Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
    • Hi, we are looking to get some opinions on weather or not to bother fighting this PCN. This comes from a very big retail park parking where there are restaurants, hotel, amongst other businesses. The parking is free but I suppose there must be a time limit on it that I am not aware of. We were in the area for around 4 hours. Makes us wonder how they deal with people staying in the hotel as the ANPR is on what appears to be a publicly maintained street (where london buses run) which leads to the different parking areas including the hotel.  1 Date of the infringement 26/05/2024 2 Date on the NTK  31/05/2024 3 Date received 07/06/2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?]  YES 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Entry and exit photos however, based on the photographs we are almost sure the photos are taken on public street. This is the location I believe photos are taken from.  https://maps.app.goo.gl/eii8zSmFFhVZDRpbA 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A 7 Who is the parking company? UKPA. UK Parking Administration LTD 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] The Colonnades, Croydon, CR0 4RQ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. British Parking Association (BPA) Thanks in advance for any assistance.  UKPA PCN The Collonades-redacted.pdf
    • Thank you for posting their WS. If we start with the actual WS made by the director one would have doubts that they had even read PoFA let alone understood it. Point 10  we only have the word of the director that the contract has been extended. I should have had the corroboration of the Client. Point 12 The Judge HHJ Simkiss was not the usual Judge on motoring cases and his decisions on the necessity of contracts did not align with PoFA. In Schedule 4 [1[ it is quite clearly spelt out- “relevant contract” means a contract (including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land) between the driver and a person who is—(a)the owner or occupier of the land; or (b authorised, under or  by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land; And the laughable piece of paper from the land owners cannot be described as a contract. I respectfully ask that the case be dismissed as there is no contract. WE do not even know what the parking regulations are which is really basic. It is respectfully asked that without a valid contract the case cannot continue. One would imagine that were there a valid contract it would have been produced.  So the contract that Bank has with the motorist must come from the landowner. Bank on their own cannot impose their own contract. How could a director of a parking company sign a Statement of Truth which included Point 11. Point 14. There is no offer of a contract at the entrance to the car park. Doubtful if it is even an offer to treat. The entrance sign sign does not comply with the IPC Code of Conduct nor is there any indication that ANPR cameras are in force. A major fault and breach of GDPR. Despite the lack of being offered a contract at the entrance [and how anyone could see what was offered by way of a contract in the car park is impossible owing to none of the signs in the WS being at all legible] payment was made for the car to park. A young person in the car made the payment. But before they did that, they helped an elderly lady to make her payment as she was having difficulty. After arranging payment for the lady the young lad made his payment right behind. Unfortunately he entered the old lady's number again rather than paying .for the car he was in. This can be confirmed by looking at the Allow List print out on page 25. The defendant's car arrived at 12.49 and at 12.51 and 12.52  there are two payments for the same vrm. This was also remarked on by the IPC adjudicator when the PCN was appealed.  So it is quite disgraceful that Bank have continued to pursue the Defendant knowing that it was a question of  entering the wrong vrm.  Point 21 The Defendant is not obliged to name the driver, they are only invited to do so under S9[2][e]. Also it is unreasonable to assume that the keeper is the driver. The Courts do not do that for good reason. The keeper in this case does not have a driving licence. Point 22. The Defendant DID make a further appeal which though it was also turned down their reply was very telling and should have led to the charge being dropped were the company not greedy and willing to pursue the Defendant regardless of the evidence they had in their own hands. Point 23 [111] it's a bit rich asking the Defendant to act justly and at proportionate cost while acting completely unjustly themselves and then adding an unlawful 70% on to the invoice. This  is despite PoFA S4[5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 9[2][d].  Point 23 [1v] the Director can deny all he wants but the PCN does not comply with PoFA. S9 [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 only quotes the ANPR arrival and departure times which obviously includes a fair amount of driving between the two cameras. Plus the driver and passengers are a mixture of disabled and aged persons who require more time than just a young fit single driver to exit the car and later re enter. So the ANPR times cannot be the same as the required parking period as stipulated in the ACT. Moreover in S9[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; You will note that in the PCN the words in parentheses are not included but at the start of Section 9 the word "must" is included. As there are two faults in the PCN it follows that Bank cannot pursue the keeper . And as the driver does not have a driving licence their case must fail on that alone. And that is not even taking into consideration that the payment was made. Point 23 [v] your company is wrong a payment was made. very difficult to prove a cash payment two weeks later when the PCN arrives. However the evidence was in your print out for anyone to see had they actually done due diligence prior to writing to the DVLA. Indeed as the Defendant had paid there was no reasonable cause to have applied for the keeper details. Point 24 the Defendant did not breach the contract. The PCN claimed the Defendant failed to make a payment when they had made a payment.   I haven't finished yet but that is something to start with
    • You don't appeal to anyone. You haven't' received a demand from a statutory body like the council, the police or the courts. It's just a dodgy cowboy company trying it on. You simply don't pay.  In the vast majority of these cases the company deforest the Amazon with threats about how they are going to divert a drone from Ukraine and make it land on your home - but in the end they do nothing.
  • 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

Invalid Default Notices


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 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

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Heck I have to say that Vanquis were a bit genrous to allow no payment for almost 8 months before issuing the DN. Your friend must have had so many phone calls and letters - Did she not respond to any of them? You mentioned she was now wanting to make some kind of payment plan but I fear 8 months till considering this does seem an excessive time.

 

The problem is that they'll not remove the DN without a fight even if it's defective. The stand off comes in the way that the DN notice will stay on file for 6 years from issue. As a DN is as bad as a CCJ they might just leave it to their collectors, bullies and all and never take you to court. On the other hand once seen if there is enough argument you could take them to court to have it removed. This is where the SAR would be handy because they'll have logged all attempted calls and letters sent. The downside is that if your friend never replied, ignored and hoped the debt would vanish a court might not look on this too favourably.

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heck I have to say that Vanquis were a bit genrous to allow no payment for almost 8 months before issuing the DN. Your friend must have had so many phone calls and letters - Did she not respond to any of them? You mentioned she was now wanting to make some kind of payment plan but I fear 8 months till considering this does seem an excessive time.

 

The problem is that they'll not remove the DN without a fight even if it's defective. The stand off comes in the way that the DN notice will stay on file for 6 years from issue. As a DN is as bad as a CCJ they might just leave it to their collectors, bullies and all and never take you to court. On the other hand once seen if there is enough argument you could take them to court to have it removed. This is where the SAR would be handy because they'll have logged all attempted calls and letters sent. The downside is that if your friend never replied, ignored and hoped the debt would vanish a court might not look on this too favourably.

 

Michael

 

Thanks for the response Informedsearcher, but my friend says that they did not ignore any letters from Vanquis. Vanquis were just being a pain in the butt by not accepting reduced payments, so the court will be able to see that they did try and co-operate, and in the end my friend just logged a complaint against Vanquis to the FOS.

 

I think that the DN should be looked at more clearly and see if anything can be done with that personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many, many thanks for that. Letter done and ready to go. Cheers

 

but dont forget, your arrears will increase upto the date of acceptence.

 

Default Notice dated the 23rd October 2009 and subsequent Termination Notice dated the 4th November 2009. + december, january, february

 

cab

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response Informedsearcher, but my friend says that they did not ignore any letters from Vanquis. Vanquis were just being a pain in the butt by not accepting reduced payments, so the court will be able to see that they did try and co-operate, and in the end my friend just logged a complaint against Vanquis to the FOS.

 

I think that the DN should be looked at more clearly and see if anything can be done with that personally.

 

 

Sorry, my comments regarding offering reduced payments mean to reflect on the time from being unable to pay the full monthly payment to when a request was made to Vanquis. In other words did your friend speak to them back in April or wait until January this year? For example it would seem unfair if Vanquis say refused back in April or May or even June. However to make no payments whatsoever since April would ring the alarm bells.

 

The current DN notice that maybe defective is another thing to the run up to it. You see the 'Catch 22' comes in because there's a Default noted on the CRA's. Vanquis will not remove it because they believe it should be there. You, after the FOS come back have to decide if you wish to fight it. Vanquis will come back that in their letters they enclosed information on ideas on how to resolve the matter but nothing was done. So unless the FOS force them (unlikely) to remove the DN it'll stay. The problem is the the CRA files will show the months as overdue then the DN itself.

 

Whilst banks have discretion they seldom take risks if they believe they will lose. So they normally use a type of points system as they did with a loan I had. Each month of no payment tends to clock up a point. Half payment will mean half a point. Generally when they clock up to 6 points they decide to issue the DN. Some banks might wait for a couple of points less. With my example even if I paid half the repayment figure monthly after 12 months the 6 points would have clocked up. The interest on open accounts also continues to clock on too.

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DD for that. This is another letter I believe requesting full payment.

 

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/qq223/sophiak_bucket/VanquisDemand2.jpg

 

I don't know if my friend has anymore but I am looking through their file on top of the 1001 things of my own to do:)

 

if that is the full amount of the account displayed there then yes you can accept that as an unlawful repudiation

 

it is a clear demand to pay with threats of the consequences if you don't

 

didnt you write at the time and accept the unlawful repudiation?

 

have a look through your files and find it, then next time they write to you remind them that the agreement no longer endures since your acceptance of their unlawful repudiation

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

if that is the full amount of the account displayed there then yes you can accept that as an unlawful repudiation

 

it is a clear demand to pay with threats of the consequences if you don't

 

didnt you write at the time and accept the unlawful repudiation?

 

have a look through your files and find it, then next time they write to you remind them that the agreement no longer endures since your acceptance of their unlawful repudiation

 

 

Thanks DD, to be honest I have only just found out myself recently what unlawful repudiation means, so hardly in a position to advise my friend. They have never sent one of these letters either but as you have so kindly pointed this out then I will get them to send Vanquis this Unlawful Rescission Letter today.

 

I have checked through my friends file and there is nothing relating to this. Also this letter is demanding full payment to be made within 7 days of their letter dated Oct 09. Also there is another letter from Vanquis's inhouse DCA's named Connaught dated Sept 09 also requesting payment in full within 7 days. So there are a few letters demanding full payment from 3 different DCA's acting on behalf of Vanquis.

 

Should we send off the Unlawful Repudiation letter now? Or is it the Unlawful Rescission letter? or are they both the same thing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I will need a hand with writing out this letter, because the Default Notice is not dated so will not be able to write that bit. Only a letter which states Notice of Default which is dated the 9th June 09.

 

Also how will we know what date the termination took place. Do we count the date of the first demand for payment in full after the DN?

 

Hope you can advise DD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely seeing DD's suggested wording for accepting the TN and claiming unlawful rescission has reminded you that such a letter WAS sent just after the TN came in? It's amazing how seeing a similar letter jogs the memory on this. It certainly did for me (several times!).

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely seeing DD's suggested wording for accepting the TN and claiming unlawful rescission has reminded you that such a letter WAS sent just after the TN came in? It's amazing how seeing a similar letter jogs the memory on this. It certainly did for me (several times!).

 

BD

 

Hope the amnesia is improving BD. After so many years it just gets..................just gets................just......gets..........oh, i'll come back to it. :D

 

M

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vanquis demanded payment in full in March 09, DN sent June 09, 1st DCA demand for payment in full Sept 09, 2nd DCA demand for payment in full Oct 09.

 

So the TN date would be Sept 09? am I correct? Also will have to change the wording as the DN is missing essential things like the date , creditors address e.t.c

 

Is this letter right?

 

Your Ref Account No xxxxxxxxxxxxx -Terminated

 

with reference to your letter of 9th June 2009 in which you unlawfully repudiated the agreement and my subsequent acceptance of your unlawful actions, i still await notification from you of the exact amount of genuine arrears (not including any unlawful charges) that were due at the time of termination.

 

Against these arrears which i accept will be due for payment, I may make a counterclaim for your unlawful rescission of the agreement

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Or this one?

 

 

 

 

Re account no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unlawful Rescission.

 

With reference to the alleged debt to your company, I refer to your Default Notice dated xxxxxxxxxxx, posted second class and received by me on xxxxxxxxxxx, and your recent actions confirming your previous written intentions to terminate the agreement.

I accept your unlawful rescission of the agreement I note that you are now entitled to claim those arrears genuinely due at the time of the termination (not including any unlawful charges ) and i would be obliged if you would advise me of the exact amount of those arrears, against which will be a claim for unlawful rescission

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Yours faithfully

Edited by frettful38
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic thread! I was directed by a fellow cagger to this thread. I have spent hours reading through the posts and kindly request your help in determining if this is a faulty one too? Cap 1 are giving 28 days :confused: Please help. TN also attached below. Thanks in advance

 

DN:

http://s896.photobucket.com/albums/ac162/jameson78/?action=view&current=CCA_CAP_DEFAULT1.jpg

 

 

TN:

http://s896.photobucket.com/albums/ac162/jameson78/?action=view&current=CCA_CAP_TN.jpg

 

 

Overdue amount in the DN is £3xx.00

Overdue amount in the TN is £4xx.00

 

 

Pinky, thank you for the amazing thread :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DD, to be honest I have only just found out myself recently what unlawful repudiation means, so hardly in a position to advise my friend. They have never sent one of these letters either but as you have so kindly pointed this out then I will get them to send Vanquis this Unlawful Rescission Letter today.

 

I have checked through my friends file and there is nothing relating to this. Also this letter is demanding full payment to be made within 7 days of their letter dated Oct 09. Also there is another letter from Vanquis's inhouse DCA's named Connaught dated Sept 09 also requesting payment in full within 7 days. So there are a few letters demanding full payment from 3 different DCA's acting on behalf of Vanquis.

 

Should we send off the Unlawful Repudiation letter now? Or is it the Unlawful Rescission letter? or are they both the same thing?

 

i would write to them on some "pretext" (their demands for payment) and refer them to their unlawful repudiation of the agreement last year which was accepted and that you are still waiting to be advised of the amount of the arrears that were genuinely outstanding at the time they unlawfully terminated the agreement

 

you are letting them know that you regarded the agreement as unlawfully terminated last year (even if you did not put it in writing - of which there is no legal obligation)

 

make sure you keep letters of all future correspondence after that which, i personally would always then head:-

 

Re Your Ref Account XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX -terminated agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pinky, DD and all,

I'd really appreciate a second opinion on the following, as there's a shark fin approaching rapidly..

 

I received a DN last year all dates, amounts and other prescribed statements are OK apart from a chunk of text missing from one of the prescribed paragraphs.

What it should state is:

"You should be aware that if we take you to court and get a judgment against you requiring you to pay us the money you owe us under the agreement, you may have to pay us both the amount of the judgment (and interest under the agreement on all the sums owed by you at the date of the judgment)until you have paid these in full. This means that even if you pay off the whole amount of the judgment, you may still have a further sum to pay."

 

In mine the text in red is missing. There is also no signaturelink8.gif or name, just the Bank name and it was issued while in default of a CCA request.

 

De Minimus? It's all I've got :sad:

Thanks,

Elsa X

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DD,

That's what I was afraid of. It should be there though as the T&C's allow for post judgement interest. The sentence doesn't make sense without it, but if it's not a prescribed statement anyway I suppose it's irrelevant.

Hi Elsa, are you sure that the dates are OK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DD,

That's what I was afraid of. It should be there though as the T&C's allow for post judgement interest. The sentence doesn't make sense without it, but if it's not a prescribed statement anyway I suppose it's irrelevant.

 

that may be true but there is no law that says they MUST charge that interest.........and i certainly wouldn't complain to the judge that they were not doing so:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4976 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...