Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [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 states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [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; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Amex CCA received - is it enforceable please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5355 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 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The use of hearsay evidence in civil courts is covered in s2 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995

2 Notice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence

 

(1) A party proposing to adduce hearsay evidence in civil proceedings shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, give to the other party or parties to the proceedings—

(a) such notice (if any) of that fact, and

(b) on request, such particulars of or relating to the evidence,

as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances for the purpose of enabling him or them to deal with any matters arising from its being hearsay

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The use of hearsay evidence in civil courts is covered in s2 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995

 

Perhaps these posts should be moved out of the OPs original thread? I didnt ask if the balance would mean it running in small claims/fast track and just assumed small track in my replies/comments.

 

I would counter that with CPR 27.8(3), Do they still have to declare it formally?

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vint

 

No, no SARS or CPR yet but presumably as they have provided a signed document i would (probably) just get the same back. My position is I need to decide fairly quickly whether to pay or not and that would depend on how strong a probable case I have based on an incorrect date in the Default Notice and any defects in the CCA.

 

 

Sorry Cadwaller, Had to go out this afternoon.

 

You have some heavyweights in here now, so back to the sidelines for me. ( Not ment to be a sizeist remark Steven - Shadow - Pinky )

 

Follow their advice, you seem to have them on the DN.

 

Vint

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more question please.

 

Given an invalid DN but a probable enforceable CCA does this mean I need to pay the arrears amount on the DN and tell them I have paid all I lawfully need to?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

One more question please.

 

Given an invalid DN but a probable enforceable CCA does this mean I need to pay the arrears amount on the DN and tell them I have paid all I lawfully need to?

 

Thanks

 

NO!

 

The DN will only come into play when they terminate the account or do something that is in keeping with ending the contract i.e. demanding the full repayment of the balance, until then they can issue another correct DN and thus make you liable for the full amount.

 

So... you'll need to keep the fact about the DN quiet and just wait for the termination for it to have any bearing on events.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Have now received a cancellation notice from Amex.

 

35na5jo.jpg

 

As it is demanding payment of all monies outstanding is this effectively a termination notice, even if it does not use the word termination?

 

Thanks

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for delay in responding - been off line for a while.

 

So, I have a dodgy DN, an unlawful termination but an apparently enforceable CCA.

 

Is my next step to pay the arrears stated on the DN and then inform them I have paid what I am lawfully required to pay under the agreement?

 

Also, should I pay it direct to OC as I have now heard from AIC demanding full payment of the total balance plus Referral fee of £1400+?

 

Thanks

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for delay in responding - been off line for a while.

 

So, I have a dodgy DN, an unlawful termination but an apparently enforceable CCA.

 

Is my next step to pay the arrears stated on the DN and then inform them I have paid what I am lawfully required to pay under the agreement?

 

Also, should I pay it direct to OC as I have now heard from AIC demanding full payment of the total balance plus Referral fee of £1400+?

 

Thanks

 

C

 

I'm afraid they will not agree to anything you suggest and will continue their normal process for recovery.

 

If/when a court claim gets delivered is the time to bring up the DN imho.

 

S.

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but if I accept that the CCA is enforceable should I not at least pay what I concede is due, i.e. the arrears amount?

 

C

 

I'm not sure if it'll have any affect, they will still not concede the point and if court proceedings are brought it will be for the full outstanding balance less the arrears.

 

I suppose you could put in the defense that you have paid all monies you believe are due thanks to the invalid DN served upon you.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I accept that they will still proceed on their usual course but if I pay what is lawfully due isn't this a stronger position than having to say in court that I knew I was liable to pay the arrears but didn't? I don't pretend to know the answer but seems better if I meet what I accept as my obligation?

 

C

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
You've just got to love the convoluted logic in this reply from Amex:D

 

 

 

hahaha "date of service is date we send it to you" err fraid not Amex :-D

 

"legally obliged to charge this" :-D by what law/statute is this...

 

These people live in cloud cuckoo land, why do they tie themselves up in so many knots.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a cracker from Amex.

 

Alas, their statements are (as they like to put it), without substance or merit. Their DNs are invalid, despite their drivel. Their 'file referral fees' are contrary to the OFT Guidance, and they even quote the paragraph in the agreement that plainly does not comply. I'd say that their letter, which is clearly designed to mislead and to misrepresent fact, is contrary to CPUTR.

 

Every Amex case we see is another demonstration that Amex will not face the reality of their situation - they merely spout increasing amounts of boolsheet to attempt to mislead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

HAve now received threat letter from Westminsters. Any suggestions on how to reply - usual 'matter in dispute' or something a bit more positive?

 

Just to summarise, Amex default notice did not give correct time to remedy and they terminated on the back of it. I have already paid arrears stated on DN.

 

tanhna.jpg

 

Thanks

 

Cadwallader

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...