Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

DLC Re Hillesden Securities


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5442 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

Hi

I have a joint debt of £4516.80 with ref to a personal loan from Black Horse, Hillesden Securities took over the debt 2 years ago and I sent numerous CCA requests. I finally recieved a signed copy of the cca 12 months after first requesting, i have also attempted to claim back unfairly sold PPI to no avail (its been a while since i dealt with things). Now I have a letter from Direct Legal Collections saying that they will accept half of the outstanding balance if i contact them asap. Given my current situation i have no money to pay these people but wondered if there is anything else i could do?

Many thanks

Maudy xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I have a joint debt of £4516.80 with ref to a personal loan from Black Horse, Hillesden Securities took over the debt 2 years ago and I sent numerous CCA requests. I finally recieved a signed copy of the cca 12 months after first requesting, i have also attempted to claim back unfairly sold PPI to no avail (its been a while since i dealt with things). Now I have a letter from Direct Legal Collections saying that they will accept half of the outstanding balance if i contact them asap. Given my current situation i have no money to pay these people but wondered if there is anything else i could do?

Many thanks

Maudy xx

 

Hi Maud, re: PPI what were the grounds for reclaiming... have you considered a complaint to the FOS on PPI, they have been upholding a reasonably large percentage of claims apparently but it does normally take more than 5-6 months to get action.

 

Have you scanned and posted up the loan CCA as it may not be enforceable.

 

As per the other thread... if you have nothing the most you can pay is £1 per creditor. Nobody can get blood out of a stone.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if they are offering a discount of 50% on a debt they have purchased they will presumably still be making a healthy profit if you are able to settle at that rate, it beggars the question of how much they paid the original creditor for the alleged debt. Are debtors entitled to know the actual figure? I assume the amount paid for the debt would vary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be 10 - 15p in the £1 or as little as a few pence - there is no way to find out. They are offering a 50% discount because they need the money. They would then proceed to sell the rest on and you would get a demand from another DCA for the rest. There is no honour amongst murky DCAs. Try to post the agreement (block your personal detail) if you can and we will have a look at it to see if it is enforceable. Photobucket is good. If the agreement isn't enforceable you can tell Tony Locke at Hillesden to get lost. (DLC/Hillesden/MDB are all the same company- part of the Faccenda Group, whose other activity is chicken farming!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Shadow

I have have attached the scanned copy i have stored on my PC (not sure where the paper copy is) so hope its readable. I posted some time ago asking where to go for advice on if its enforceable but didn't get much joy. What would you advise on how to check this?

The grouns for PPI reclaim is that I am disabled and have been for many years, plus the fact that we were told 'No PPI = No loan'.

Thank everyone for their advice.

xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view this would be enforceable BUT I would put it into dispute with Hillesden for 2 reasons 1) you were mis-sold PPI and have made a claim which is now with the FOS (send your claim to the FOS) and 2) the agreement says it has 2 pages, you have only received 1 page and you haven't received a copy of the Terms and Conditions nor have you received any statements. Until such times as your CCA request has been met fully and the PPI settled, you will not be making any payments on this disputed account. The will hum and haw about it and keep asking for payment at which point you report them to the OFT for pursuing payment on an account in dispute - and send Hillesden a copy to show them you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Account In Dispute

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Thank you for your letter of (date) the contents of which have been noted.

 

You have failed to respond to my legal request to supply me a true copy of the original Consumer Credit Agreement for the above account.

 

On (date) I made a formal request for a true signed agreement for the alleged account under consumer credit Act 1974 s77/8.

 

You have failed to comply with my request, and as such the account entered default on 10/10/08. (12+2 working days AFTER the CCA request was sent)

 

The document that you are obliged to send me is a true copy of the executed agreement that contained all of the prescribed terms, all other required terms and statutory notices and was signed by both your company and myself as defined in section 61(1) of CCA 74 and subsequent Statutory Instruments. If the executed agreement contained any reference to any other document, you are also obliged to send me a copy of that document. In addition a full statement of this account should have been sent to me detailing all debits and credits to the account.

 

Furthermore

 

You are aware that the Consumer Credit Act allows 12 working days for a request for a true copy of a credit agreement to be carried out before your client enters into a default situation.

 

This limit has expired.

 

As you are no doubt aware section 77(6) states:

 

If the creditor fails to comply with Subsection (1)

 

(a) He is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

Therefore this account has become unenforceable at law.

 

As you have Failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, Failed to send a full statement of the account and Failed to provide any of the documentation requested.

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Furthermore I shall counterclaim that any such action constitutes unlawful harassment.

 

Please note you may also consider this letter as a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

 

This means you must remove all information regarding this account from your own internal records and from my records with any credit reference agencies.

 

Should you refuse to comply, you must within 21 days provide me with a detailed breakdown of your reasoning behind continuing to process my data.

 

It is not sufficient to simply state that you have a ‘legal right’; You must outline your reasoning in this matter and state upon which legislation this reasoning depends.

 

Should you not respond within 14 days I expect that this means you agree to remove all such data.

 

Furthermore you should be aware that a creditor is not permitted to take ANY

Action against an account whilst it remains in dispute.

 

The lack of a credit agreement is a very clear dispute and as such the following applies.

 

* You may not demand any payment on the account, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you.

* You may not add further interest or any charges to the account.

* You may not pass the account to a third party.

* You may not register any information in respect of the account with any credit reference agency.

* You may not issue a default notice related to the account.

 

 

I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit.

You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter, which is now a formal complaint.

 

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

 

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

Yours

 

Amend it to tell them it is further in dispute because of mis-sold PPI.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...