Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have never heard of any such law. Please post a link to what you have read online that explains this law. And please confirm whether you were ever married to or in a formal Civil Partnership with your Ex.
    • Today has been hectic so  have been unable to complete the whole thing. If you now understand it and want to go ahead with a complaint to the IPC, fine. If not then I won't need to finish it. But below is my response to your request  on post 64. No you don't seem stupid, the Protection of Freedoms Act isn't easy to get one 's head around at first. The part of the above Act referring to private parking is contained within Schedule 4 which you can find online under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Section 9 of SCH.4 relates to how the parking scrotes have to perform so that they can transfer their right to pursue the keeper from the driver when the PCN is still unpaid after a certain amount of time. In your case the PCN was posted to you the keeper and arrived within 14 days from when they claimed a breach occurred. That means they complied with first part of the Act. The driver at that time was still responsible to pay the charge demanded on the PCN and PCM now have to wait for 28 days to elapse before they can write and advise the keeper that as the charge has not been paid, that they now have the right to pursue the keeper. They claim they sent the first PCN on the 13th March, five days after the alleged breach and it arrived on Friday 15th March. So to comply with the Act they have to observe Section 8 subsection 2f   (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So the first PCN was deemed to arrive on the 15th March and for 28 days to have elapsed is when the time is right for them to write and say you are now liable as keeper. So they sent the next PCN on the 12th April which is too early as you could still have paid until midnight of the 12th. So the earliest their second PCN should have gone to you was  Saturday 13th April so more likely on Monday 15th April. The IPC Code of Conduct states "Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses." So by issuing your demand a day early, they have broken the Act, the IPC Code of Conduct, the DVLA agreement  to abide by the law and the Code of Conduct not to mention a possible breach of your GDPR .   I asked the IPC  in the letter on an earlier to confirm that  CPMs Notice misrepresenting the law was a standard practice for all of PCMs Notices or just certain ones. Their distribution  may depend on when they were issued and whether they were issued in certain localities or for certain breaches. Whichever method used is a serious breach of the Law and could lead to PCM being black listed by the DVLA . One would expect that after that even if the IPC did not cancel your ticket, PCM could not risk going to Court with you nor even pursuing you any further.
    • thanks jk2054 - do you know any law i can quote (regarding timeframe) when sending the email as if i cant they'll probably just say no like the normal staff have done? thanks.
    • I lived there with her up until I gave notice. She took over the tenancy in her name. I had a letter from the council and a refund of the council tax for 1 month.    She took on the bills and tenancy and only paid the rent. No utility bills or council tax were paid once she took it over. She will continue to not pay bills in her new house which I'm now having to pay or will have to. I have looked online I believe the police and solicitors are going by the partner law to make me liable.   I have always paid my bills and ensured her half was paid then see how much free money is over.   She spends all her money on payday loans and rubbish then panics about the rent. I usually end up paying it or having to get her a loan.   Stupidly in my name but at the time it was because she was my partner. I even paid to move her and clean and decorate her old house so she got the deposit back. It cost me £3000 due to the mess she always leaves behind.
  • 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

Egg Credit Card.. No Variable Rate/'Credit Limit' term


andydd
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5535 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 Folks.

 

I’ve been following some of the Egg Credit Agreement posts with interest, I took out a card in 2002 and I have just received back my Credit Agreement it seems the same as many others on here..(i.e. is signed, dated BUT uses the terms Limit and Approved Limit instead of Credit Limit, after reading many other posts it may seem that this is the point to argue that it is unenforceable. I notice that the T & C that ‘come with’ the credit agreement define ‘Approved Limit’ as ‘means the limit we set from time to time on the amount you can borrow from us on the Account’………has anyone any thoughts on this ?

 

I also notice that both the Agreement and the T & C’s list the interest and APR’s but nowhere is there any mention of the term ‘variable’, the T & C’s don’t mention (as far as I can see) that Egg may increase these rates, this would imply to me that the interest charged should stay the same as the original agreement, there is no scope for an an increase, again, has anyone any thoughts on this ?

 

Below is the letter I have prepared to send…

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for you letter dated XXXXXX, unfortunately the Credit Agreement you have provided does not comply with s61(1) of the CCA 1974 and the associated regulations and is therefore only enforceable by an order of the court by virtue of s65. However, since it does not have a term concerning the Credit Limit as required by Schedule 6 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, the court would be prevented from granting such an order by virtue of s127(3).

I also note that the agreement quotes APR’s of 12.6% (for Purchases), 13.9% (for Transfer Balances) and 16.3% (for Cash Advances), however there is no mention within the Credit Agreement I received that these rates are variable and liable to change. The APR on my account has been increased numerous times and is currently 26.9%.

This account is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

 

Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interest on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency.

 

 

I am tempted though to remove the parts about the Credit Limit term and being in dispute and just ask Egg about the interest rate (the main problem with this account is the way the interest has been jacked up time and time again), if Egg don’t play ball then I may then mention the Credit Limit term and that the account is in dispute.

 

Any thoughts on this anyone ?

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive attached my Credit Agreement, also I have found in the T & C's (Clause 12. Changes) the part that would enable Egg to change the interest rate, although I guess it's still arguable that it is not mentioned in the Credit Agreement and are the T & C's actually properally 'attached' to the CA ?

 

Andy

Egg CCA 1.pdf

Egg CCA 2.pdf

Egg T&C.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks..Although that deals a lot with PPI which I didnt take out ..I've seen mentioned in other posts reference to a '4 corners' rule...does anyone have an explantion of this ?

 

Thanks

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

A valid credit agreement must contain certain terms within the signature document (s.60(1)(2) CCA 1974). These core terms are the credit limit, repayment terms and the rate of interest (SI 1983/1553 (6 Signing of agreement) which states that the prescribed terms must be within the signature document. (Column 2 schedule 6). s.61(1)(a) states the agreement must contain all the prescribed terms and be signed by both the debtor and on behalf of the creditor.

 

Further, s.127(3) CCA 1974 makes the account unenforceable if it is not in the proper form and content or improperly executed.

 

In Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd (2007) it was stated “In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties … and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s.61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...