Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 
        • 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

Me Vs. Wescott (RBoS current account debt) - Help Required!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5586 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, first the background:

 

I opened a current account with RBS back in '05 and after a while found myself frequently going overdrawn and received a number of bank charges (in excess of £800 over the course of around a year). After a while I attempted to claim these back back around the time that claiming bank charges back first reached the media spotlight. They eventually offered me something like £450 which I foolishly accepted given that I was now banking with LTSB and had no intention of using the account.

 

Unfortunately I was unaware that the £450 they refunded did not cover the amount was overdrawn by, something that was only brought to my attention when I started receiving calls chasing for a debt. The debt was then passed on to a DCA (AIC) who proceeded to hound me over the amount. I sent them a CCA request as I was unaware that this did not apply to overdrafts & current accounts. I received a letter back from RBS which stated the following:

 

Dear Mr XXXXXXX

 

RE: Request for copy, Credit Agreement under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

We refer to your correspondance regarding the above mentioned account.

 

When responding to requests made under Section 78, the Bank is required to provide you with a copy of a security document (if any) and a letter containing the following details; outstanding balance, details of interest and charges outstanding and the amount of daily interest accruing.

 

Therefore, please find below a Statement of Account for your Royalties Gold Account Account No xxxxxx xxxxxxxx

 

*Date account opened - 5 August 2005

*Debit balance - £XXX (in excess of £450)

*Interest rate - nil

*No interest or charges

 

Please note that due to your account being with one of our collection agencies interest being applied to the balance. However, we reserve our right to apply accrued and accruing interest if brought back to Credit Management Services.

 

Should further assistance be required, please do not hesitate to contact us at the above Office.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Customer Service Manager

 

I took no further action at this point, and AIC soon relented and I did not hear anything from them again. Recently however, I have been contacted by a new DCA - Wescott, who are actively pursuing the debt and frequently contact me with regards to it. I have advised them that I am disputing the debt and therefore have no intention of discussing it but they continue to call and send letters.

 

The last letter I received from Wescott read as follows:

Final Notice

Despite previous correspondance a balance still remains outstanding on the above debt.

 

Unless you make a payment of £(FULL AMOUNT) within the next 14 days a Claim Form/Summons may be lodged with Hull County Court or the local Sherrif Court for residents in Scotland and subsequently issued to you for payment of the outstanding balance plus all statutory legal expenses, as follows:-

 

Amount Claimed* £(FULL AMOUNT)

Legal Expenses £95

Total Amount £(FULL AMOUNT + £95)

 

Payment due before: 16th January 2009

 

My questions regarding this are as follows:

 

How do I proceed? I've become aware that requesting the CCA was redundant as RBS do not have to provide this given that it's in relation to a current account/overdraft. However, if this was the case why did RBS respond with the letter mentioned above?

 

Should I just bite the bullet and offer them £10 a month until the debt is cleared? Do they have to accept this or can they hold out for a higher amount (which I would begrudge paying on the basis of how they've treated me since the issue first arose)?

 

Any assistance would be much appreciated!!!!

 

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Because I was under the impression that claiming back your bank charges wasn't related to the matter of them selling the debt on.

 

Is this really my only option? As I can't afford to pay it off in one go, do they have to accept any amount I offer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

they can sell it to whom they want, what you have done is accept their payment of charges that you claimed, if this did not clear the overdraft then i am afraid that that still exists.

 

however that said, I would assume that you have received a letter of assignment reference the debt from either rbs or aic.

 

if not send wescrap a prove it letter first to delay them

Link to post
Share on other sites

they can sell it to whom they want, what you have done is accept their payment of charges that you claimed, if this did not clear the overdraft then i am afraid that that still exists.

 

however that said, I would assume that you have received a letter of assignment reference the debt from either rbs or aic.

 

if not send wescrap a prove it letter first to delay them

 

I'm not sure what a letter of assignment is but I know I've only ever received two letters from Wescott (one of which I transcribed in my original post).

 

Can anyone confirm whether or not legally they have to accept any offer I make? i.e. £10 a month?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone confirm whether or not legally they have to accept any offer I make? i.e. £10 a month?

 

You are the one with the power in this situation, no-one else - you can either offer a token payment or tell them to get lost and to take you to a county court were the court will have to take into account all your essential outgoings....it will cost them money to take you there & chances are you'll end up repaying £1 per month which is the minimum legal amount on any debt. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just spoke to Wescot who were very rude.

 

Offered a payment of £10 per month which they refused on the grounds that they did not have a statement of my earnings.

 

They then said they would take it to court and that they would take the money out of my paycheck direct before I even get paid and it would be substantially more than £10. Is this possible?

 

I also asked them to remove the telephone number from their account which they wouldn't do until I argued that it was not a home telephone number and was used for business purposes.

 

They then said that they'd remove the number and that the next letter I'd receive from them would be a court summons. I'm a bit worried now, can anyone help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just spoke to Wescot who were very rude. Dont speak write

 

Offered a payment of £10 per month which they refused on the grounds that they did not have a statement of my earnings. In that case offer them £1 a month and let them stew

 

They then said they would take it to court and that they would take the money out of my paycheck direct before I even get paid and it would be substantially more than £10. Is this possible? They always say that

 

I also asked them to remove the telephone number from their account which they wouldn't do until I argued that it was not a home telephone number and was used for business purposes. If they ring say in writing and put the phone down and send the phone harrassment letter

 

They then said that they'd remove the number and that the next letter I'd receive from them would be a court summons. I'm a bit worried now, can anyone help?

 

I will be very suprised if the next letter is a court summons.

 

Write back and state what you are prepared to offer, if they refuse that then the judge if it ever got to court would take a very dim veiw of these morons.

 

also demand their complaints procedure and report the phone drone for threatening death and destruction upon you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...