Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Peter McCormack says "ambition is big" and Real Bedford's attendances are increasing with promotions.View the full article
    • How does one obtain the permit? The permit team number is only open between the hours of 9am to 3pm Mon - Fri. It says on the website, To obtain an additional 2 hours, the driver must pay a tariff of £3.00 + booking fees in person at our Security Hut, is that how you get the permit also, from the security hut? What a rigmaroll that would be but maybe just another step to take to try and catch people out?
    • Anotheruser0000 bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations. Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced  in Law but not PoFA. and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions. It does seem particularly unfair  when the decision is so  bad . it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently know ledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.
    • The argument about the date of receipt is now dead because the PCN  does not comply with the wording  of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  First reason Section 9 [2] [e]  "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges;" Second Reason Section 9 [2][a] "specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;" All your PCN does is mark the time you entered and left the car park. It does not include all the myriad things you do in between-driving into the car park, looking for a parking space-perhaps a disabled space or  parent and Child place@ getting the children or disabled person out of the car then going shopping. Coming back; loading the car with shopping [, getting the children or disabled into the car, taking the trolley back to the store; driving to the exit perhaps stopping to let vehicles/pedestrians cross in front of you etc. so subtracting the driving times from before and after parking can make quite a difference from their time to the actual period parking time. So the upshot is now that only the driver is responsible for paying the PCN and the keeper is not liable at all even if the name of the driver is never known by Nexus so well done for not appealing. You obviously want to keep it that way to make it very difficult for them to win in Court if it ever goes that far. Although your question is now moot since  the same objective has been achieved by the non compliant PCN [ie no keeper liability] just  about the only way to dispute the timing of the PCN would be if one kept the envelope and there was a discernible date stamp on it that did not match the date on the PCN. There is a new Act coming out [and it cannot come quickly enough ] and one of the things required is that parking companies will have to prove the date of sending out their PCNs. We are not the only ones who sometimes doubt the veracity of their dates particularly as the later it is sent [unlawfully] the shorter the period motorists have to benefit [?] from the reduced payment. I haven't seen it on your posts but do you know how long you are permitted to park for free?
    • I was so annoyed and frustrated about the fact this case was lost it's been floating around my head all night. Dave962, are you sure that's what the Judge said? .... It doesn't make sense. Did the judge in fact dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant did not make an appeal within 28 days? Effectively telling the PPC about the error entering the registration number and providing proof of payment at that time? To me, that's an important point.  
  • 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

roko20650 v Tesco Visa


roko20650
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5386 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

Well Tesco have now sent me the exact same letter (as I posted up earlier) TWICE now, even though I explained the 'agreement' didn't meet CCA1974 requirements (I put 'agreement' in commas because it isn't actually an agreement, it is an application).

 

Now they written asking me to ring them urgently! :rolleyes:

Errrm ... that'd be NO CHANCE.

 

I will write asking them to write.

 

Incidentally if you look carefully at the first page, the application at the small print under 'Your Declaration', it says "........the details about the card set out overleaf......". I have wondered what that referred to. Any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Basa, I have not responded to the letter received on the 18 Mar (which is the same as yours above). Have you had any response from them yet in reply to it, any phone calls, etc.

 

Not a thing since the last desparate letter asking me to ring them. No phone calls (I don't actually remember Tesco ever phoning me :???:)

 

I'm just waiting for a response from my SAR which still has 3 weeks to run. If I only get the same application it'll be 'letter before action' time! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, Having sent a second tel harassment letter and a letter pointing out that the account was in dispute and therefore they should not be defaulting me, I have now received this. Should I now ask for a Subject Access Report? If so, how do I get this information. Help! Roko

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the SAR http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/576-subject-access-request-debt-a-dca.html with £10 PO. They have 40 days to fullfill your request.

 

They'll probably send the same rubbish back but it will give you a chance to determine whether there are any unfair charges you can claim back. If they are stupid enough to try and obtain a CCJ and rely on what they have already sent they will lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Roko

 

I have the same app sent to me

 

have you noticed near to the signiture box it states

 

by signing this application you agree to the general conditions set out separately and the details overleaf

 

Now we know that the prescribed terms need to be on a single sheet but what are the details overleaf?

 

If these turn out to be prescribed terms then we are stuffed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Roko

 

I have the same app sent to me

 

have you noticed near to the signiture box it states

 

by signing this application you agree to the general conditions set out separately and the details overleaf

 

Now we know that the prescribed terms need to be on a single sheet but what are the details overleaf?

 

If these turn out to be prescribed terms then we are stuffed

 

I've seen that and asked about it on another thread a while back.

 

Not yet got a definitive answer, but I have to assume if it were the prescribed terms they would have copied them to us.

 

Also I note on mine the edges are obviously stick down edges to form an envelope. I dont think you'd put the prescribed terms on the outside of a return envelope.

 

Also I've never seen prescribed terms quoted in full on any credit card application.

 

Anyway lets see what my SAR brings. It's due in a week and a half.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Anyway lets see what my SAR brings. It's due in a week and a half.

 

Well the SAR returned the exact same application and separate particulars. I can prove unequivocably the particulars are not the ones supplied (if any were supplied) at the time of signing the application.

 

I am confident this is now an unenforceable agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Been reading and exchanging views a great deal recently about 'application forms' posing as agreements, and from that have a number of points for you all to ponder perhaps.

 

First off when a creditor sends you a document in response to a s.78 request they are then bound under s172 that what they have sent is the agreement. They can't then just turn up in court with something else they knocked up earlier.

 

Second, an application is just that. If it says application, or says they are going to do checks before sending your card and it also says somewhere 'sign only if you wish to be bound...' it then fails due to s.59.

 

Third, unless there are definite links between multiple pages presented as the agreement, such as page numbers or some other absolute coding, then the key financials (pt's) must be on the same page as the signature.

 

Finally the whole thing must be readable else it fails under s.61 and SI1553(6).

 

For me my Tesco agreement fails at least 1, 2 & 3. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all,

Did a Subject Access Report on Tesco. I received loads from them but the only signed form which is the same application form that they sent me under the CCA request. This clearly states "Apply for" which Cerbrusalert felt was unenforeceable. I think therefore that they are not able to enforce the debt and therefore they and the Debt Collectors they have appointed are in breach of the Data Protection Act because they do not have a signed agreement, is that right? Where do I go from here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Did a Subject Access Report on Tesco. I received loads from them but the only signed form which is the same application form that they sent me under the CCA request. This clearly states "Apply for" which Cerbrusalert felt was unenforeceable. I think therefore that they are not able to enforce the debt and therefore they and the Debt Collectors they have appointed are in breach of the Data Protection Act because they do not have a signed agreement, is that right? Where do I go from here?

 

Well, what I did was write to them to tell them that their agreement was unenforceable, several times, and asked them to zero the debt (or suggest something else), then when they defaulted me I sent my LBA. Then after several more pay up or else letters from them, I issued my claim.

 

Simples!!

 

Which is where I am today .. waiting for their response :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Basa48, do you have a link to your thread so that I can take a look. I have a letter prepared to send to their debt collectors, Triton, saying that the account is in dispute, which I shall send Special Delivery. They have already defaulted me several times I think, because I stopped paying back in January this year. Roko20650

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Basa48, do you have a link to your thread so that I can take a look. I have a letter prepared to send to their debt collectors, Triton, saying that the account is in dispute, which I shall send Special Delivery. They have already defaulted me several times I think, because I stopped paying back in January this year. Roko20650

 

Erm .. I don't actually have a thread, didn't think it needed one tbh. 8-)

 

What is your 'agreement' like ?

 

Triton are RBS/Tesco's in house collections dept. I wouldn't waste money posting SD, I usually just go 1st class (unless it really MUST get there).

 

They can only default you once (I think) this is usually prior to (and necessary to allow) termination.

 

Depending on your confidence in the unenforceablity of your agreement you have a choice of attack or defend. I chose to attack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...