Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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

Sparkie v Experian & BOS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5433 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

Received an answer from Mr Lever at last ...here it is and my reply....I love a fight..!!!

 

sparkie

 

 

 

Thank you for your e-mail received on 13 May 2009.

 

I can confirm that the removal of the MBNA Europe Bank Ltd defaulted account from your credit report is not the result of any instruction made by Experian.

 

According to our records we have received no direct instructions from MBNA Europe Bank Ltd to delete this entry from your credit report.

 

Consequently, it appears as though MBNA Europe Bank Ltd has removed this account from the portfolio of account information that they submit to us on a monthly basis.

 

One possible reason for this account not currently appearing on your report or the account information supplied to us by MBNA Europe Bank Ltd is if they have now assigned the debt owed to them to a debt collection agency.

 

In these cases, the company to whom the original debt is owed will remove their defaulted account entry from your credit report and it will then show at a later date when supplied to us by the debt collection agency to whom the debt has been assigned.

 

I have today spoken to MBNA Europe Bank Ltd and they have confirmed that this account has now been assigned to Link Financial and hence MBNA Europe Bank Ltd has deleted this account from the information that they provide to Experian.

 

MBNA Europe Bank Ltd has confirmed that Link Financial will therefore be likely to submit details of this defaulted account to us shortly and this will then show on your credit report as a debt owed to Link Financial. The default date should remain the date initially recorded as the date of default (28/02/2009).

 

When we previously queried the accuracy of this account data with MBNA Europe Bank Ltd on your behalf I remind you that the account was confirmed to be accurate and no instruction given to Experian to amend or delete this information.

 

I trust that this clarifies the matter and answers your questions.

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

Paul Lever

 

Consumer Compliance Manager

 

Directors' Office

 

My Reply to Mr Lever

I thank you for the explanation with regard to removal of the account supplied by MBNA, it gives me the information I require, as you are aware that before any account can be assigned to a third party, the original "alleged" creditor must give the "alleged debtor" a notice of assignment...you have confirmed that this has been assigned by MBNA to Link...MBNA have not supplied me notice of this assignment, my agreement (a copy of which I have supplied you with) does not allow assignment .............in any event my agreement is unenforceable and is the reason why MBNA have not attempted to enforce it.

 

The amount that MBNA "allege" I owe is totally and absolutely incorrect

I have not "had the use of that" money in any way, that of course would have to be determined by a court of law, and as I have said MBNA cannot prove that fact and will not issue proceedings against me themselves, that is the reason they have " unlawfully assigned"/sold this account.

 

If and when Link contact me I will make them aware of the Sale of Goods & Services Act and that MBNA have sold them an account/agreement that is in fact " faulty" as in faulty goods, I am aware that MBNA receive a nominal sum for accounts and will have obtained that money under a false misrepresentation to Link.

 

Therefore should Link attempt to supply any information whatsoever Experian apply it to my credit file.....I will immediately file a Libel suit against Experian on the day I discover that entry has been applied.

 

I trust you take heed of my intention to do so, as it is not "hot air".

 

Thank you again for the information you have supplied

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

sparkie

 

 

Excellent Sparkie, i read every line, every word and took in every bit of information with your fight with Experian and others. I'm having a fight with them at the moment and your are right Experian are biased, seem to base their replies on a personal judgement ratther than a factual one. Keep it up and i shall be following your further posts.

 

Essence

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think this will be the start of something very interesting... I think there is a genuine challenge that can be made, if enough people do it, to fight the data being recorded by CRA's when they hide behind the Data Protection Act.

 

Subbing with great interest :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...