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

Discussion on enforceability of agreements


toto003
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5452 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 Steven4064 and Pompeyfaith

I have a credit card with Halifax Card Services. I sent the agreement to be checked by the usual loan sharks out there and it came back that there were a number of areas on the agreement which were unenforceable. As such a firm of solicitors wants to take Halifax on under a CFE arrangement (although the document looks dubious to me and I could end up paying out a lot of money if I were to lose). Also the solicitors want me to take up an insurance policy to cover legal costs, and they say it wont cost me a penny. I have written to halifax to tell them that I think the agreement is unenforceable and asked for a copy of my original agreement. They said they would not provide me a signed copy of my agreement but supplied me with their version of the agreement. I took the card out in October 06. I noticed on the agreement they have provided - that it is not the same as the copy I have.

Is this card enforceable and what would you do next?

Hi,

 

I work for a law firm and i think that you may have slightly missed a few important points

 

A CFE (actually its CFA) is a Conditional Fee agreement, this is essentially No WIn No Fee

 

if you take this to trial then your representatives will recover the costs from the other side, if you lose you will not pay a penny.Many solicitors will work on a CFa for a variety of claims so they are rather common.

 

The Legal Expense insurance is normal too, it will protect you from costs of the other side if your case is lost. i would expect that again, if you lose there is nothing to pay and that if you win, under the rules of the court your solicitors will recover the money from the other side.

 

It is very dangerous to take your case on if you do not fully understand the law, rules of the court, proceedures etc and i would point out that if you do this yourself, you must make sure you are competent at representing yourself in court as if you took on the case yourself, you would on complexity groiunds fall into the fast track as a minimum and would be liable to the othersides costs if you lost the case

 

It may be worth looking at what youve been sent

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 379
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Steven4064 and Pompeyfaith

I have a credit card with Halifax Card Services. I sent the agreement to be checked by the usual loan sharks out there and it came back that there were a number of areas on the agreement which were unenforceable. As such a firm of solicitors wants to take Halifax on under a CFE arrangement (although the document looks dubious to me and I could end up paying out a lot of money if I were to lose). Also the solicitors want me to take up an insurance policy to cover legal costs, and they say it wont cost me a penny. I have written to halifax to tell them that I think the agreement is unenforceable and asked for a copy of my original agreement. They said they would not provide me a signed copy of my agreement but supplied me with their version of the agreement. I took the card out in October 06. I noticed on the agreement they have provided - that it is not the same as the copy I have.

Is this card enforceable and what would you do next?

 

Further to PT's comments about the insurance.

 

Such a policy is deemed as being "self insured".

ie:

You do not actually pay the premium up front, it is only paid out upon conclusion of the trial.

If you win, the premium for the policy is then recovered from the other side.

If however you lose, the policy covers you for any costs you may have to pay..... and also the policy pays it's own premium.

 

 

 

It's a pretty bizarre concept, and I cannot fathom how they make any money with such.... perhaps PT could explain ?

 

I can only presume that the insurers are very careful about which cases they accept to insure, ie: only those they think have a good chance of winning.

 

If you decide to go down the solicitors route, then when choosing ensure they have the right credentials, and are members of the relevant bodies.

 

Again PT may be able to comment on which bodies etc and how to determine this?

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, its on whats called a staged premium when the claim is first issued the costs are say £800, then as the litigation progresses it gets more and more, depending upon the risk.

 

the premium is recovered from the other side as they are liable for the costs of the winning side

 

if you lose then the policy underwrites itself so there is nothing to pay

 

thats it in a nutshell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I work for a law firm and i think that you may have slightly missed a few important points

 

A CFE (actually its CFA) is a Conditional Fee agreement, this is essentially No WIn No Fee

 

if you take this to trial then your representatives will recover the costs from the other side, if you lose you will not pay a penny.Many solicitors will work on a CFa for a variety of claims so they are rather common.

 

The Legal Expense insurance is normal too, it will protect you from costs of the other side if your case is lost. i would expect that again, if you lose there is nothing to pay and that if you win, under the rules of the court your solicitors will recover the money from the other side.

 

It is very dangerous to take your case on if you do not fully understand the law, rules of the court, proceedures etc and i would point out that if you do this yourself, you must make sure you are competent at representing yourself in court as if you took on the case yourself, you would on complexity groiunds fall into the fast track as a minimum and would be liable to the othersides costs if you lost the case

 

It may be worth looking at what youve been sent

 

Hi

How do I send you a copy of what I have been sent from the lawyers? The document is 6 circa pages in all

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, its on whats called a staged premium when the claim is first issued the costs are say £800, then as the litigation progresses it gets more and more, depending upon the risk.

 

the premium is recovered from the other side as they are liable for the costs of the winning side

 

if you lose then the policy underwrites itself so there is nothing to pay

 

thats it in a nutshell

 

Amazing! Thanks for clarifying that PT, I had no idea it worked like that.:) As long as one can find a competent solicitor, it seems like a win-win situation to me. Infinitely preferable to battling the opposing sides legal team on your own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a fixed-sum loan, the rate of interest is not a prescribed term in schedule 6 (precribed terms relating to s127) unless the agreement falls within one of the exceptions is para 9 of schedule 1, which this one does not.

 

So, cappuccino, I don't think you will get anywhere challenging this agreement - MHO

 

It is a prescribed term for credit cards though isnt it?

 

If so, if they only include the APR's for purchases, cash withdrawals and balance transfers then could it be unenforcable under s127

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Hope this is right thread on enforceability matters generally, if not apologies. My partner has a bank loan pre 2007 which included PPI and she cancelled it within the 30 days cooling off period and carried on paying the main loan. What I am not sure about is should the bank have sent her a new agreement as the original agreement is unenforceable in that prescribed terms are inaccurate as the 'total credit' of £10,300.00(is this a prescribed term) includes the cancelled PPI premium. But the agreement does have 'main loan' correctly stated at £8150.00; APR 8.5% and main loan at £99.49 x 120 months so are the precribed terms correct after all and are the banks or credit card companies under no obligation to redraw the agreement if the PPI is cancelled? Anyone come across this before?:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hya, MBNA are getting quite heavy with me now, daily threatening type letters. I am beginning to brick my decision somewhat in insisting on seeing the original and have made a cpr pre court disclose recently, I do have a thread muffintop v mbna and I have posted up what they have sent me on this thread a long while back. I feel I now need to make a decision. pay em what I owe from dec 08 or dig my heels in and insist what you see here is just a tear off slip and not an enforceable agreement due to discrepancies of font size, font style and the pieces of paper being separate rather than one doc within 4 corners etc etc.

Would you guys take one more look for me as its an appropriate thread to post it up.

 

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo137/skeggs885/mbna/mbnasign2.jpg

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo137/skeggs885/mbna/mbnasign1.jpg

muffintop

Won Nationwide £900 and £1908 Bank Charges

Lloyds personal account 1,861

Lloyds Bus Account 2k

Abbey bank acc. Stayed 2008

 

CCA requested Barclaycard Nov 08 - n1 issued - GAVE UP

CCA Mbna Nov 08- n1 issued - GAVE UP

Marks and Spencer Money Nov 08 -lost found 2b enforceable.

Tomson Holiday - WON

 

if I help you tip my little scales it gives me a thrill. MT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

With a little help from son at uni - hopefully I now have photobucket sorted!!

 

These are pics of OH's first MBNA CCA - we are still waiting for the second one - 40 days have now passed and no sign of it.

 

MBNA1 picture by landy_alert - Photobucket

 

MBNA1a picture by landy_alert - Photobucket

 

MBNA1b picture by landy_alert - Photobucket

 

Thanks very much in advance for your help (and also to Caro, for moving my posts to here!),

 

Landy

Edited by landy_alert
post moved so adapted text.........

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again,

 

this is OH's agreement for a Lloyds personal loan if anyone would like to take a look please -

 

Lloyds2 picture by landy_alert - Photobucket

 

 

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/landy_alert/lloyds2.jpg

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/landy_alert/lloyds33.jpg

 

Many thanks,

 

Landy

 

P.S. Thanks again for moving post, Caro x

Edited by landy_alert
Post moved so text adapted.....

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou Steven, I can see inconsistencies in the font size and font style in the two pieces of paper, and think this is a microfiche.. if I have reasonable suspicion to doubt it is the original is that enough to request the cpr pre court disclosure (already done) and if this comes up with nothin ask for it to go to court for them to show me the orig? I dont want to be seen as trying to waste courts time but this looks like a tear off slip and I want a copy in the format we usually expect ie a full document with everything within the whole doc, if they have this I cant understand why they would send a tear off slip type doc.... If I want to take it to court b4 them how do I do this.... by issuing an N1? at local cc?

muffintop

Won Nationwide £900 and £1908 Bank Charges

Lloyds personal account 1,861

Lloyds Bus Account 2k

Abbey bank acc. Stayed 2008

 

CCA requested Barclaycard Nov 08 - n1 issued - GAVE UP

CCA Mbna Nov 08- n1 issued - GAVE UP

Marks and Spencer Money Nov 08 -lost found 2b enforceable.

Tomson Holiday - WON

 

if I help you tip my little scales it gives me a thrill. MT

Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL this is where im not sure and for me is the whole crux of what im doing... im not happy to just sit back 6 years i want it done one way or the other... i thought i would be taking them to court on the enforceability of a full executed agreement? and non compliance with my cca as i do not believe what they have sent me is a true copy

 

am I missing something here, do people not push it forward to court or do they wait to be taken to court???

muffintop

Won Nationwide £900 and £1908 Bank Charges

Lloyds personal account 1,861

Lloyds Bus Account 2k

Abbey bank acc. Stayed 2008

 

CCA requested Barclaycard Nov 08 - n1 issued - GAVE UP

CCA Mbna Nov 08- n1 issued - GAVE UP

Marks and Spencer Money Nov 08 -lost found 2b enforceable.

Tomson Holiday - WON

 

if I help you tip my little scales it gives me a thrill. MT

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just moved landy alert's posts but because she's been waiting awhile they're in posts 265 and 266 above if someone would kindly take a look.

 

Thanks

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

With a little help from son at uni - hopefully I now have it sussed!!

 

MBNA1 picture by landy_alert - Photobucket

 

MBNA1a picture by landy_alert - Photobucket

 

MBNA1b picture by landy_alert - Photobucket

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Landy

 

The t&cs do not seem to match the other document at all. Another MBNA cut and paste:-x

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL this is where im not sure and for me is the whole crux of what im doing... im not happy to just sit back 6 years i want it done one way or the other... i thought i would be taking them to court on the enforceability of a full executed agreement? and non compliance with my cca as i do not believe what they have sent me is a true copy

 

am I missing something here, do people not push it forward to court or do they wait to be taken to court???

 

Problem is muffintop the onus is on you to prove it if you take them to court rather than the other way around if they take you, increases the risk in my opinion. Thats not to say its wrong, it comes down to how confident are you that your agreement is invalid and can you explain that sufficiently in law to the judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your opinion, UD and thanks also to Caro for moving my posts to here! :)

 

I would be most grateful for any advice on their enforceability.

 

Regards,

 

Landy x

LTSB PPI on various loans (current/settled) - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 1 Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

MBNA 1 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Charges - Refunded inc 8%

 

MBNA 2 PPI - Refunded

 

MBNA 2 Accident Ins - Refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage Charges -Partially refunded

 

Swift Advances (settled) Mortgage PPI - Refunded inc CI & 8%

 

Sainsburys (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI +8%

 

Sainsburys (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

M&S Money (closed) Card Charges - Refunded inc CI

 

M&S Money (closed) Card PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Direct Line (settled) Loan PPI - Refunded inc CI + 8%

 

Debenhams Card (closed) PPI - Refunded inc 8%

 

Swift Mortgage Charges -Refunded

 

Hitachi Finance (closed) Charges - Refunded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I received this from Halifax on Saturday following a SAR request I made.

 

Halifax SAR picture by f1owerss - Photobucket

 

The Visa application form is from the Leeds Building Society who originally had the account. At some point it was changed to the Halifax and a couple of years back changed from Visa to Mastercard.

 

It is pretty much illegible and I would have thought chances of the original being in existence is pretty slim - bearing in mind it is now a different bank dealing with it.

 

Top right hand side does appear to have something about payments but there is nothing about a credit limit - only that it will be determined. Further squinting shows that there could be references to "condition 10" - Heaven knows what that is.

 

It appears to be one of the A4 pieces of paper that is folded up into three and then posted. Back of it just has Leeds address and some extremely faded notes - cannot be read but does not seem to have anything about late payment charges etc. Can see heading for safeguarding pin, refunds and cardholder claims, authorised users, variation of agreement, credit cover and general.

 

Has my signature on it dated October 93 - no signature for and on behalf of the Leeds.

 

Any thoughts on agreement or how to proceed. Is the agreement enforceable? How can I go about asking for a clear legible version?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...