Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • 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.  
  • 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 
        • Like
      • 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

Capquest Cca...any Advise!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5718 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 everyone,

 

Having difficulties scanning a CCA that I have received from CapQuest regarding a debt from Intelligent Finance taken over the internet back in 2001, I have reproduce word for word the document.

 

i would really appreciate your opinion and let me know if the CCA that they have send me is an enforceable CCA. I would like to add that they also sent me the application form of that debt.

 

Thank you very much:)

CCA 1.doc

CAC2.doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like a document that has been typed up for the purpose of fulfilling your CCA request. The prescribed terms are there but not the Terms and Conditions and they should also have sent you statements showing what has been paid and what remains to be paid. You do not give the figures but check them to see if they are correct. There is a fundamental error right at the beginning in that the headline states " Credit Agreement regulated by the consumer act 1974" - the correct legislation is the Consumer Credit Act 1974 so the typist has typed this wrongly and no one has checked it. So they have sent you an alleged copy of an agreement regulated by legislation that doesn't exist. Is that the norm for Intelligence Finance credit agreements? Would they try to enforce this through the courts, where they would have to produce the original? I think not. Next - there is no address for the lender and "Halifax" is not a company - the company was Halifax PLC before it amalgamated with the Bank of Scotland. Next - a copy of any document mentioned in the copy of the agreement must be sent to you - you have not received a copy of the "intelligence Finance Conditions 2000" booklet mentioned in the third paragraph. Note that "intelligence finance" is in lower case twice in this paragraph - would a company ever spell it's name on a legal document in lower case? - I think not. In the rights section at the bottom the "consumer" in "consumer Credit act 1974" is also in lower case.

 

In my view this is not an authentic copy of a credit agreement, they have not fulfilled your request under the CCA 1974 in that the document sent is not authentic and all the parts required to fulfill the CCA request have not been sent. As it is a document supposedly regulated by legislation that doesn't exist, this in my view makes it totally unenforceable. Nice try, Capquest, but pathetic. I have had some dealings with them and devious is their second name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply,

 

The document that you see, I have typed it myself as I was unable to scan it, I was trying to reproduce it word for word. The Halifax Plc address appears on the agreement. They did sent me a statement of account and a booklet 2001 and not 2000 which is basically their terms & conditions for their bank account, credit cards, loan etc...

The document is indeed titled : Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Do you think it is still enforceable?

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have sent you the wrong booklet and no statements so they haven't fulfilled your CCA request. They cannot send you just any old Terms and Conditions - they must be the ones that pertained at the time of the agreement. The copy of the agreement itself has the prescribed terms and your signature but you must also have the Terms and Conditions. I recently argued with a DCA that they had sent me the wrong Terms and Conditions and I haven't heard a thing from them since. I personally would argue in a court that the agreement didn't fulfill the requirements of the CCA 1974 because the Terms and Conditions presented were invalid for the alleged agreement produced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you,

 

Can the CCA be unenforceable simply by sending me the wrong year of the Terms & conditions? they did send me a statement of account.

The 30 days is up on the 20th July, what kind of letter would I need to send to Capquest and justify that it is not a true CCA?

If I was in a position to offer a Full & Final Settlement, am I still allowed to go back to the original creditor (intelligent finance)and make an offer??

 

Lots of questions I know...

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, a court would probably rule it enfoerceable because the prescribed terms and your signature are there. I might stick my neck out where others wouldn't and for me it has worked but doesn't mean to say it would work for everyone. If you went back to Halifax, they would probably tell you Capquest is dealing with it and to deal with them. You could offer them a Full and Final.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...