Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Paula Venomous refused to resign for 16 months and eventually did only because a doctor threatened to resign. Interesting snippets and insights in the article. Paula Vennells clung on to ‘plum’ NHS role after Horizon scandal ARCHIVE.PH archived 19 May 2024 21:49:07 UTC  
  • 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

Cabot and CCA - Morgan Stanley goldfish debt


seriously fed up
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5527 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

I sent CABOT the "in default" letter when they couldnt produce the necessary documents for a Morgan Stanley debt of mine that they had bought.

 

 

Today I got the following reply which you can find at

cabotapril1page1.jpg picture by soccerdoc - Photobucket

and cabotapril1page2.jpg picture by soccerdoc - Photobucket.

 

The most interesting bit at the end (third last paragraph) where they suggest that Section 10 of DPA doesnt apply as I signed a credit agreement - which they cant produce.

Is this strange or is it just me?

Should I respond, or just sit tight?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It frustrates me when they say they do not have an obligation to provide the credit agreement; section 189 of the CCA says differently.

 

" "creditor" means the person providing credit under a consumer credit agreement or the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law, and in relation to a prospective consumer credit agreement, includes the prospective creditor;"

 

Anyway... there is a little known piece of information within the ICO's remit that allows them to make a ruling on DCA's reporting default information without an executed credit agreement...

 

"If the dispute has not been before a court, is the lender prepared to test their claim by seeking a CCJ or decree against the customer? If not, why not?" Data Protection Technical Guidance s.44

 

Basically if the lender is sure of their legal position regarding credit information why are they not seeking to enforce it via a CCJ? Surely this is a logical step if they want to recover their money?

 

I beleive the ICO are saying, essentially, that reporting information on someones credit worthiness is pointless unless you enforce this opinion. Otherwise the company is hiding something which, quite obviously, is a technicality within their paperwork which would render any action subject to successful defence.

 

I might also add that I would ignore their claims regarding s.10 of the DPA 1998 - the only organisation that can say whether this provision is being breached is the ICO. I would put a complaint in after receiving a final response letter from the DCA.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent CABOT the "in default" letter when they couldnt produce the necessary documents for a Morgan Stanley debt of mine that they had bought. Today I got the following reply which you can find at cabotapril1page1.jpg picture by soccerdoc - Photobucket and cabotapril1page2.jpg picture by soccerdoc - Photobucket.

The most interesting bit at the end (third last paragraph) where they suggest that Section 10 of DPA doesnt apply as I signed a credit agreement - which they cant produce. Is this strange or is it just me?

Should I respond, or just sit tight?

 

Sit tight and do not rattle their cage anymore.Personally, I would never send the "in default" letter to any DCA, it just seems an excuse for them to send the type of letter you have received and leave you more bewildered.If they have said they cannot produce the CCA, thats it and do not pay them anything until in the unlikely event,that they do produce it. Even if they do it still has to be enforcable. My request from Cabot dates back to last year and am hoping that my Goldfish has drowned!!!!:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sit tight and do not rattle their cage anymore.Personally, I would never send the "in default" letter to any DCA, it just seems an excuse for them to send the type of letter you have received and leave you more bewildered.If they have said they cannot produce the CCA, thats it and do not pay them anything until in the unlikely event,that they do produce it. Even if they do it still has to be enforcable. My request from Cabot dates back to last year and am hoping that my Goldfish has drowned!!!!:smile:

It depends upon what sort of action you want to take. If you are not bothered about a default being recorded on your CF then best to save the paper and postage costs.

 

But... if you want to take action it is best to inform the company of the default so that you can show the relevant authorities that you have followed procedures and done everything you can to resolve the situation between yourselves.

 

Like I said, it's all about what you want to achieve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...