Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
  • 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

MCE/mortimer claimform - old British Credit Trust car finance debt


mcuth
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5231 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

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hmmm, now I've received another AQ to complete - strange...

 

Even stranger - it's an N150. Spoke to the Court this morning and they said they thought it was strange, but it's what the Judge wanted..... :rolleyes:

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

I received a Without Prejudice (save as to costs) letter from Mortimer Clarke the other day, providing a "true copy" of the agreement (with Ts&Cs, but unsigned by me) and offering to settle for £3k all in.... yeah, riiiiiiiiiight. Anyone want to see it?

 

Not heard anything from the court yet though...

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, finally got a chance to post the links to the offer letter scanned in & on photobucket:

 

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/wpo01.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/wpo02.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/wpo03.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/wpo04.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/wpo05.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/wpo06.jpg

 

Not sure if I should respond or not? I'm definitely not accepting the offer :lol:

 

Also received the latest order from the Court (finally):

 

Upon considering the allocation questionnaires filed, it is order that:

 

1. The matter is stayed for 28 days.

2. The Claimant to inform the Court of outcome of stay by the 15th Septemebr [sic] 2008 and provide draft directions for consideration by Court if settlement not achieved.

 

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

hmm so they have sent you an unsigned credit agreement then

 

Well, they have previously sent a signed copy, without the Ts&Cs:

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/scan0002.jpg

The latest one must be their attempt to provide a "true" copy without the sigs - I bet they don't have the Ts&Cs attached to the original signed copy (if they actually have the original signed copy!)

 

great, and how exactly were they hoping to convince the court to enforce it?

 

Pot luck? :D :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

Still wondering whether I should reply along the lines of "I don't believe I have a case to answer, so I respectfully decline your offer" or not..... oh decisions, decisions!

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

So, after not hearing anything for a while, I got home from work to find the following order from the Court (yeah, I've scanned in Mortimer Clarke's copy, don't worry :)):

 

080921_MCE_order1.jpg

 

With the following attachment:

 

080921_MCE_order2.jpg

 

 

Interesting - I've heard nothing about any application, should I have done? The Court says the CMC is ok for a teleconference but then makes no order regarding arranging it, etc... - what gives here? Should I write to the Court about it all??

 

Yesterday, I then received the amended PoC (which aren't stated as amended, so that's the first thing I'll pull them up on) and exhibits - I'll just give links to these:

 

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_PoC.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_CCA1.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_CCA2.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_DN1.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_DN2.jpg

http://s135.photobucket.com/albums/q157/mcuth/mce/080921_MCE_NoA.jpg

 

I don't see any new information that's been supplied, relied upon or anything - just wondering what the hell's going on really and what MC are trying to achieve.....

 

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

I'm thinking that their use of "agreement terminated" in the new PoC means that they'll be attempting a Rankine-esque Reply to my Defence whenever I get chance to rejig it a bit....

 

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

Interesting - I've heard nothing about any application, should I have done? The Court says the CMC is ok for a teleconference but then makes no order regarding arranging it, etc... - what gives here? Should I write to the Court about it all??

 

BUMP....

 

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

  • 4 weeks later...

Interesting - just received the Reply to Defence, which in some respects is similar to this one, but has a lot more in it, including....a print of this entire thread! Lots of thinking to do....

 

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

**YAWN**

 

Do they really have nothing better to do than reading these forums?

 

i like the reference in the quoted thread to the Rankine Judgment, dont they realise that House of Lords and Court of Appeal overrules the High Court, the donkeys

Link to post
Share on other sites

**YAWN**

 

Do they really have nothing better to do than reading these forums?

 

Aye, looks like it mate - I think they're a little scared of the wave of consumer revolution taking place :)

 

i like the reference in the quoted thread to the Rankine Judgment, dont they realise that House of Lords and Court of Appeal overrules the High Court, the donkeys

 

I don't think so :D

 

I'll scan in the RTD, hopefully at some point this weekend - but while we're here, is the other side supposed to send a copy of any application to me? I've had this happen a couple of times now, where an application has been made to the Court, but I've seen nothing of it until I receive the order from the Court??

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...
is the other side supposed to send a copy of any application to me? I've had this happen a couple of times now, where an application has been made to the Court, but I've seen nothing of it until I receive the order from the Court??

 

I take it no-one knows the answer to this at all?

 

I now have the Reply scanned in (without the benefit of this thread being printed & attached, and the copy of the Rankine judgment of course :rolleyes:) wondering whether I should post it or not? Paul?

 

BTW, the Court originally scheduled a CMC for telephone hearing, but MC wrote to the Court and got it changed to a hearing in person. I'd like to get that changed back, given that I have to take a 1/2 day off work for it! :mad:

 

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

  • 2 months later...
I now have the Reply scanned in (without the benefit of this thread being printed & attached, and the copy of the Rankine judgment of course :rolleyes:) wondering whether I should post it or not? Paul?

 

Paul - did you get a chance to look over that reply at all?

 

I didn't get to appear at the CMC hearing thanks to being called into work, but the case has now been transferred to my local court and a CMC called for April - MC have written saying that "from the hearing report" (presume that's their own report), they note that the DJ was minded to give them judgement, but as I wasn't there he was concerned and transferred it for another CMC. As a result, they've made a part 36 offer :rolleyes:

 

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...

I hereby invoke my rights to intellectual copyright in respect of any post I may author or may already have authored on the Consumer Forum known as The consumer action group, website address www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk

 

The right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and subject to the following:

 

Private individuals- A private individual is free to use or reproduce any part of any posting of mine in any manner which they deem fit without prior authorisation from myself, the rights to all usage by private individuals is granted freely and without condition in perpetuity by myself the Author known on this forum under the pseudonym mcuth.

 

Commercial Organisations - The right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and subject to the following:

The Author reserves the right to refuse permission without supplying a reason for so doing.

The Author requires written application in advance from the business wishing to use the authors work, such application should contain the following:

(i) The reason for wishing to reproduce the authors work.

(ii) The manner and extent of rights to reproduction sought.

(iii) A licensing application fee of £1000 per post or article (In the event of such application being refused this fee minus reasonable costs will be returned to the applicant).

 

Unauthorised usage of any work authored and published upon this website shall constitute an offence of breach of Copyright and in the event the author becomes aware of any unauthorised usage the author reserves the rights to pursue the offender under any laws of this Country such as the author sees fit in order to claim compensation for the unauthorised usage of works covered by intellectual copyright.

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

  • 11 months later...

Interesting.

 

I understood that in registering as a user one agrees to the forum rules, one of which is:

 

1.10 Copyright Information: All information contained in this website, associated websites, and forum posts are copyright Reclaim The Right Ltd. If you wish to use the information on this site for publication elsewhere, then please email the administrators for permission.

 

So who owns the copyright to your posts?

 

Discuss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to MCE/mortimer claimform - old British Credit Trust car finance debt
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...