Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
  • 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

link financial(PLEASE HELP)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5483 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

link contacted me last year saying that they had bought a debt from ge money never had anything from ge money stating they had sold the debt or assignment to link (the debt is for a car on hp that i struggled to pay and eventually sent the car back to them but with having arrears they say (link) that i now owe them the shortfall.i told them that if i knew i had to pay this i wouldnt have sent the car back to ge money and told them that i wouldnt be paying anymore money due to this. that was last october and today got another phone call 6 months later asking to agree an arangement with them and they are willing to accept £10 a month as long as i send them a i&e form back to them.i have already asked for them previously a cca and all they sent me was 2 pages, they should have been 6 as the first 2 pages state 1of 6 and 2 of 6 can anyone advise me what to do as i also got a phone call from a company offering to get rid of this debt for a fee of £295

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gerrard14, i dont know much about car loan debt, however they must by law, require to send to you a notice or letter of assigment to have the right to enforce the debt. If you choose to answer them on the phone, then ask them their name and company name, keep a note of the date and time of call, and dont give them any information, insist on letters only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

never had letter of assignment from ge money only from link stating they have been assigned the debt and as we have bought the debt all monies should be paid to them just seen on the uk insolvency helpline it states that if you have paid at least half you only have to pay for any missed payments or damage to vehicle as there was no damage to car they sold it at auction for well over the amount i owed so do i send a letter stating this

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you voluntarily terminate an HP agreement by returning the vehicle you are liable to pay a sum not in excess of 50% of the total agreement minus the agregate of the payments you have already made. ie. If you have paid 50% or more you owe nothing more whatsoever when you return the car.

Are you in a position with the paperwork you already have to answer the following questions?

 

The total amount payable under the agreement?

The total you paid towards the agreement before handing the car back?

 

If not you might need to SAR the OC (GE money) and get your hands on your bank statements.

 

If you did not pay 50% or more the shortfall should only be an amount to take you to the 50% mark NOT the 100% mark that they are probably trying to claim.

 

eg if the agreement was for £10,000:

 

If you had paid £5000 when you VT'ed you owe nothing.

If you had paid £4000 when you VT'ed you owe £1000

If you had paid £6000 when you VT'ed you owe nothing but cannot claim the other £1000 back.

 

It would not surprise me to hear that GE have passed Link a debt when lawfully none existed.

 

The relevant Law is Consumer Credit Act 1974 Sec 100(1)

 

100. Liability of debtor on termination of hire-purchase etc. agreement.

— (1) Where a regulated hire-purchase or regulated conditional sale agreement is terminated under section 99 the debtor shall be liable, unless the agreement provides for a smaller payment, or does not provide for any payment, to pay to the creditor the amount (if any) by which one-half of the total price exceeds the aggregate of the sums paid and the sums due in respect of the total price immediately before the termination.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

i had paid over half the amount but was behind a few monthly payments they terminated the contract and asked for the car back but i told them they would have to get a court order to get it back but i said i would voluntary hand the car back as i had paid over half so they sent me a voluntary surrender letter to get them to get the car back but when they had sold it at auction they said that as i was behind on payments i owed the difference from what i owed minus payments and the sale of the car but then i got letter from link stating that they had bought the debt

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sale of the car is completely irrelevant to this matter.

 

You owed 50% of the agreement plus the car to absolve you of any further liability under the agreement.

 

You returned the vehicle.

You paid more than half the cost of the original agreement.

It doesn't matter if you were late on some payments if you had paid 50% at the time of VT as these are taken to be voluntary gifts anyaway.

 

You owe them nothing.

 

I suggest you write to Link and quote these facts along with sec. 100(1) of The CCA 1974.

Do the same with GE too or the 'debt' will be sold on to another sucker DCA before you know it.

Report both Companies to Tradings Standars and the OFT as well for they know that on VT'ing a vehicle under these circumstances the sale of the vehicle is irrelevant, and they have deliberately mislead you in stating a shortfall exists.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also add, from my experience, Link will chase payments when you are speaking to them or they see you as an easy target.

 

When I asked for a copy of the assignment and a copy of the agreement (the standard letters on this forum), and advised that I would report them for harassment if they continued to chase for a disputed debt, they stopped calling or writing. That was 5 years ago. I never heard from them again nor had any detrimental information recorded against me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...