Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Link Financial


onecall1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5953 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

Another problem has reared its head for me and I wondered if anyone could throw some light on it for me. I had a debt with Jaguar Financial Services and was in an agreement with them to pay £100 per month and have been doing so for 18 months. I was surprised to receive a letter from them (allegedly, it is not their paper etc) saying that with immediate effect the account has been assigned to FCE Bank plc who have subsequently re-assigned Link Financial to recover the outstanding debt due and demanding the whole amount. Having learnt a lot from this site, I immediately requested a CCA. It came yesterday morning and I am keen to respond. I need to know what constitutes a 'properly executed' agreement. Sorry I cant scan it but just glancing at it, there is not even an interest rate. I dont dispute that I owe the money but I have been paying and for Jaguar to sell this on is outrageous. I have been desperately repaying several creditors for 2 years since my company went into liquidation and life has been very hard. I could have gone bankrupt but chose not to do so as it would not have been good for my family. If there is anyone who specifically knows what needs to be included I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Saintly. I have checked the agreement thoroughly and the only thing missing is the interest rate. I have no idea how much this would have been as I signed this on behalf of a company.

I dont dispute that I have an obligation to pay this debt but I had a perfectly good repayment agreement with Jaguar and without any warning they sold it onto these jokers who want to bully me into paying more than I can afford. The agreement also has a white box which looks like it would have had something else in it which has been tippexed out. If the agreement is unenforceable at least then I would have the upper hand as to how much I could agree to pay them. I have considered offering them a one off payment of £2000 in full and final settlement. The original creditor also got the figures wrong when they sold it on and I owe less than they say. The outstanding amount is around 11K, would a 2K offer be enough or should I dispute the agreement as it has no interest rate. I can't afford to lose if they took it to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, your debt is their property and there is little you can do about it. if you wanted to sell your car, you wouldn't have to check with anyone else, the premise is the same, your debt is an asset and if they chooose to sell it on, then so be it. don't dwell on it, it only creates anger!!

 

Lets say Jaguar paid 10% to 15% for your debt, they have had their money back now and will now sell it again for a minimal amount therefore making a profit. the next lot will have paid a lot less and will chase up the whole £11k a massive profit opportunity, I would reckon offering a lot less than £2k and see if they enter into negotiations. they may only have paid hundreds for the debt in the first place

Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate what you are saying but I thoughtthat under OFT guidelines, the OC (Jaguar) were obliged to give notice that they were selling the debt on. I was in an agreement with them to pay a monthly instalment and I had not reneged on that agreement. Of couse it is up to them to sell it on.However, if I now find that the agreement does not have an interest rate on it I wanted to know if it could be enforced. I am happy to continue paying what I have been paying Jaguar but the new debt collector wants the whole amount and I cant afford it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are 100% correct in what you are saying, and please don't take any of my comments as a criticism of your good self. other than maybe an observation of your niavety of the system. there are processes which should be followed but aren't, this can be taken as one of them.

 

If you have a look throughout this forum you will find numerous references to the assignment, this is the document that is supposed to be issued by the original creditor to notify the debtor that the debt has been sold, it is allegedly a legal requirement, yet it is rarely produced.

 

If the DCAs and Original Creditors were obliged to produce it or write off the debt, you can bet your ar$e, they'd be piled up under the letterbox, until then, they don't give a to$$ coz there is no punitive action that can be taken and the argument seems to hold little sway with the courts

Link to post
Share on other sites

stick to your guns and only pay what you have agreed and can afford, let them take you to court if they wish (they don't wish to) they are trying it on in expecting you to pay more than you were previously. the court will be very much on your side and would be more likely to reduce the amount than anything else.

 

I would CCA them and ask them to provide you with statements. It is not unknown for a new creditor to add their own little bit of bunce to the debt. let them know you aren't going to be pushed around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...