Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the required details and well done for apparently not revealing the identity of the driver. I am assuming you are the keeper? The depth of ignorance of the parking companies is absolutely amazing. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 is the law relating to private parking and allows those rogues to be able to transfer the charge from the driver [whose name they do not know] to the keeper after 28 days . This is dependent on them complying with the Act. So many of the don't and Alliance is no different. It would help if we could see what you appeal was and to post the back of the PCN as it is lacking so much of the wording necessary to make it compliant so that in your case only the driver is liable to pay the charge. And of course just entering the ANPR arrival times means that they have failed to specify the parking time which is a requirement..  Because the car park was so busy you had to drive around for quite a while before finally finding a place to park which is when the parking period may  actually begin. The poor dears at Alliance have not grasped that particular part of the legislation as yet. To be fair the Act has only been in place for 12 years so one must make allowances for their stupidity . We shouldn't really mock them- but it is fun. You weren't to know but the chances of winning an appeal against Alliance and the IPC is around 5%-and that is high for them. If they allow you to cancel they lose the chance of making money and they would have had a field day when you were there with so many people being caught overstaying because of the chaos in trying to find a parking space then trying to pay.  Your snotty letter could go something like this- Dear Cretins, Yes I mean you Alliance. After 12 years one would have thought that even you could produce a compliant PCN. Did you really think I would pay you a penny extra considering the time I wasted trying  to pay with  long queues at the parking machine, then trying to get a signal to call Just Park. On top of that you then had the cheek to ask for an additional £70 for what dubious unspecified pleasure? You must have made a killing that day charging all those motorists for overstaying because the queues to pay were do long and even walking to pay from the over flow parking fields takes time. And yes I did take photos of the non existent signs in the fields so please don't give me the usual rubbish about your signs being clearly visible. Oh yes that £70. Please tell me and the Court whether that charge included VAT and if it did, why am I being charged to pay your vat? I am sure the Judge would look carefully at that as well as the Inland Revenue. The truth is you had no reasonable cause to ask the DVLA for my data given the chaos at your car park and I believe that you therefore breached my GDPR...................... I expect others will give their views as well.          
    • opps this is going to get messy then if they don't refund. you should never keep util accounts in credit.
    • https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/new-private-parking-code-to-launch-in-the-uk-later-this-year/ The newly created gov petition 'Immediately Reintroduce Private Parking Code of Practice' is from Stanley Luckhurst, the 85-year-old old Excel Parking took to court. Excel lost the case and the pensioner's been campaigning for regulation of PPCs since this unpleasant experience. https://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/24085471.gerrards-cross-pensioner-takes-nightmarish-private-parking/ I would urge anyone on this forum who supports the petition statement "We believe the private parking industry is trending toward anarchy and must be brought to order by re-launching the Government Code immediately" to sign and share it. 168 signings at 4pm today https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/660922 If the gov new parking code is not launched before parliament dissolves (for the general election) then the legislation is at great risk of being shelved. And we'll be stuck with ATAs new joint code which does not address motorists issues such as a cap on parking charges, debt recovery or an independent appeal process.  https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/wash-up/
    • It was mostly taken from credit within the account left over from excess direct debits over the past year. 
    • not looking very hopeful then... there is usually an account comms or manual intervention notes where call  operators have typed notes.... not in the SAR? 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

No agreement - can I get default removed?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4928 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

bummer :(

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we're on a collision course then to the High Court and the subsequent appeals on this one. Hopefully it'll end up in a COA or HOL ruling that they can't impose a default in circumstances where the agreement is unfair - after all the inability to enforce the agreement is the financial penalty the Creditors pay for breaking the law. To allow them to default the affected borrower is to mock Parliaments intention.

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Credit reference agencies

 

13.5 When you open your account or apply for a card, we will tell you when we may pass your details to credit reference agencies and the checks we may make with them.

 

 

 

13.6 We may give information to credit reference agencies about the personal debts you owe us if:

  • you have fallen behind with your payments;
  • the amount owed is not being disputed; and
  • you have not made proposals we are satisfied with for repaying your debt, following our formal demand.

13.7 In these cases, we will give you at least 28 days' notice that we plan to give information about the debts you owe us to credit reference agencies. At the same time, we will explain the role of credit reference agencies to you and the effect the information they provide can have on your ability to get credit.

 

13.8 We will give credit reference agencies other information about the day-to-day running of your account if you have given us your permission to do so.

 

13.9 If you ask, we will tell you how to get a copy of the information that credit reference agencies have about you, or their leaflets that explain how credit referencing works. You should contact the customer service teams at the following organisations:

 

Surely if there is no agreement there is no permission??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lou, the banks argue you consent to them sharing your data with CRAs as a condition of your application, indeed your application will more than likely say this. If you have been defaulted as a result of unlawful charges then you should have a good case to appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh bu**ar! That puts paid to a letter I have drafted saying get this off my file - you have no enforceable credit agreement. Back to the drawing board. Whilst there are experts in defaults around, where do I stand with a default entered after the issue of an invalid Default Notice? They didn't give me the required 14 days after service to remedy the breach then terminated the account, thus rescinding it unlawfully. If that can removed, I have only got the unenforceable one left. Hurray up High Court case!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

not all bad though.

they must show 'trading' on the cc before they can default.

most dca's certainly wont have this info i bet.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have received a letter from Hillesden stating that their client is "unable to provide a copy of the documents requested under the CCA", however they state that "the default will remain on my file until the debt has been satisifed". Am I correct in the fact that a default can only be issued in respect of a valid regulated agreement (which they don't have). If so does anyone have a letter template available that covers this eventuality and additionally what recourse can I take should they decide to ignore the follow-up letter?

 

Thanks for any help. Great site by the way!!

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Information Commissioner put out a Notice this week that an unenforceable agreement won't mean a default entry will be removed from a file if the creditor has other proof of monies owed. When there is no agreement it means the debt cannot be enforced in court but you still owe the money and if the creditor has proof of that then a default won't be removed.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This guidance from the ICO is nearly TWO years old. What's new??

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

On reading it agai, it is clear that this is a newsletter from a firm of solicitors who are trying to drum up business. It is not a statement of law. The reference to S 15 CCA 2006 is also misleading. S15 repeals S127(3) of the 1974 Act but only in relation to post October 2007 agreements. And in any case repealing S127(3) only removed the lack of discretion available to the court. IMHO, it is still open to the court to refuse enforce an agreement that does not comply with the requirments of S61 of the 1974 Act.

 

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't a clue what is new and what isn't (there is no need for sarcasm) -the question was about getting a default removed and it will be difficult on the grounds of no enforceable agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thanks for the response. Do you think there would be any value in trying to determine what "proof" they have? I assume an SAR would show this, I'm assuming I was just a name on a list - surely that wouldn't be seen as proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Thanks for the response. Do you think there would be any value in trying to determine what "proof" they have? I assume an SAR would show this, I'm assuming I was just a name on a list - surely that wouldn't be seen as proof?

 

An SAR, whilst costing £10, is invaluable to a certain extent because it means that you should get all of the documentation held by you.

 

I am in a similar situation to yourself where I have a default from a lender who now has no CCA. The guidance referred to above states this:

 

"Where a ‘debtor’ disputes the existence of any credit agreement, enforceable or otherwise, we would ask to see evidence of the agreement and of its terms."

 

It stands to reason that if they do not have an agreement then there is no case for us to answer in my opinion... but obviously the regulatory bodies seem to do as they please.

 

I understand that we have a case based upon the tenets of the Data Protection Act principles and I have started my own thread on this. Feel free to have a look at your leisure :D

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/198791-advice-needed-no-cca.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and within the guidance issued it states this:

 

"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?"

 

This is one of the factors taken into account when the ICO investigates a dispute... it is the one main argument I am using to be honest because there isn't much else to go on :-(

 

But hey let's see what happens!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its interesting that the statement identified the difference between legal liability and enforcement and I wonder how many folk truly understand that.

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

We should remember that this is an extract from a letter from the ICO to a firm of solicitors who will be interested in defending banks and other credit companies from claims resulting from the failures of those institutions. What did Addleshaw's actually ask the ICO would be my first question?

The ICO can only base its decisions on what it has published as its guidance in the public domain. It cannot determine an issue in private with just one (interested) firm of solicitors.

Looking at both the announcement from Addleshaw's and the Technical Guidance from the ICO (which is dated 2 August 2007), I would make the following points:

1. S 15 of the CCA 2006 only applies to credit agreements entered into after the implementation of the 2006 Act which I believe was 1 October 2007. The court must still decline to make an enforcement order in respect of non-compliant pre-October 2007 agreements. Further, the repeal of S127 (3) for post Oct 07 agreements does not (in my view) preclude the court from exercising its discretion and still refuse an enforcement order. The clear message from the 1974 Act and case law was that if credit institutions didn't comply exactly with the requirements, they should lose out. All that the 2006 repeal did was to allow the courts to have some discretion about the decision.

2. The ICO refers to a legal liability. What liability I ask? There is case law which clearly states that in the absence of a compliant credit agreement, the law considers advances by creditors to be 'voluntary dispositions' or gifts.

3. The ICO guidance clearly states the factors taken into account by the ICO when making a judgment about disputes. Among these factors is the following ' Has the Court refused judgment to a lender and, if so, on what grounds?’ If the ICO is saying they can over rule the court, I would be very interested in challenging such a view.

As you say, vjohn, let's see what happens.

  • Haha 1

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as someone pointed out what the ICO says is not the law and getting them to do anything is an absolute pain.

 

From what I have seen on CAG, most success in this area has been achieved by either threat of or actual legal action.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guidance from the ICO is nearly TWO years old. What's new??

 

The main ICO article is two years old, the 'new' bit is from April this year.

 

We should remember that this is an extract from a letter from the ICO to a firm of solicitors who will be interested in defending banks and other credit companies from claims resulting from the failures of those institutions. What did Addleshaw's actually ask the ICO would be my first question?

 

The ICO can only base its decisions on what it has published as its guidance in the public domain. It cannot determine an issue in private with just one (interested) firm of solicitors.

 

Looking at both the announcement from Addleshaw's and the Technical Guidance from the ICO (which is dated 2 August 2007), I would make the following points:

 

1. S 15 of the CCA 2006 only applies to credit agreements entered into after the implementation of the 2006 Act which I believe was 1 October 2007. The court must still decline to make an enforcement order in respect of non-compliant pre-October 2007 agreements. Further, the repeal of S127 (3) for post Oct 07 agreements does not (in my view) preclude the court from exercising its discretion and still refuse an enforcement order. The clear message from the 1974 Act and case law was that if credit institutions didn't comply exactly with the requirements, they should lose out. All that the 2006 repeal did was to allow the courts to have some discretion about the decision.

 

2. The ICO refers to a legal liability. What liability I ask? There is case law which clearly states that in the absence of a compliant credit agreement, the law considers advances by creditors to be 'voluntary dispositions' or gifts.

 

3. The ICO guidance clearly states the factors taken into account by the ICO when making a judgment about disputes. Among these factors is the following ' Has the Court refused judgment to a lender and, if so, on what grounds?’ If the ICO is saying they can over rule the court, I would be very interested in challenging such a view.

 

As you say, vjohn, let's see what happens.

 

All fair points. It's certainly not a statement of the law, and I too would be interested to know where the firm obtained it from. I've just checked the ICO website and it does not appear to have been released on there, so as you say it may be that it was just correspondence between the ICO and the solicitors.

 

Its an interesting question though; whether the lack of one or more prescribed terms making the agreement unenforceable also means there is no contract or liability at all. I would have thought that there was still a contract, just one thats technically unenforceable.

 

Having said that the House of Lords didn't appear to make any distiction between liability and enforceability in Dimond v Lovell, so the ICO may well be wrong. Lets hope so.

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...