Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • a) Debit transfer into his personal account  b) i - yes     ii - yes   iii - initially quoted £25,000 - £30,000 for the whole job.  This escalated to nearly £44,000.  Would ask for money in stages for materials and labour. c) Runs a Ltd company with his wife d) Assets include van, own digger, dumper and cement mixer but kept in unknown location    Solicitor advised not to throw good money after bad as he could just shut down company.  
    • I've had another look at their WS and as it definitely states that they are pursuing you as the keeper in point 19 they must lose their case because their PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts.  First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail. The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companys have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   The entrance sign does not include the T&Cs so it is only an offer to treat  not  an offer of a contract. Their only appears to be one type of sign inside the car park which is unusual and a lot of the signage is in too small a print to be acceptable in Law as capable of forming a contract. The signage also includes unlawful demands for extra charges which makes the whole contract invalid.  PoFA 2012 made it quite clear that the maximum  amount claimed was the amount on the sign. This has been reinforced by the Private Parking Code of Practice which states that no extra charges can be made over the signage figure. Indeed a Government Minister is quoted as saying that the extra charges demanded by parking companies are "a rip off" yet they still include them. They are an abuse of process and should be subject to adding exemplary costs payable to the motorist to act as a deterrent to rogue car parking companies.   They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   So it is not as if this is a secret-since it has been out since February 7th 2022 . You would have thought that as this Code was designed to root out the rogues in the industry that the parking industry would already have made adjustments to their activities in order to align themselves with the will of Parliament as proposed by Minister Neil O'Brien  who said   "The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible."   Ignorance of the Law is no excuse but even Gladstones are surely aware that the extra charges are unlawful  it beggars belief that they can aver that they have told the truth on their WS.
    • Evening all,   I am looking for a little bit of advice, any would be appreciated. I am a bit hesitant in giving all the in's and out's as I am not sure of the forums procedures and I do not want to compromise my situation.   Basically as a result of a few issues in my life inflicted/self inflicted I ended up in a bad situation financially. A company brought a debt off a lender I had used and took me to court, I really mis-managed this and although I attended court with a case the verdict went against me. I accepted this but never heard anything back from them and admittedly as I was struggling didn't pro actively seek them out to make payment. So, on my Credit report I had a CCJ due to expire Sept. 2022, which I associated to that particular incident. Anyhow, I have recently received a Notice of Application for Attachment of earnings order, however, this is regarding a completely different debt/Court procedure to the one I participated in. The creditor, to my knowledge has never contacted me and until this week I have never received any correspondence to this case from the creditor or county court.    Basically, I was just after a bit of advice, on how to go about this. I am worried that if my employer is advised of the CCJ, it makes my position uncomfortable, maybe untenable which will only be negative to my situation.    So can I still contest this and possibly get it removed via the courts, can I delay it for 3 months to get it statue barred, do I pay the whole amount (to a company whom brought it at a pittance) or do pay it off and if so, can the figure be negotiated and how long would it affect me credit score?   I apologise for the number of questions, and appreciate any advice. My concern is the application ruining a very good job for me.   Thanks in advance
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

What is the Rankin judgement?


count orlok
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4797 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

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

I've heard about this (on site), but never knew what it meant.

 

So have read through the Rankines info, and I'm now more confused and frightened then ever now.

 

I'm no legal bod, so don't really understand a lot of the legal stuff in there, but from what I think I understand .....

 

Did they get into trouble with the Judge because they brought the actions against their creditors (minus Tesco), even though these creditors were not trying to enforce the debts anyway?

 

If so, why on earth did they take them to court, was it to make the court tell the creditors they had no chance of collecting or what? This is the bit I don't understand.

 

Also, why was this is a High Court - this is whats scarring me, I have M&S debts x 2, for which they have sent application forms (that have no prescribed terms or reference to them in the docs).

 

They total about 12k, so I'm now terrified I'm going end up in High Court if they persue these with vigor due to combined amount? Because I think I would simply faint with fright if thats where I had to appear. So I would just try and get £ from absolutely anywhere to pay them to stop this happening.

 

If someone could explain this (and about how I may end up in the High Court) in a little bit of laymans terms, I would be really, really greatful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rankines took the banks to court, not the otherway around. Have a read of the judgement on this pdf file http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/84285-ccas-dave-against-world-38.html#post1554322 it will help you understand how they got up the judges nose.

Anthrax alert at debt collectors caused by box of doughnuts

 

Make sure you do not post anything which identifies you. Although we can remove certain things from the site unless it's done in a timely manner everything you post will appear in Google cache & we do not have any control over that.

 

Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

17 Port & Maritime Regiment RCT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

That is what I thought had happened ... so my understanding is they appeared in the High Court, because that is where they wanted the hearings held (?), and ordinarilly if a creditor does take you to court, the matter would be a heard in a "normal civil" one.

 

Having re-read the PDF again, from what I can understand, weren't they so silly to have done this - I wondered what exactly they wanted to gain, when they were not being persued by the creditors in question anyway.... makes my mind boggle !!!

 

So glad this thread was started, because I've been wondering for ages what peps were talking about when they were discussing the "rankine judgement", and this has helped me to find out about it.

 

Thank you. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...