Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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

Fiddlesticks, I didn't know that.....did you?.loan


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5361 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 appreciate what you're getting at. The POC didn't say "arrears" but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

just out of interest did they disclose the default notice in their disclosure list, if they did then surely they are contradicting themselves by one minute saying that its eveidence then the next saying we dont need it now, also what lessons can people learn from this, there must be a way of defending this if the claimant does adopt this method in court

Link to post
Share on other sites

but the Judge said it didn't matter because if the claimant issued another claim, judgment would be awarded anyway.

 

 

Incidentally though, they did seem a bit "chummy" (school/firm)?

 

In your 1st post bill

Slowly but surely getting plastered.xx.

 

Good luck bill maybe chat with you another time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I understand the statute you refer too, please understand that the statute does not apply to "arrears" it only applies to sums payable in the future.

There is no protection in section 87 CCA because it refers to "earlier payment". Therefore, the claimant does not need to send a default notice in the case of "arrears".

If your loan has ended, the claimant cannot send a TN either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you successfully argue that the DN is ineffective, the Termination notice is/was ruled ineffective as well. That didn't make any difference because the creditor does not need to issue a DN for the recovery of arrears if your loan has ended.

By coincidence, my loans' "end date" was a few weeks ago, therefore, the total amount of "arrears" totalled the same as the "amount outstanding"

The claimant knew that I had successfully argued that the DN they were relying upon was ineffective (and a fake). Nevertheless, the claimant changed their claim (in court) to recover the arrears, and not the amount in dispute, claimed on the claim form.

This is all pretty new to me too (this pm).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are receiving "statements" every six months. your creditor could claim against you, and any DN or TN you have already received will not be admissable in court because your creditor is claiming "arrears" and not attempting to claim "earlier payments" from the future.

 

You must fail to remedy the breach to get a DN.

A DN is required before your creditor can send you a TN.

If these docs are effective your creditor can then take the next step (enforcement). To recover earlier payments due in the future.

However, to recover sums due from the past (and your creditor has an enforceable agreement) your creditor needs to send you the statement twice a year, and that is all.

By my experience today, the court had been expecting it.

 

This is a new one on me too.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Popeye1, yes they unlawfully terminated the loan (IMHO).

There is 2 DNs.

1st one (relied upon) and an ineffective reconstruction.

2nd one is the true original, that I got in the post. They differ substatially.

The Judge didn't acknowledge my DN, said it is now irrevelant because the claimant is claiming for the arrears.

 

Quote

They terminated before the end of the life of the loan,I think you said so the account never run its full term.

 

The Judge said the account was not terminated, because the DN (relied upon) was ineffective. He didn't look at my DN, perhaps he didn't want to admit the claimant had been economical with the truth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

HHe said DN was irrevelant ? But it was enough not to change the status of the account [ termination of the account ]

 

The claimants DN was ineffective. Therefore, the account was in effect, not terminated.

The account has how run its full term, and all sums due under the agreement are now "arrears".

A claimant does not need a DN or TN to claim for arrears.

A claimant needs a DN and TN to claim for sums payable in the future.

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you're wrong bill

 

A claimant DOES need a DN in order to claim the arrears, it's the arrears that generate a DN

 

Hi VG, yes thats what I thought. However, once your loan agreement has run its course and all sums due are arrears, the claimant can claim for the arrears "bypassing" the need for a DN.

A (valid) DN is normally a warning shot, asking you to make up (remedy) the arrears due, whilst the account is running.

When the account is no longer running, the claimant does not need to comply with section 87, because there is no remedy.

At least that is my conclusion from todays events.

 

Regards Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put that wrong.

The DN was irrevelant but it changed the account which originaly was terminated to not being terminated

 

He said that both DNs and the TN are now irrelevant because the loan term has ended, and all sums due are arrears and not due in the future.

 

Regards Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there were arrears on what authority were they collecting them if the agreement had ended

 

Also the change in the CCA is NOT retospective

 

& last but not least the Judge under CPR1 should not have permitted them to ambush you. I suggest this alone is strong grounds to appeal the Judgment, that you didn't have an opportunity to consider YOUR alternatives

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...