Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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

why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement


pt2537
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4902 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 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Can anyone please advise on my gf's case? Reply received from HSBC today: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/185292-monkey_uk-hsbc-cca-g-3.html#post2133608

If you found this post useful, please click on the "scales" icon in the bottom left of my post and say so!

 

The opinions of this post are those of monkey_uk and do not constitute sound legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

--

 

Halifax Unlawful Bank Charges: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Sent 28/02/07 - CC Statement's rcv'd 18/04/07 Bank a/c statements rcv'd 19/04/07

 

 

 

First Direct Unlawful Bank Charges: Settled in Full 12/05/06 | £2235.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my reason for asking is that in my court claim against Hfx, I stated "claimant has a credit card" or suchlike, could Hfx not argue that I agreed that it was enforcable, or something like that???

 

I'm pretty sure that this account will not have a valid credit agreement attached to it, so I hope I've not ballsed things up by claiming my charges back a few years ago?

 

I don't think that you have - there are different things:-

An unenforceable CCA creates a debt - its' just not enforceable against the Debtor - but it is enforceable against the creditor

 

I'd agree with that - you wouldn't be arguing that you don't have a debt, you'd be arguing that they don't have a valid contract so can't collect the debt. It's not your problem if they don't bother getting paperwork watertight!:)

 

Lexis:)

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just clarify something...

 

Ive been waiting nearly 2 years for Hilsden to produce my CA.

THey have a CO on me and I need the CA as a major thing to get it set aside.

 

Can I do a CPR31 request for my agreement??

 

HAK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just clarify something...

 

Ive been waiting nearly 2 years for Hilsden to produce my CA.

THey have a CO on me and I need the CA as a major thing to get it set aside.

 

Can I do a CPR31 request for my agreement??

 

HAK

 

i did a 31.16 b4 proceedings and laterly a 31.14 during, for my set asides. neither of which have produced any docs in this particular case (i have 2 running at the same time). i did mine in a hurry cos i was worried abt time aspect of the set aside which has pressured things a bit. if i cud rewind, id do all the cpr rqsts properly then go for the set aside.

thread:

finding faulty cca agreements after a ccj?? - Page 10 - The Consumer Forums

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Regulated Credit Agreement was not properly executed under section 61(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘the Act) in that:-

a) Contrary to section 60(1)(b) the document did not embody all the terms of the agreement other then implied terms in that it excluded a term orally agreed between the parties whereby the creditor would effect insurance of the goods.

b) Contrary to section 61(1) © when the document was presented to the debtor for signature it was not in such state that all of its terms were legible.

c) Contrary to the Consumer (Credit Agreements) regulation 1983 (‘the Regulations) regulation 2 and schedule 1, Paragraph 1, the document did not contain any heading.

d) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1, paragraph 2 of the regulations, the document did not state the name or any address of the creditor or the name and address of the debtor.

e) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1paragraph 3 of the regulations, the document did not contain any alternatives an adequate description of the goods.

f) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 4 of the regulations, the document did not state the cash price in respect of the goods.

g) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 5 of the regulations, the document did not state the amount of the advance payment to be made by the debtor.

h) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 9 of the regulations, the document did not state the total charge for credit.

i) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 11, of the regulations, the document did not show the total amount payable.

j) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 15, of the regulations, the document failed to state the APR.

k) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 18, of the regulations, the document did not contain a statement indicating that in which might occur under the agreement of the rate or amount of any item entering into that calculation.

l) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 21, of the regulations, the document contained no description of the security provided by the debtor.

m) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 1 paragraph 22, of the regulations, the document contained no indication of any charges payable on default.

n) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 2, paragraph 3, of the regulations, the document did not contain a statement in the prescribed form setting out the debtors’ right to cancel the agreement.

o) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 2, paragraph 5, of the regulations, the document did not contain a paragraph in the prescribed form setting out the debtors rights of termination alternatively contained in the paragraph purporting to set out such rights which was not form the form prescribed by the regulations.

p) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 2, paragraph 9 of the regulations, the document did not contain a statement in the prescribed for setting out the debtor’s rights in relation to repossession alternatively contained a statement concerning those rights which did not conform to the said paragraph.

q) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 5, paragraph 1, of the regulations, the document did not contain any form of signature box which did not confirm to the requirements of that paragraph.

r) Contrary to regulation 2 and schedule 5, paragraph 1, of the regulations, the creditor’s signature did not appear in the form of a signature box prescribed by that paragraph.

s) Contrary to sections (58(1) and 61(2), the creditor failed to give the debtor a copy of the unexecuted agreement containing the prescribed notice and failed to give the debtor a copy of the document referred to in the unexecuted agreement, namely a blank bankers order.

t) Contrary to section 61(2), the creditor sent the unexecuted agreement to the debtor less then seven days after sending the copy thereof under section 58(1).

u) Contrary to section 61.(2), the agreement being one to which section 58(1) applied, during the consideration period, the creditor without receiving any request from the debtor, frequently communicated with the debtor both by telephoning him and by visiting his home.

4. By reason of sections 61 and 65 of the Act, therefore, the said purported agreement is not enforceable by the creditor against the debtor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now opening this thread to allow people to comment, ask questions etc.

 

please be aware that this thread is still work in progress and not the finished article as things stand, so please do not rely upon the drafts provided yet. i will confirm when i have completed the witness statement

 

PT

 

Can you confirm if the first couple of pages of the thread are still work in progress or not?

 

SMT has obviously had a success using your guide as it stands, so is it ok to use it now, or have I missed something?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT

 

Can you confirm if the first couple of pages of the thread are still work in progress or not?

 

SMT has obviously had a success using your guide as it stands, so is it ok to use it now, or have I missed something?

 

Thanks

Well, not as such, however there has been a change to the Pre Action Protocols so they need taking into account

 

where a lender breaches the Protocol, there is now a provision for the lender to pay your costs as a matter of procedure and the court can make an order to that effect

 

It is always important that you fully understand whats happening and that you understand what you are doing as its YOU that will bear the consequences if it goes wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PT

 

-with ref the draft order for disclosure.....do i just copy that in the exact form you laid out (part 4 underwriting sheet N/A to me so will delete).....i started filling in the claimant and defendant details i now unsure if i should be doing that ?

 

cheers

 

Fingers

The Story So Far...

 

Barclaycard - Fingers Vs Barclaycard

Egg - Egg Credit Card CCA Agreement - help

Halifax - Halifax Credit card CCA

IF - CCA received

Lloyds - Lloyds CCA

MBNA-CCA received, challening

Virgin - Virgin Card CCA May 2006 - Help Required

 

OH Barccard - 2 s78 letters, on 2nd cpr

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi PT

 

-with ref the draft order for disclosure.....do i just copy that in the exact form you laid out (part 4 underwriting sheet N/A to me so will delete).....i started filling in the claimant and defendant details i now unsure if i should be doing that ?

 

cheers

 

Fingers

Hi,

 

IF you are using Pre action disclosure, then you will have identified a cause of action (potentially) and the documents needed to assess if you have a legitimate claim, yes?

 

So you would include within the draft order any dcos you have identified as being relevent.

 

If you are unsure then you need to start your own thread and give us a run down of whats happening then i will see if i can assist

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT .. clarification re costs of 31.16 disclosure.

 

You said very early on the costs of 31.16 could be huge?

 

Am I right in thinking if the case is won by party initiating the claim then costs are paid by the loser.

 

What if 31.16 reveals an enforceable agreement, what of the creditors costs then?? (I'm assuming obviously no further action is taken by us the debtors).

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT .. clarification re costs of 31.16 disclosure.

 

You said very early on the costs of 31.16 could be huge?

 

Am I right in thinking if the case is won by party initiating the claim then costs are paid by the loser.

 

What if 31.16 reveals an enforceable agreement, what of the creditors costs then?? (I'm assuming obviously no further action is taken by us the debtors).

yes the costs could run to £1-2K potentially

 

while in the normal case where there is no breach of protocol, the person making the app would be compelled to pay the costs of the app even if they were successful, there is case law which i have quoted that says if there is a breach of pre action protocol then you should not be at a disadvantage by an adverse costs order, worst case you should bear your own costs and best case the other side pays. this is quite clearly explained in the witness statement at teh start fo the thread

 

if CPR 31.16 reveals a solid agreement then i suggest talking to the lender about payment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks PT if you could stop by my thread and check I am on the right track I would be most grateful. Cheers.

 

Fingers Vs Barclaycard

 

Fingers

The Story So Far...

 

Barclaycard - Fingers Vs Barclaycard

Egg - Egg Credit Card CCA Agreement - help

Halifax - Halifax Credit card CCA

IF - CCA received

Lloyds - Lloyds CCA

MBNA-CCA received, challening

Virgin - Virgin Card CCA May 2006 - Help Required

 

OH Barccard - 2 s78 letters, on 2nd cpr

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes the costs could run to £1-2K potentially

 

while in the normal case where there is no breach of protocol, the person making the app would be compelled to pay the costs of the app even if they were successful, there is case law which i have quoted that says if there is a breach of pre action protocol then you should not be at a disadvantage by an adverse costs order, worst case you should bear your own costs and best case the other side pays. this is quite clearly explained in the witness statement at teh start fo the thread

 

if CPR 31.16 reveals a solid agreement then i suggest talking to the lender about payment

 

A little confused :|

 

I understood you should write two letters asking for copies of the agreement, but quoting pre-action protocols (not CCA 78 ). Only when these two do not have the desired result (i.e. an agreement) do you proceed to asking the court for CPR 31:16 disclosure.

 

In that case because the pre-action protocol was breached (i.e. did not disclose an agreement) costs were paid by the other side.

 

Or have I mis-read the whole procedure. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

A little confused :|

 

I understood you should write two letters asking for copies of the agreement, but quoting pre-action protocols (not CCA 78). Only when these two do not have the desired result (i.e. an agreement) do you proceed to CPR 31:16.

 

In that case because the pre-action protocol was breached (i.e. did not disclose an agreement) costs were paid by the other side.

 

Or have I mis-read the whole procedure. :rolleyes:

youve confused yourself i fear,

 

the breach of protocol is a requirment to protect you from costs, there needs to be a clear breach, it is important in my view. if you cannot show a breach then yes you can be screwed for costs.

 

this is a legal process it is not something that you can template in a one size fits all approach

Link to post
Share on other sites

youve confused yourself i fear,

 

the breach of protocol is a requirment to protect you from costs, there needs to be a clear breach, it is important in my view. if you cannot show a breach then yes you can be screwed for costs.

 

this is a legal process it is not something that you can template in a one size fits all approach

 

I thought that was what I was saying.

 

The two pre-action letters - if they don't bring any reply - are the clear breach, aren't they ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone clarify what "CPR Pre-Action Protocol 4.3(e)" refers to specifically when mentioned within SAR? Is that appropriate and if so what are it's effects.

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone clarify what "CPR Pre-Action Protocol 4.3(e)" refers to specifically when mentioned within SAR? Is that appropriate and if so what are it's effects.

 

Hi davey:) There are nearly 1000 posts here, you got a quick link to that one:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for pre action anything. Looks like creditors are going to have a get out of jail free card.. at least for the time being:

 

Judge freezes credit claims

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if an agreement is unenforceable previously , this wont matter. they cant go against case law. maybe they can change it for future credit cases, but the fact remains that these banks etc got sloppy.

They dont like it up em captain manwaring:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4902 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...