Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything. Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do). Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS. Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves. 10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either. the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get. where your post said fine it now says charge .............. please fill out the Q&A ASAP. dx  
    • Well done on reading the other threads. If ECP haven't got the guts to do court then there is no reason to pay them. From other threads there is a 35-minute free stay after which you need to pay, with the signs hidden where no-one will read them.  Which probably explains why ECP threaten this & threaten that, but in the end daren't do court. As for your employer - well you can out yourself as the driver to ECP so the hamster bedding will arrive at yours.  Get your employer to do that using the e-mail address under Appeals and Transfer Of Liability.  
    • good you are getting there. Lloyds/TSb...i certainly would not be risking possible off-setting going on if a choice were there, but in all honestly thats obv too late now..., however..you might not never be in that situation so dont worry too much. regardless to being defaulted or not, if any debt that is not paid/used in 6yrs it becomes statute barred. you need to understand a couple of things like 'default' and 'default notice' a default is simply a recorded D in the calendar section/history of a debt, it does not really mean anything. might slightly hit your rating. the important thing here is a default notice , these are issued by the original creditor (OC) under the consumer credit act, it gives you 14 days to settle whatever they are asking, if you don't then they have the option to register a defaulted date on your credit file. that can make getting other credit more difficult. and hits your rating. once that happens, not matter what you do after that, paying it or not or not paid off or not, the whole account vanishes from your credit file on the DN's 6th b'day. though that might not necessarily mean the debt is not still owed - thats down to the SB date above. an OC very rarely does court and only the OWNER of a debt can instigate any court action (Attempted a CCJ) DCA's debt collection agencies - DCA's are NOT BAILIFFS they have ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter what it's TYPE. an OC make pass a debt to a dca as their client to try and spoof people into paying through legal ignorance of the above statement. an OC may SELL on an old debt to a DCA/debt buyer (approx 10p=£1) and then claim their losses through tax write off and their business insurance, wiping their hands of the debt. the DCA then becomes the debt OWNER. since the late 70's dca's pull all kinds of 'stunts' through threat-o-grams to spoof a debtor into paying them the full value of the debt, when they bought if for a discounted sum (typically 10p=£1). you never pay a dca a penny! if read carefully, NONE of their letters nor those of any other 'trading names' they spoof themselves under making it seem it's going up some kind of legitimate legal 'chain' say WILL anything....just carefully worded letters with all kinds of threats of what could/might/poss happen with other such words as instruct forward pass... well my dog does not sit when instructed too...so... DCA's SOMETIMES will issue a court claim, but in all honesty its simply a speculative claim hoping mugs wet themselves and cough up...oh im going to court... BIG DEAL DCA - show me the enforceable paperwork signed by me...9/10 they dont have it and if your defence is conducted properly, most run away from you . however before they do all that they now have to send a letter of claim, cause the courts got fed up with them issuing +750'000PA speculative claims and jamming up the legal system. so bottom line is two conclusions.... if you cant pay a debt, get a DN issued ASAP (stop paying it!) make sure it gets registered on your file then it stops hurting your file/future credit in 6yrs regardless to what happens (bar of course a later DCA CCJ - fat chance mind!)  once you've a registered DN , then look into restarting payments if the debt is still owed by the OC, if SOLD to a DCA, don't pay - see if they issue a letter of claim (then comeback here!).        
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
  • 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

Swift Advances. Secured Loan Charges reclaim


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4908 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 3.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

This is what I will be using against Mark White when he stated Swift do not pay commission and do not operate agencies........and furthermore in the signed statement of truth in the Disclosure CPR objected to me seeing the correspondence between THEIR AGENTS

 

 

case KJM Superbikes v Hinton [2008] EWHC 1280

 

KJM appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judge’s decision refusing permission to bring contempt of court proceedings against Mr Hinton. Lord Justice Moore-Bick allowed the appeal and Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Mummery agreed with his reasons for doing so. The primary question was whether it was in the public interest for the contempt of court proceedings to be pursued against Mr. Hinton. He stated that “a witness who knowingly makes a false statement in the course of giving evidence orally or in an affidavit does not expose himself to an action for damages at the suit of anyone injured as a result, but he does expose himself to the risk of prosecution for perjury and as such is publicly accountable for his attempt to interfere with the course of justice.” He said that giving a private person permission to pursue proceedings for contempt “allows that person to act in a public rather than a private role…….to pursue public interest”.

 

 

 

This case therefore serves as a timely reminder to signatories to statements of truth and those advising them to ensure that the facts stated in the document concerned are true. A failure to do so can expose the signatory to criminal proceedings for contempt of court and if convicted, the sentence can include imprisonment, a fine and/or a seizure of assets. Not only that, but the credibility of the signatory as a witness will be destroyed and the Court is unlikely to accept as true other parts of his or her evidence. Witness statements and statements of case should therefore be read thoroughly before signature and amendments made to ensure that the document is factually correct.

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

The public interest is ....................that Mark White has made similar untrue statements in other courts of law.......... and on his statements peoples property have been possessed......... and it must stop ........those people who have had them possessed on his statements containing falsehoods should have the full value of thei property paid back to them in compensation.

 

sparkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Document I have got that I didn't have to use in my previous Court case Swift took against us is a screen shot taken off the Agents/Brokers computer system..........it has a box that asks on it have any other lenders been contacted.......ITS BLANK ..meaning this Agent went straight to Swift ..............and didn't shop around for a better deal for us..............another screen shot shows a box with the the word Commission Paid ....guess what ........its filled in showing Swift did pay them commission.....another document to show Mark White did not tell the truth under oath ...you can't dispute documentray evidence can you. These agents went bust in April 2008

 

Commission is only paid to AGENTS of the Lender.Borrowers don't pay commission direct the lender does, all this exra evidence is for the big hearing I'll request, I've got loads of it

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Appollo18,

 

I have only got to pove just one of the many false misleading statements by Mark White to the Court .......and I am convinced I will ..........he will then feel the full weight of the Court will fall on him, but what follows from that is that every case that he has given evidence in and stated the same in can be called into question...... because he goes into a pre-hearsed oral recitation in the witness box....and everyone can then use it to have their judgements overturned. ........the consequences of this I leave to everyones thoughts

 

I know Swift will put up a fight................ but they are up against TOO much damming evidence to show that he does not tell the truth under oath let alone in his statements of truth, I will be using one of his own CEO Mr John Webster statements to prove it.

 

sparkie

Edited by Sparkie1723
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I will be using against Mark White when he stated Swift do not pay commission and do not operate agencies........and furthermore in the signed statement of truth in the Disclosure CPR objected to me seeing the correspondence between THEIR AGENTS

 

 

case KJM Superbikes v Hinton [2008] EWHC 1280

 

KJM appealed to the Court of Appeal against the judge’s decision refusing permission to bring contempt of court proceedings against Mr Hinton. Lord Justice Moore-Bick allowed the appeal and Lady Justice Arden and Lord Justice Mummery agreed with his reasons for doing so. The primary question was whether it was in the public interest for the contempt of court proceedings to be pursued against Mr. Hinton. He stated that “a witness who knowingly makes a false statement in the course of giving evidence orally or in an affidavit does not expose himself to an action for damages at the suit of anyone injured as a result, but he does expose himself to the risk of prosecution for perjury and as such is publicly accountable for his attempt to interfere with the course of justice.” He said that giving a private person permission to pursue proceedings for contempt “allows that person to act in a public rather than a private role…….to pursue public interest”.

 

 

 

This case therefore serves as a timely reminder to signatories to statements of truth and those advising them to ensure that the facts stated in the document concerned are true. A failure to do so can expose the signatory to criminal proceedings for contempt of court and if convicted, the sentence can include imprisonment, a fine and/or a seizure of assets. Not only that, but the credibility of the signatory as a witness will be destroyed and the Court is unlikely to accept as true other parts of his or her evidence. Witness statements and statements of case should therefore be read thoroughly before signature and amendments made to ensure that the document is factually correct.

 

now now sparkie no way on earth will those rats cope with you this time last time you had NOTHING not even a breakfast

yet ended up ALL DAY taking the **** out of those twits

BUT NO WAY COULD THEY LET YOU WIN AS I ALWAYS SAID HOW WOULD IT LOOK IN NEWS AT 10

 

MAN WALKS INTO COURT OF STREET AND WIPES OUT TOP LEGAL TEAM

AM 100% THIS TIME IT WILL BE ON MORE THAN NEWS AT 10

pick up a penquin two systems for the price of one:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two little birds are standing in line at a bank when armed robbers burst in. While a few of the robbers take the money from the tellers, the others line the customers up against a wall and proceed to take their wallets, jewelry, and any other valuables they may have.

 

While this is all taking place, one wee birdy puts something into his colleague's hand. Without looking down, the second lawyers whispers, "What is that?"

 

"It's the £100 I owe you," replies the first wee birdy.

pick up a penquin two systems for the price of one:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

that not a joke matie it true just like this I

 

Just got from a wee birdy about one of their wee birdy friends

 

A co workers husband speaks frantically into the phone, "My wife is pregnant, and her contractions are only two minutes apart!"

"Is this her first child?" the doctor queries.

"No, you idiot!" the wee birdy shouts. "This is her husband!"

pick up a penquin two systems for the price of one:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4908 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...