Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

MBNA and Aegis - No CCA received!


exchange
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4921 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 Exchange

 

Yes your last one is the same letter as we have had - just puts a restriction on your account and notifies you of the account default - not the same as a proper default.

 

Looks like they don't have an actual copy of your agreement and once again are hiding behind what they can omit sending you and claiming compliance with Section 78 of the CCA, rather than just sending a first hand copy of an original agreement. Seems to be an awful lot of trouble to go to omit all the details rather than just copy. A lot of lenders are taking this approach - more of what we DON'T have to send you letters are appearing on here.

 

I wonder why that is? !!!!! They don't have it I would say! :)

 

Am I right in thinking that they eventually have to take an original copy to Court anyway?

 

Anyone comment please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 453
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe they have to take an original copy to court.

My situation makes there life more difficult (I think) in that I am in the EU but not UK so they cannot go to court in the UK but would need to try the new EOP (European Order for Payment) or give up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a couple of calls to my mobile yesterday showing as 'private number'. I answered the second time and it was someone from MBNA. I hung up so he called back and left a message asking me to call him which I will not do. So, Aegis have given up I take it and MBNA will no doubt now bombard me with calls. I log all calls but how can I prove one marked private number is from MBNA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

alleged agreement.pdf

 

Finally got my first of two application forms from MBNA. It looks familiar as I am sure I have seen much the same on other threads.

The T&C's have the table showing what your APR is depending on your credit limit if it is £1000, £3000 or £5000 but does not quote a rate for my credit limit.

Anybody confirm if it is enforceable or otherwise?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way it is presented it looks as though you might struggle to get that declared unenforceable. Sorry.

 

The only thing I can see is there is no mention of default charges when MBNA clearly have made default charges and there is some question as to how they quote the interest rate and APR in table form. The question being that if the credit limit you have is not exactly one of the amounts shown on the table the interest and APR for the credit you have are not actually stated.

 

But it is not something I would take them to court over.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Exchange,

 

IMO Looks like the date code on their terms are from 98, but i cannot see anything to link the two pages.

Do you remember what the original credit limit was, if it is not 1, 3 or 5k that has some significance.

 

I'm sure you have looked around at other MBNA threads, if you have not looked at mine, take a peek if you get time.

Elgrand vs MBNA

 

Ifoughtthelaw, has been giving you some good advice and i too have had dealings with AEGIS.

I completley ignored them.

I had a couple of conversations and they just talk total rubbish.

I have had dealings with RMA through my AMEX thread and they are no different.

 

Might be worth doing a SAR, as I have just done. They have only supplied me with 6 years statements and now i'm going to take them to task over the amount they claim to be outstanding.

 

Good luck, and i hope i have not waffled on too much.

 

Elg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Exchange,

 

.............., but i cannot see anything to link the two pages.

 

Elg.

 

I think we are suppposed to assume these are two sides of the same piece of paper. Difficult to prove otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes basa, we are supposed to assume that the second page is the reverse side, but it has to be linked in some way.

The reference numbers as i see, do not link them.

 

It is a poor copy of the agreement and i cannot make out if there is any reference to the allegded reverse page apart from the codes, that IMO do not match.

 

That is just my opinion and i would be happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

And as GK has just pointed out as i write this, there is a collection of agreements available to view and mine is included, year 2000

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the responses. The supposed reverse page is suspicious in my opinion as it would have left a large area of blank paper on the reverse. I would consider it improbable that any company would not use the space for advertising or their details, etc. I did attach some T&C's that were sent to me before receiving the application but they have no obvious connection to the application and consist of 4 pages anyway so could not have been on the reverse. Therefore as they could not have been within the four corners of the agreement does this not help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

exchange,

The space that was left on my alledged reverse page was made up with a return address, prepaid envelope and it has been stated that they would not have had that on the back of an application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to GK as I have now checked out the agreements already posted and there is reference in my paperwork to clauses in the T&C's which do not exist!

This makes me more confident in fighting on against them as the paperwork they have produced does not tie together.

I am in dispute with four different CCC's and all of them are messing up on default notices and procedures so I have no doubt that I should carry this through to the end.

Thanks to all on this site who have contributed so far, without whom I would have been clueless!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Reader, I am subbed to one of your threads too. I know what you mean. It is a bit of a rollercoaster ride when you think maybe the game is up because an agreement looks enforceable but then you dig deeper and it becomes obvious that the CCC have screwed up yet again!

If the ones at the top of the CCC organisations are not getting the chop I would ask why?

The cynical side of me thinks they would get some huge payoff on leaving anyway so they never lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes basa, we are supposed to assume that the second page is the reverse side, but it has to be linked in some way.

The reference numbers as i see, do not link them.

 

It is a poor copy of the agreement and i cannot make out if there is any reference to the allegded reverse page apart from the codes, that IMO do not match.

 

That is just my opinion and i would be happy to be corrected if wrong.

 

And as GK has just pointed out as i write this, there is a collection of agreements available to view and mine is included, year 2000

 

This is a minefield .... if the two pages as presented are just copies of two sides of one page it is a good agreement. There doesn't have to be a visible link in that case as they are in fact one sheet of paper. Could you prove otherwise in court??

 

Exchange:-

 

Do take a closer look at the first paragraph on page 2 that clearly references the T&Cs where the particulars you believe are missing are located.

 

In any event the 'missing' particulars are not fatal to the agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi basa48, I take it you are referring to there opening statement where they say 'Set out in paragraphs 1-12....'. In post 23 I attached a copy of the supposed agreement/terms and conditions and there is no condition 9.4, 10.5, 10.6, 9.1, 8.11 or 14.1. Condition 14 is in fact a list of definitions when they are talking about charges on cheque transactions. It might not be fatal in your opinion that there is no relationship between the documents but I cannot see how I am supposed to know what conditions I have 'agreed' to if nothing matches up between different documents. It looks to me as if the T&C's they sent previously are the wrong ones. I appreciate everybodies responses but the more I read the more holes I see in what has been sent to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a minefield .... A minefield, totally agree.if the two pages as presented are just copies of two sides of one page it is a good agreement. IF, agree although i think unlikely,. There doesn't have to be a visible link in that case as they are in fact one sheet of paper. Could you prove otherwise in court??would they not have to prove otherwise in court to enforce??.

This is only my opinion and i am happy to be corrected,
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your responses Elgrand. I do not think the two sides can be proved to be related but what is to stop MBNA copying both sides on to one sheet of paper and saying it is a true copy of what they gave me? There are no default charges mentioned in the last documents sent but they are shown in the T&C's sent previously and state £12, not the £25 or more that it would have been. As the agreement is from 1998 these are current T&C's not related to the application just sent to me. This is why nothing correlates. They have not sent me the correct T&C's from the time. I should have spotted it before but obviously I was not concentrating on the detail enough. Any suggestions on my next course of action? I am inclined to let them trip over themselves further rather than initiate any action yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...