Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
  • 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

From Monument to.......Cabot


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 525
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh dear Cy, another score for the Southern judiciary.

 

I would be interested to know where in Carey it says unrelated T&Cs & reply cards are enforceable agreements, particularly when there is no signature box for execution. Carey only dealt with docs supplied under S78 not what is required as proof in court. Howeve it seems 'balance of probabilites' is now an acceptable reason for ignoring the provisons of the actual law.

 

I am so sorry. You really did not deserve this result.

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous and I am so sorry for you Cymru. There is little point in having consumer laws if the Judges make it up as they go along and Carey has muddied the waters and actually added to the confusion, not clarified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the best of days then:-(

 

Actually, until the DJ started pontificating, it wasn't a bad day as their case seemed to be a bit shakey, but if DJ said balance of probabilities once, he said it half a dozen times. He misdirected himself on several points but hey I only wanted to see the law of the land not that of the local judiciary!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear this Cymruambyth. Iam also sorry if I misled you on the 12% on the 'terminated' agreement. I get so angry with this interest business when they only pay around 8-10% for the account face value and then charge interrest on the full balance due. Whether they buy the rights or not, they only had to finance 8-10% of the value, not the full amount. That's for another day but Judge didn't help did he and how many times do we see this happening time after time to the LIP?

 

Really sorry and it doesn't give me any pleasure knowing they are watching it happen on here too..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that they wanted every bit of interest that they requested and costs, though they were deemed excessive, so 1 hour and VAT were remeoved!

However, our ever so knowledgeable DJ pointed out that if we make an arrangement to pay with cabot within a set timescale we won't have a CCj registered. I did question this; I'm not sure who was the most surprised to hear this Cabot or me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does that work. Cymru the whole thing is a mess. I don't think Andrew mislead you over the interest either. I think it's this (and will be happy to be contradicted) they confused you and the Judge with the assignment. If the OC has assigned the debt via the provisions of the original agreement then they are assigned the rights but not the duties however and as Babybear's own correspondence shows below the DCA is considered the creditor for the purposes of s77/78. It is not possible to contract out of the CCA. It was Parliament's wish that it was brought in to protect consumers and so, if Cabot has a properly assigned debt it has to abide by the CCA.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?147392-CCA-DCAs-and-the-Unfair-Commercial-Practices-Directive

 

We know Carey and all sorts have queered the pitch since BabyBen's letter but let's assume the assigned debt is enforceable then Cabot has to obide by s82 of the Act to vary the interest rate.

s82. "Where, in a power contained in a regulated agreement, the creditor or owner varies the agreement, the variation shall not take effect until notice of it is given to the debtor or hirer in the prescribed manner."

It says a lot more but this is the crux of it. If Cabot has not given you notice under s82 in the prescribed manner that they have changed the interest rate they are in trouble.

 

These are Professor Benion's notes on this and he was the architect of the CCA

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/fb/1977/1977-006-consumer-credit-act-pt3.pdf

 

What I think has happened is that Cabot has claimed it is terminated and sold on to them under the Law of Property Act which gives them a lump sum debt (and as Andrew rightly states they buy this for peanuts and come after you for the full amount plus interest) to which they have added their own 12% interest rates - which relates to, well nothing apart from their own greed. They have contracted you out of the CCA but it is not possible to do this. The CCA takes precedence but your Judge was probably not aware of the distinctions and saw the barrister and you as a LiP and went along with them.

 

There is still no agreement which even shows that Cabot or any third party had any right to be assigned a debt. If pre 2005 then s172 (3) comes in and then there's the effects of the new Unfair Relationships under the UTCCR. I am just a lay observer but there seems so much wrong with this it's difficult to know where to start and I really don't get how you don't have a CCJ. Can you get a copy of the hearing?

 

We really need an expert to tell us if I am right or wrong here but I would apply for an appeal and get a direct access barrister but I know that's not always possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your comments.

I pointed out to the DJ that under s82 I had to be notified of a change of interest, I was when I received the statement after proceedings were issued!

At one point he also mentioned recognised practises within the industry!

He changed what had been argued at one point in his summing up! I had said t&cs were not attached, cabot aid they were provided with the application, which was a detached form to return,DJ stated that the reply form was detached from the t&cs, a leaflet folded in 3!!

Oh and did I forget to mention, the DN did not allow enough time, but because I hadn't tried to repay the outstanding balance in the intervening years on the balance of probabilities I would not have repaid it if i had an extra 3 days!

I left feeling angry, the more I think, the more I feel that the civil judiciary stinks.

I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but wonder if guidance on interpretation has been given to save the collapse of the banking system which the country could not sustain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the period is a de minus issue, why did Parliament increase the period from 7 to 14 days not by some Ministerial order or secondary legislation but by a section in the Act itself. Parliament must have felt the length of the period was more than 'de minimus'. Grounds for appeal if you want to try.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe in conspiracy theories, but wonder if guidance on interpretation has been given to save the collapse of the banking system which the country could not sustain.

 

And there I believe you have hit the nail on the head.I am not a tin foil hatter either but it is obvious with some of these judgements, including the OFT one, that someone has had a word in some other one's ear.

 

This whole stuff about lending Ireland £7bn appears to be to help bail out their banks further as our banks are implicated. It all stinks...and don't get me going on this royal wedding we're all having to pay for. Rant over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cym, I have just seen this. I am so sorry.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear this :( don't know why we bother trying really, after all the stupid judges seem to constantly come down on the side of the DCA's. Think it might be time for me to make a f&f to Crapot, don't fancy the court route and losing :-(

 

Wish I had some funds to give you towards an appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cym

 

You say that, according to Cabot, the reply card was a detached form from the T&C's. In that case, why didn't the T&C's they provided have that form attached? If it was a true copy of the T&C's, then the reply card should have been attached.

 

Alan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cymru - Docman has hit the nail on the head. The 14 days for adefault notice is statutory the Judge has no discretion in the matter. What he seemed to think you may or may not do is irrelevant.

There is a good case called Peyman-v-Lanjani which supports this.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cymru - Docman has hit the nail on the head. The 14 days for adefault notice is statutory the Judge has no discretion in the matter. What he seemed to think you may or may not do is irrelevant.

There is a good case called Peyman-v-Lanjani which supports this.

 

 

But with the ruling of Brandon vs Amex and the implication that its case law its not relevant unless the debtor tries to repay within the 14 days and is denied or the original creditor takes enforcement steps before the 14 days have expired. We'll have to wait until the 6th Dec to hear anything about the verbal appeal application.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But with the ruling of Brandon vs Amex and the implication that its case law its not relevant unless the debtor tries to repay within the 14 days and is denied or the original creditor takes enforcement steps before the 14 days have expired. We'll have to wait until the 6th Dec to hear anything about the verbal appeal application.

 

S.

 

IMHO Brandon does not cover a situation where the date is explicitly stated incorrectly.

 

In Brandon, the date was stated as "14 days from the receipt of this notice" NOT an exact date.

The argument was that the wording of the DN includes " within 14 days of the date above" - and the only date present was the date of issue, so Brandon argued that this date should be the one used.

 

The DJ then ruled that 14 days from the date of receipt was clear enough and no prejudice was caused by the somewhat ambiguous wording.

 

Where a specific date is stated and that date is incorrect then the DN does NOT comply with the CCA.

 

again jmho

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... in the current judicial climate case law is subject to the mischief rule imho.

 

 

s.

 

I think we're *all* agreed there ..... :(

If you find my advice helpful - please click on my scales

<<<<<< - they're over there!

Well, it's a funny black star now ...

The small print - any advice I give is freely given on the understanding that I am a layman and am not legally qualified in anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...