Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
    • also just to clarify is it required that I physically post to both the county court and Evri? I read in another thread you can just email Evri a copy since they will just rescan whatever you post anyway (if they even read it)
    • I'm going to add some context here, it may or may not be different to mine, but it provides a hint around what you can expect from Overdales. My thread to read  TLDR  Lowell / Overdales lied about sending letters (I keep all mine), Admitted the default notice was faulty and made up their own, saying that's all fine, (Fake letters sent to 'prove ' it), Sent documentation that is illegible, not on letterheaded paper.  They will lie, try and make things up, try and send you offers to settle, play good cop, bad cop, all in the name of intimidating you into paying up, don't fall for it!  
    • Hi Dx,   I really have tried to fill the this in and paste the answers as I appreciate the advice    but it’s confusing as asks for e1 box and e2 box to answer I don’t have that    what I received from the court is    Form 02 Form 03 Form 05 Form 07 for if I wish to defend  also initial writ  Thanks 
    • The Tories seem to be confused at the moment, UB. Leaving aside the point about their record for now, Atkins completely ignored protocol by interrupting the Labour minister while he was speaking. I'm sure if a Labour MP had done that to a Tory minister there would have been uproar. I hadn't realised that Christopher Chope is a deputy Speaker now - I had go and and look that up.
  • 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
      • 162 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

egg card CCA- IST RESPONE


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5497 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

i have received a response from egg card today with regards to the cca request. They have asked me to provided further ID inorder for them to continue with my request, has anyone come across this before?

any advice would be appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

what are the asking for?

 

is it a signature?

 

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure there's a letter somewhere saying about "you send your statements and correspondance to this address no other ID provided"

Don't give them your signature either they have the power to digital enhance, copy paste like we can all do. I'll see if I can find the letter, in the meantime don't give them anything. If I can't find it I'm sure someone will tell you.

DG:)

I have no legal training my knowledge comes from my personal life experiences

Please help keep the forum alive by making a donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they need a signature to prove its you for security - fair enough I guess. But may I suggest sending them a signature which is superficially yours, but with a unique quirk (eg double cross the letter t), and make two photocopies before sending- one for yourself; one for the police just in case :shock:

 

Thus this signature only ever exists once.

 

 

On the bright side, Egg are taking security seriously (perhaps over zealously) or they may know they are going to have to send a copy they know is defective;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Sirs,

RE Account NO XXXXXXXX

Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/2008 the contents of which are noted

In your letter you make reference to requiring my signed authorisation before you comply. I draw your attention to the fact that the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not require that i supply you a copy of my signature before you comply with my S78 request.

If it is for Data Protection purposes then i can happily supply you with documentation to substantiate my identity to you.

However please note that to date you have happily sent statements and correspondence containing extensive sensitive private information to my address. I have to ask if you are concerned that you are corresponding with the correct person why has it taken so long to raise this?

As you are aware, disclosing data without adequate checks of identity is contrary to the 7th principal of data protection, listed in schedule 1 of the Data protection Act 1998:

7. Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data.

My request for a true copy of my credit agreement under section 77/78 was made on xx/xx/2007 and the 12 working days for your compliance expire on xx/xx/2007. I note that there is no provision that removes the requirements of the act to provide this information on time, even if you are unsure of my identity.

i look forward to receiving the documentation requested

Regards

 

 

ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

HI All

 

I have sold my debts to CCK , and today I have receive letter from egg, saying that I have no right to sell my debt under eggs T&C 23.1 . First of all I don't remember signing the T&C with egg. 2nd I took the card in 2001. Now my question is has naybody heard of 23.1 T&C from egg crddit agreement.However, CCA 1974 section 99(1) says the debtors has a right to sell the agreement given notice 14 days notice to creditor. And section 98(1) says credit should give 7 day(s) notice to consumber, prior to selling debt to collection agency. nay support will greatly appreciated. 8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...