Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.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 
      • 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

Phoenix Recoveries, this time via Mackenzie Hall


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5568 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, I posted almost a year ago with regards to Bryan Carter lodging a county court claim against me with regards to a Littlewoods debt I had for which Phoenix Recoveries were chasing me. To cut a long story short, Carter gave up, after intervention from this site. :DReceived a court claim from Bryan Carter Solicitors **WON THEY GAVE UP** - The Consumer Forums

 

Since Carter gave up I've heard nothing more of this debt, until today that is, when I received a letter from Mackenzie Hall offering me the chance to clear the debt within 7 days at a reduced rate of £430 or so (£660 owed). Now I'm not in a position to pay £430 within 7 days, but the letter does state that they will accept £25 a month until the whole debt is cleared.

 

Can someone advise me on how to deal with these people please?? Many thanks!!

Edited by DoubleVee

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the Scottish merkins this;

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Your Reference:

Client reference:

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

I must admit that I am rather bemused as to why this account has been passed to you, as it is in dispute with Phoenix Recoveries and has been since ***Date***

Not only is this a breach of OFT collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

 

As Phoenix Recoveries is now in default of my Consumer Credit Act request, Office of Fair Trading Collection Guidelines and s10 Data Protection Act request, I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default, enforcement action is NOT permitted; under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law. Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to Phoenix Recoveries for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as you cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If you choose to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no need to write letters that cover already trodden ground,

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Please note that the debt which you are claiming to be entitled to has been before the court under claim number XXXXXXXXX in the XXXXXX County Court ,the lender failed to support their claim with any documents to prove i was indebted to their client and the outcome was favourable to me and therefore there is little more to say to you other than the matter has been dealt with, i consider the matter closed and would believe that the doctrine of Res Judicata applies here

 

I trust that this will be the last correspondence that i will recieve on the matter, however if you persist in attempting to contact me and your conduct becomes what i consider harrassing i will instruct solicitors to make an application to the court for an injunction under s3 Protection from Harrassment Act 1997. in addition i would report your conduct to the OFT as i consider that this would breach your consumer credit licence conditions.

 

I look forward to your clarification that the matter is closed, please note that no otehr correspondance will be entertained in this matter

 

 

regards

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I still send that letter even though Carter pulled out of going to court before the case was up pt??? :confused: And is there anything that can be done about the default phoenix registered against me three years ago in relation to this debt?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I still send that letter even though Carter pulled out of going to court before the case was up pt??? :confused: And is there anything that can be done about the default phoenix registered against me three years ago in relation to this debt?

yes, and yes

 

yes you can use it as the letter is a factual account of what happened isnt it?;)

 

and the default, well, if they are unable to prove the debt exsists or that they have any interest in the matter, then they need to remove it,

 

 

who was the debt with originally when carters took you to court? was it phoenix?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, and yes

 

yes you can use it as the letter is a factual account of what happened isnt it?;)

 

and the default, well, if they are unable to prove the debt exsists or that they have any interest in the matter, then they need to remove it,

 

 

who was the debt with originally when carters took you to court? was it phoenix?

 

The debt was originally a Littlewoods account. But Carter took me to court on behalf of Phoenix, and it's Phoenix who registered the default against me.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt was originally a Littlewoods account. But Carter took me to court on behalf of Phoenix, and it's Phoenix who registered the default against me.
they are real mcmuffins

 

if they cant support their contentions with proof then they should not be adding adverse data to your credit file

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are real mcmuffins

 

if they cant support their contentions with proof then they should not be adding adverse data to your credit file

 

What's the chances of getting the default removed though? Slim I'd imagine? I'll pop that letter off to Mackenzie Hall in the morning anyway! Cheers!! :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...