Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've got some suggestions re Bizspace but can you fill in the sticky please.
    • 1 Date of the infringement 14th April 2024 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 17th April 2024 [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s 3 Date received 20th April 2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] N 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? ANPR photos of vehicle in and out (although as they were taken at night they don’t show much). 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  N 7 Who is the parking company? MET Parking 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Independent Appeals Service POPLA  - BPA Logo is on NTK If you have received any other correspondence, please mention it here. N/A Hi, As keeper, I have received a PNC from MET Parking over the vehicle being parked in the infamous Stansted Starbucks/Mcdonald’s car park(s). The vehicle was parked outside Starbucks (at night, when it was closed) and the driver went into Mcdonalds. However, the driver wishes to appeal due to the poor and misleading unlit signage, and believes that this PNC is unfair. I am sure you are aware of this company/car park, and I would appreciate any advice on this matter. Kind regards PNC 14.04.2024.pdf
    • The PCN is one of the more compliant that I have seen. however it still fails. There is no period of parking mentioned as required by paragraph 9[2][a] . ANPR cameras only capture the arrival an departure times. It does not record the times you drove from the entrance to the parking place and then from the parking spot to the exit. That means that if you are the keeper then you are not liable to pay the PCN. Only the driver is so do not appeal as you may reveal who was actually driving.if you were not the keeper then as long as the driver is not identified CE will have difficulty on that fact alone. The majority of people with valid motor insurance are allowed to drive your car  and Courts do not accept tha that the driver and the keeper are the same person. On top of that your car was trespassing there since you didn't have a Permit and only the land owner can pursue you not the monkey they employ. The signage is prohibitory in that only permit holders can park there so no contract can be formed. The signage is new apparently so there must be some time allowance for motorists to adjust to the new signs which could mean that  they shouldn't even be issuing you with a PCN. For all those reasons I wouldn't be too much in a hurry to pay them a penny. And well done on posting up the PCN and that sign so quickly. 
    • Dear CAG Team   Given the above, and not knowing what the actual account name is, I will haver to stick with that same name but the Bailiff said that once the variation is done there wont be an issue getting the money off him. What i cannot get my head around is when i set up a new payee, if the name doesn't match the account name my bank wont allow the transfer. So how is it that it authorised and allowed the transfer? Also, given the dealer broike trading standard rules and tried to sell me a death trap, then keep my deposit, why is his bank and mine protecting him by not disclosing his account name or at least making a charge back as i first attempted?   Many thanks
  • 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

Is Personal Guarantee now invalid?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4814 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

I started an estate agency and mortgage broker business as a Ltd Co with a friend in early 2004. He had another business, and was to become the estate agent, whilst I was the mortgage broker within the business. He did not give sufficient time to our business and I was becoming the estate agent, which was not the original plan. During all of 2004, I worked 6 days a week and was paid just £6500 from this business, which obviously was not enough to make a living.

 

The business arranged a business loan of £35,000 from his bank, with whom I’d never had any relationship with before. The bank required that we both give a Personal Guarantee (PG) and obtain legal advice, which we did, using his nominated solicitor, which I’d never dealt with before. The terms of the business loan were that repayments were £800 over 5 years. As the business did not generate enough income to support me, I gave him notice that I would leave at the end of December 2004, which I did. In February 2005, I resigned my Directorship and transferred my 50% shareholding back to him, as the sole remaining Director.

 

I wrote to the bank and property landlord to tell them that I had resigned my position, and had nothing further to do with the business. I asked the bank to release me from the PG as I had now left the company. The bank wrote back to me stating that they would not release me from the PG unless I had an agreement with the co-director to take over the whole PG in agreement. I believe this was an indication of the relationship the remaining Director had with his bank, of which he had been a customer for over 20 years, and managed to convince the bank manager not to release me from the bank loan, as he wanted an investment of £15,000 he expected me to make at the commencement of our business.

 

I was unable to make the £15,000 investment due to not being able to sell my marital home during my divorce, which started in June 2003 and ended in August 2005, when the marital home eventually sold. Basically, until the marital home sold, I just did not have the funds, and it sold 9 months after I left the business, and therefore was not inclined to ‘invest’ in a business I had already left. There was never any Partnership Agreement in place during our time together within this business.

 

Having now left the business, I spoke to the bank manager and asked him to inform me if anything changed within the running of the business loan that would be detrimental to me, to which he verbally agreed. The bank manager wrote to me within a week me stating that they would not release me from the PG unless I had an agreement with the co-director to take over the whole PG in agreement. I never received any form of further communication from the bank, such as bank statements, or other letters again regarding this aspect of my request.

 

Soon after leaving, it later became apparent (3 years later) that the remaining Director requested a change of terms to the repayment schedule of the business loan. It was reduced from £800 to £200 a month, and 27 months of repayments were made at this level. I was not informed of these changes to the terms, by either the Director nor the Bank. The reduction in these payments were obviously a material change to the original terms I had agreed to. I was not made aware of any of these material changes in any shape or form from the bank.

In August 2007, some two and a half years later, I received a letter from the Bank requesting a meeting to discuss the situation of the business loan account. I attended this meeting with my brother, who happens to be an ex-bank manager of a commercial lending bank, and is extremely experienced in banking matters, far greater than myself.

 

At this meeting, the bank manager (who was new to the role, and not the original bank manager who set up the facility to the Ltd Co.) informed us that the balance, after 3 years of having the account in place (remember, it was a 5 year term, at £800 a month) now stood at £34,000. To say I was amazed is an understatement. After this period of time, I expected the balance to be around £10,000, as it was three fifths of the way through the term. Also bearing in mind that at no time during the previous 3 years had the bank informed me of anything to suggest that the account was not being run satisfactorily, and that I had never received any statements or letters to inform me that my exposure to the business loan was at the same level as it was 3 years earlier. As my involvement in the Ltd Co had ceased 3 years earlier, and I was never informed of any detrimental changes at this late stage, to my understanding, I believe this means that the bank have broken their own Code of Banking regulation terms. I’m not sure if the ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 4(1)’ applies to my case either, as the bank is chasing me as an individual, and not a business/ Company Director. Clarification would be appreciated.

 

The new bank manager did state that they had agreed to a repayment arrangement from the remaining Director, and that they were seeking for me to repay “the other 50%”. We argued the toss about the way the account had been conducted and at that stage the 50% level should be £10,000, not £34,080. We also strongly mentioned that the bank had not conducted itself properly as they had not kept me informed to the account conduct, which clearly now compromises my position and potential debt liability to the bank. We left it that the bank would write to me and outline it’s demands and summarize our meeting.

 

At this point, believing I needed professional assistance, I appointed IBAS, the Independent Banking Advisory Service, to take on my case, which they did. The first thing that IBAS did was write to the bank outlining my current position, which was very different financially to what it was in early 2004. The Bank replied regarding our meeting and summarized stating that I had agreed to repay £34,080 in full, and not the 50% that was mentioned at the meeting in early September. Basically, the bank manager lied to save his own face. Soon afterwards, the local branch manager passed the whole case over to its debt recovery section. For the next 15 months, IBAS have been in correspondence with the bank, who have stalled at each stage to supply replies to queries, and generally crawled along at a snails pace. It is now at the stage that the bank have appointed solicitors to take over the case, and although IBAS have re-iterated my case to the solicitors, and referred them to previous correspondence that should now be in their possession, they are about to start legal action against me to recover the whole of the PG, now amounting to just under £40,000 including accrued interest. Again, remember that the new bank manager said in September 2007 that he had come to an arrangement with the other Director to repay his half of the outstanding amount, and that they were looking for an offer from me for the other half remaining. The solicitors have stated that they are looking for the whole 100% from me, leaving me to wonder what happened to the 50% repayment that was meant to be forthcoming from the other Director.

 

I am slightly disappointed with IBAS as they have handled the case sufficiently well for over 15 months, and now that a Court case is possibly looming, they don’t actually come into Court with me. They have stated that they will liaise with any solicitor I employ, but solicitors cost more than I can afford.

 

As my ex-Co-Director was a client of mine (as I was his mortgage broker) before I joined him in the business venture, I know for a fact that he had £200,000 of equity in his property, and that the property was sold in September 2007, and he did not buy another property until 3 months later. I obtained this information from the Land Registry website, and obtained his new address when it appeared on a letter from the Official Receiver in a letter they wrote to me in September 2008 stating, for information purposes only, that the Ltd Co is now in liquidation. It is therefore clear that he had the means to repay the loan, used on a business that he ran for 4 years with the bank’s support, and negotiated different terms that clearly compromised my situation – once they came to light 3 years later.

 

As I mentioned, I am a mortgage broker, and as everyone knows, the mortgage business is in turmoil, and I have been affected by this market situation massively. My net profits for last year were £16,000, and this year will be £8,000! Additionally, my wife was made redundant from her senior position 2 months ago, and is now on Job-Seekers allowance. My understanding is that this should qualify me for Legal Aid, but speaking to a solicitor yesterday, he said that the Legal Aid process is 2 pronged, means testing and case merit testing.. He confirmed that on means-testing alone, I would qualify, but on case-merit testing, it has to go before the Legal Aid Board in Jarrow and that process takes 4-6 weeks, and that process cannot commence until legal papers have been served on me. Those legal papers will probably state that I have to attend Court in 14-21 days, which is insufficient time for the Legal Aid Board to assess my application for Legal Aid, which is a stupid situation. Can anyone offer any different light on this point?

 

As I cannot afford to appoint a solicitor, and Legal Aid may not be forthcoming (due to the case-merit point above), can anyone suggest a similar case reference that could be mentioned in my defence when this goes to Court? I am fully prepared to go to Court and defend myself if it comes to that point.

 

Main questions arising:

 

1)

Does the ‘Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 4(1)’ applies to my case ?

 

2) Has the Bank made it’s own Personal Guarantee invalid by not informing me of the material changes on the business loan? What is the name of the law it has broken?

 

3) Are there any court cases identical or similar to this case? What is the case name and reference?

 

 

Many thanks for any replies.

 

 

DeeJayTee

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I would like to update my situation regarding the question I posted to this website just over a year ago.

 

I am doing so as I want to give hope to others that may be going through what Barclays Bank put me through for over 4 years (2005-2009). I didn't previously name Barclays as the bank I was fighting against, but now I have no fear of them.

 

I previously stated what was at risk to me and that was a great deal – my home and my career ( I am in financial services and any judgement against me would have ended my 30 year career within the financial services industry). The bank would have taken it all, despite them knowing they had a flawed claim.

 

I joined IBAS (Independent Banking Advisory Service) as soon as Barclays sent me their opening gambit letter. Although it cost about £600 for an annual membership which I could really ill-afford at the time, it proved to be money well spend. This was the only fee I had to pay throught my fight against Barclays. The fact that IBAS have the knowledge and provide assistance in formulating the strategy, which was provided to me under membership and which provided the necessary case law ammunition and support (letters continually making the correct points) to prevent the bank gaining the upper hand (preventing me making offers which I wanted to make, just to get this case against me closed, and which would have destroyed any defence) - that strength of position then also enabled me to 'face off' the bank's threat (although the bank/solicitors knew their claim was flawed) and this strength of resistance then forced them to discontinue their action - this is all a matter of fact and something which IBAS should be very pleased about.

 

I understand that so many cases are lost before they start because under threats from the bank the customer provides an offer of payment - without understanding there may be a defence to the bank's claim. Having been induced to make that offer, the bank then goes for the jugular. Apparently I am one of a very small band of successful litigants, which I wouldn’t have been without IBAS behind me.

 

I was amazed when Barclays Bank's solicitor telephoned me just a few days before we were due to go into Court to say that, if I agreed to pay my own costs, then they would be prepared to drop all claims against me forthwith, completely, and without further action against me. As my only costs had been the annual IBAS fee, I had nothing else to pay!

 

I know that IBAS provided me with the necessary tools to defend against Barclays successfully.

 

Lastly, please do not ever be put off by banker’s threats. They feel because they are the ‘big boys’ that they can walk all over the ‘small boys’, even when their case is shrouded with frankly unjustifiable threats of actions that they have absolutely no right to be making. Make a stand, join IBAS (who will save you a fortune in legal fees – I was quoted between £20,000 to £25,000 in legal fees if I won or lost!) who cost me around £1,200 (I had to renew my membership as Barclays Bank were incredibly slow in replying to simple factual letters), and do not be bullied into submission when you know you are in the right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
I would like to update my situation regarding the question I posted to this website just over a year ago.

 

I am doing so as I want to give hope to others that may be going through what Barclays Bank put me through for over 4 years (2005-2009). I didn't previously name Barclays as the bank I was fighting against, but now I have no fear of them.

 

I previously stated what was at risk to me and that was a great deal – my home and my career ( I am in financial services and any judgement against me would have ended my 30 year career within the financial services industry). The bank would have taken it all, despite them knowing they had a flawed claim.

 

I joined IBAS (Independent Banking Advisory Service) as soon as Barclays sent me their opening gambit letter. Although it cost about £600 for an annual membership which I could really ill-afford at the time, it proved to be money well spend. This was the only fee I had to pay throught my fight against Barclays. The fact that IBAS have the knowledge and provide assistance in formulating the strategy, which was provided to me under membership and which provided the necessary case law ammunition and support (letters continually making the correct points) to prevent the bank gaining the upper hand (preventing me making offers which I wanted to make, just to get this case against me closed, and which would have destroyed any defence) - that strength of position then also enabled me to 'face off' the bank's threat (although the bank/solicitors knew their claim was flawed) and this strength of resistance then forced them to discontinue their action - this is all a matter of fact and something which IBAS should be very pleased about.

 

I understand that so many cases are lost before they start because under threats from the bank the customer provides an offer of payment - without understanding there may be a defence to the bank's claim. Having been induced to make that offer, the bank then goes for the jugular. Apparently I am one of a very small band of successful litigants, which I wouldn’t have been without IBAS behind me.

 

I was amazed when Barclays Bank's solicitor telephoned me just a few days before we were due to go into Court to say that, if I agreed to pay my own costs, then they would be prepared to drop all claims against me forthwith, completely, and without further action against me. As my only costs had been the annual IBAS fee, I had nothing else to pay!

 

I know that IBAS provided me with the necessary tools to defend against Barclays successfully.

 

Lastly, please do not ever be put off by banker’s threats. They feel because they are the ‘big boys’ that they can walk all over the ‘small boys’, even when their case is shrouded with frankly unjustifiable threats of actions that they have absolutely no right to be making. Make a stand, join IBAS (who will save you a fortune in legal fees – I was quoted between £20,000 to £25,000 in legal fees if I won or lost!) who cost me around £1,200 (I had to renew my membership as Barclays Bank were incredibly slow in replying to simple factual letters), and do not be bullied into submission when you know you are in the right.

 

 

instead of being an advertisement for the above company, why dont you just share FOR FREE the 'information' that you supposedly have:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh? Are you suggesting that the poster waited a year just to plug a company? Nobody has actually bothered to ask the OP for any more info, and nor was he actually offered any help by anyone, so pull yer neck in!

Edited by DonkeyB
Link to post
Share on other sites

instead of being an advertisement for the above company, why dont you just share FOR FREE the 'information' that you supposedly have:-x

The Independent Banking Advisory Service. Not a company.

 

Glad things worked out well for you DeeJayTee. Are you able to share how it was all resolved?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on you OP, Looks lke you followed the correct procedures when leaving the company

˙os op oʇ pǝʞsɐ ssǝlun ǝƃɐssǝɯ ǝʇɐʌıɹd ʎq ǝɯ ʇɔɐʇuoɔ ʇou op ǝsɐǝlԀ ˙pǝɹnɔɔo sǝssol ʎuɐ ɹo ǝɹnlıɐɟ ɟo ʇlnsǝɹ ɐ sɐ ǝlqɐıl plǝɥ ǝq ʇou llɐɥs I ˙llıʍpooƃ ɟo ǝɹnʇsǝƃ ɐ sɐ os ǝuop sı uǝʌıƃ ǝɔıʌpɐ ʎu∀

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...