Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. 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

Unenforceability Cases on hold until further notice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5303 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

Everybody see this - Stay on Unenforceable Agreements

 

oh I am so confused!Only discovered this site yesterday whilst trying to work out whether I was being stitched by Tate-Lloyd/claim management.Became a cagger 2nite & found this. Can anybody tell me if ANYONE has ever had any debt eliminated at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Can anybody tell me if ANYONE has ever had any debt eliminated at all?

 

Yes, yes, yes!! Look in the Sucessess.

 

It IS confusing when you first start reading on here, there are just so many issues (not to mention sub issues) but you will find that lots of reading will make it all clearer & if you have a specific problem you want advice on, just post up in the appropriate forum & someone will come along to help. :)

  • Haha 1

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just spoken to Chester County Court and apparently the announcement made by Halbert last week only applies to cases WHERE THE DEBTOR IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE CREDITOR.

ALL ACTIONS WHERE THE CREDITOR IS TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE DEBTOR REMAIN UNAFFECTED AND WILL PROCEED AS NORMAL.

So much for justice,the intention is obviously that there will be a review and stay for people taking their lender to court but the lenders can sue our arses off as normal! :evil:

The defence I entered against MBNA action is that the agreement is in breach of the 1974 Consumer Credit Act so I asked the clerk to ask halbert to consider treating my case the same as the ones where the lenders are being taken to court by borrowers.

I will keep you posted about how things go.

 

I have now received a letter from Chester County Court informing me that I need to attend a case management conference at the court on Tuesday 19th May.

WTF is that all about at such short notice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have now received a letter from Chester County Court informing me that I need to attend a case management conference at the court on Tuesday 19th May.

WTF is that all about at such short notice?

 

Maybe the Claim is to be assessed for a test case?

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys - we urgently need a copy of Halberts recent judgment - it was posted on this thread but it got removed can anybody send either me a link or copy or send one to broken arrow

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/144119-hfo-court-claim.html

 

There's an appeal on Tuesday next week that he needs it for.

 

Cheers

If I've helped feel free to add to my reputation.

 

I am not a Practising Lawyer. My comments are my opinion only. You should not rely upon those comments and should always take your own professional advice from a practising Solicitor or Barrister

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys - we urgently need a copy of Halberts recent judgment - it was posted on this thread but it got removed can anybody send either me a link or copy or send one to broken arrow

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/144119-hfo-court-claim.html

 

There's an appeal on Tuesday next week that he needs it for.

 

Cheers

 

I've got a copy if he pm's me his email address

If you feel I've helped then by all means click my star to the left...a simple "thank you" costs nothing! ;)

 

Restons MBNA -v- WelshMam

 

MBNA Cards

 

CitiCard

M&S and More

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to be a "report" on BBC moneybox tomorrow.

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox

 

Consumer action

 

Not so long ago the county courts were being swamped with bank charges cases.

 

This year, they are increasingly hearing cases brought by consumers trying to get their loan and credit cards debts cancelled.

 

The claims companies acting on their behalf are using the Consumer Credit Act to look for irregularities in credit agreements which could make them unenforceable.

 

Now preparations are underway for a test case to determine whether these claims are legitimate.

 

Bob Howard reports.

If its on a par with recent BBC "reports" then I don't expect much (if any) insight though. :roll: Edited by fermi

[SIZE=2][COLOR=SeaGreen][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/"][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

and if it isnt... then its possibly a chance for you to put the case forward for it to be included in the stay perhaps?

 

S.

 

I thought we'd agreed that wasn't a stay in place, though?

 

;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, it's good to see this thread as I was a bit suspicious when I received the following today from my Solicitors in Cheshire:

 

----

15thMay 2009

 

You may have read recently in the national press that there is a pending stay on Unenforceable Credit Agreements. Brunel Franklin

would like to assure all Clients that we are monitoring this situation very closely.

Brunel Franklin is actively involved in the proposed selection of test cases and is making representations to the Courts as to the terms

of the proposed stay. We believe that the legal merits of your potential claim have not changed and at present

- NO FUTHER ACTION IS REQUIRED BY YOU.

Had there been no merits in the Claims already submitted, the Courts would not be required to undertake assessment of test cases

and we believe this provides some comfort for Clients who are concerned at the recent developments.

It is likely to be up to 1 month before any further information is available regarding test cases and we will revert back to you with an

update as soon as we are able.

This stay is potentially good for our Clients, as this is likely to result in the creation of a protocol and process within the Court system,

which will enable claims to be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner.

Brunel Franklin, a leading financial claims management company and a market leader in this field, is happy to continue assisting you

and we assure you of our best attention at all times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that mean ? Authorisation surrendered ?? pmsl ??

 

"Authorisation voluntarily surrendered – Businesses that have been authorised by the Regulator but who have surrendered their authorisation. These businesses are not authorised to provide regulated services."

[SIZE=2][COLOR=SeaGreen][FONT=Verdana][URL="http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/"][/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimatelaw, credit wise and all others are for some reason miss leading the market and general public. CMC's are throwing brick bats at each other, all in some way conning the general public out of large front end fees and large back end fees. Then along comes a very sensible judge HHJ Halbert who hears a case in Chester County Court against Southern Pacific Mortgages Limited who had in the first instance a repossession order against the borrower. The case is eventually listed before him and he finds for the borrower. The decision in the case is based on a miss statement of the amount of credit. Interest was charged by the lender on an item that was included wrongly in the AOC, a mandatory fee which should have been a cost of credit. Very good straight forward decision. Well reasoned and easy to follow.

HHJ Halbert for some reason then went of the rails and referred to Moore-Bic LJ and other Judges an idea he had to stay claims under the CCA 74 for some test cases to be heard in the commercial court in London before HHJ Andrew Smith.

The position to me seems ill thought out. This is settled law it has been through the House of Lords and in the CA in 2007 Tuckey LJ was well able to see what was and was not a case for unenforceability. He decided in Wilson v Hurstanger that the agreement was enforceable.

The courts have made it very clear.

However some CMC's are determined to ruin the chances of these cases, the real cases, being successful by bringing large numbers of these cases on very spurious grounds. Where unenforceability is alleged for coppers, or a few pounds on a loan of £15,000/£20,000. Bearing in mind there is a plus1% and minus 0.1% tolerance on the APR minor discrepancies are bound to arise. The rules where designed to prevent the lenders failing to disclose the true COST of credit to borrowers. These claims which are lodged in Chester are largely based on a very expensive computer programme which is untested non legal and suggests that minor errors result in unenforceability.

Other problems are also arising through a gross over statement of the incidence of loans that are unenforceable. Claims of 80% are a huge over statement and I have direct experience of 1000's of these loan agreements.

So yet again the lenders, courts and CMC's are muddying the waters and the losers are.............yes the poor bl........y borrowers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5303 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...