Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi everyone, Thanks for the responses. Just a few follow up questions in light of what's been said:   If I dont appeal to PPM, who can I appeal to?   Why should the PCN been attached to the windscreen? Is this written in law?   I assumed the document I had received was the NTK, if this is not the case, what does a NTK look like?   Regarding the compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act, could the "period" of parking not be argued either way? The legislation doesnt state it must have a start/end time of parking, which I assumed an ANPR camera would pick up if it had one. Is 4 minutes not technically enough to show the vehicle was parked?    Thanks !
    • I see jenrick has stuck his head up with them, and I'm sure this wont faze their nasty rhetoric one wit-less UK growth since 2010 has been lacklustre and largely driven by immigration, says report UK growth since 2010 has been lacklustre and largely driven by immigration, says report | Economic growth (GDP) | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Resolution Foundation report suggests parties are dodging the economic challenges facing the country   Net migration is more than two and a half times the 2010 figure despite a string of Tory pledges to reduce it Immigration: how 14 years of Tory rule have changed Britain – in charts | General election 2024 | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Net migration is more than two and a half times the 2010 figure despite a string of Tory pledges to reduce it    
    • Will get them done asap My job changes week to week so at the time I didn’t know. 
    • You will probably get a couple more reminders followed by further demands fro unregulated debt collectors with even increasing amounts to pay. They are all designed to scare you into paying.  Don't. It's a scam site and they do not know who was driving and they know the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. Also the shop was closed so they have no legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear. So to charge £100 is a penalty as there is no legitimate interest which means that the case would be thrown out if it went to Court.  Keep your money in your wallet and be prepared to ignore all their letters and threats. Doubtful they would go to Court since a lot more people would not pay when they heard  MET lost in Court. However they may just send you a Letter of Claim to test your resolve.  If yoy get one of those, come back to us and we will advise a snotty letter to send them.  You probably already have, but take a look through some of our past Met PCNs to see how they are doing.
    • Hello, been a while since I posted on here, really hoping for the same support an advice I received last time :-) Long, long story for us, but basically through bad choices, bad luck and bad advice ended up in an IVA in 2016. The accounts involved all defaulted, to be expected. In 2018, I got contacted by an 'independent advisor' advising me that I shouldn't be in an IVA, that it wasn't the solution for our circumstances and that they would guide us through the process of leaving the IVA and finding a better solution. I feel very stupid for taking this persons advice, and feel they prey on vulnerable people for their own financial gain (it ended with us paying our IVA monthly contribution to them)-long and short of it our IVA failed in 2018. At the same time the IVA failed we also had our shared ownership property voluntarily repossessed (to say this was an incredibly stressful time would be an understatement!) When we moved to our new (rented) property in August 2018, I was aware that creditors would start contacting us from the IVA failure. I got advice from another help website and started sending off SARs and CCAs request letters. I was advised not to bury my head and update our address etc and tackle each company as they came along. Initially there was quite a lot of correspondence, and I still get a daily missed call from PRA group (and the occasional letter from them), but not much else. However, yesterday i had a letter through from Lowell (and one from Capital One) advising that they had bought my debt and would like to speak with me regarding the account. There will be several.of these through our door i suspect, as we did have several accounts with Capital One. Capital One have written to us with regular statements over the last 5 years, and my last communication with them was to advise of of our new address (June 2019), I also note that all of these accounts received a small payment in Jan2019 (i'm assuming the funds from the failed IVA pot). Really sorry for the long long post, but just thought id give (some of) the background for context.... I guess my question at the moment is.....how do I respond to Lowell...do I wait for the inevitable other letters to arrive then deal with them all together or individually...? Do I send them a CCA?  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

Lloyds TSB ccj


lafey
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5304 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

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

well there is only one page of the t and cs .. and at top of application form you can see where it says pages 1 of 3 ... they have not sent pages 2 or 3 of 3 !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats what i was thinking ... it does mention terms and conditions on the following two pages ... they have sent me t and cs they say were in force at time but there is no way they can say they were related to this document in any way

 

Can you post the t & c that they say were in force at the time?

 

It clearly says there are three pages - the other two pages would potentially be part of the document that you signed - if they contained the t & c you'd have problems

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

multi i think...

 

I'd personally allocate it to the fast track - the costs can be greater in the multi track

 

The hearing is not likely to last more than a day and its' not a high value claim - so the Fast track is appropriate

 

Just make sure that you DO NOT allocate to the Small claims track - as you need Disclosure

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

here is the copy of t and cs they sent as being in force at the time .... there is only one page so i dont see how it could be the ones attached to the application form ... it doesnt say 2 of 3 or anything and if it was the original where is page 3 of 3 ????

 

llyods t and cs picture by lafey69 - Photobucket

Link to post
Share on other sites

here is the copy of t and cs they sent as being in force at the time .... there is only one page so i dont see how it could be the ones attached to the application form ... it doesnt say 2 of 3 or anything and if it was the original where is page 3 of 3 ????

 

llyods t and cs picture by lafey69 - Photobucket

 

I think that what they've posted are the current terms and conditions - the reason I say that is that if you look at the term on account charges - it sounds very modern - very post April 2006 OFT investigation.

 

We need to draft an amended defence - unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment - I've got to finish two assignments for my uni course and I'm not gonna have time until the 26th of May.

 

Can I suggest that you allocate to the fast track - and that if I haven't done an amended defence by the 26th that you pm me unless somebody else can do it first

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

i not sure it can be post 2006 because it says tsb not lloyds tsb ... but there is no way they can be the ones mentioned in the application form as there are not enough pages !!! ill try and get the AQ done that doesnt have to be in till 27th may so will give us time hopefully ... i dont have to put defence in with AQ do i ?? your need to give your assignments your full attention so i will file AQ as best i can ( with maybe some help from others !!! ) and then can work on defence after .. thanks for your help ... you and babybear helping to make sense of this !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i not sure it can be post 2006 because it says tsb not lloyds tsb ... but there is no way they can be the ones mentioned in the application form as there are not enough pages !!! ill try and get the AQ done that doesnt have to be in till 27th may so will give us time hopefully ... i dont have to put defence in with AQ do i ?? your need to give your assignments your full attention so i will file AQ as best i can ( with maybe some help from others !!! ) and then can work on defence after .. thanks for your help ... you and babybear helping to make sense of this !!!

 

The important thing on the AQ is to allocate to the fast track - if you have a look at the form and if you've got any queries just ask

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok ... just have 3 sections of the AQ that i am not sure what best to put .

 

A) settlement .... should i say i am willing to mediate or not ... will it look bad if i dont ???

 

c) pre action protocol ... does this apply in this case

 

f) directions ... have received all the documents i think i am likely to .... should i ask for any directions ????

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can mediate - it won't do any harm to agree

 

pre-action protocol - N/A

 

I'd ask for the standard directions on disclosure and inspection - just put standard fast track directions are sought

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd personally allocate it to the fast track - the costs can be greater in the multi track

 

The hearing is not likely to last more than a day and its' not a high value claim - so the Fast track is appropriate

 

Just make sure that you DO NOT allocate to the Small claims track - as you need Disclosure

Hmm, as a LIP, i think the judge would most likely be minded to give disclosure in any event so,id see if the other side will consent to SCT allocation

 

that way you are protected on costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...