status)

[ ]

 

 

Thanks again, this is a fantastic forum!

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I was only querying it because with all the other loans that have been satisfied on my credit report the File updated for period to shows the date 2004 which was when all debts were paid off. I just wondered why that particular entry is the only one where the File updated for period to shows 2007.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, simple enough answer! Thanks for all your help. I think I will just leave the other thing for at least another month. I am nervous about writing to them, but I just want to sort my credit rating out. I am so annoyed about the whole thing, I thought I had sorted my life out!

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first saw the debt on my credit check I wrote to experian explaining the problem. They have just sent the following reply

 

Thank you for your query received on 05 January 2008.In view of your comments about Hillesden Securities, I am writing to them for you. This is because I cannot amend your report without their consent. I will let you know what they say as soon as they reply.While I investigate your comments, I am adding the following statement to the entries you have queried."THE ACCURACY OF THIS DATA HAS BEEN DISPUTED BY THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED AND WE HAVE NOW CONTACTED THE SUBSCRIBER. CARE SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN WHEN USING THIS ITEM OF DATA TO ASSESS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONCERNED."Your report will change in the next seven days. Please use this correspondence if you need proof in the meantime.I am telling all the companies that have searched your credit report in the last six months of the change to your information.

 

I had decided to do nothing until next month when the debt would be over 6 years old as advised here. Should I be worried about experian contacting them?

 

Cheers

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...