Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

Link Financial & Virgin CCA Received??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5410 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

Hiya All,

 

My mother in law cca'd link financial regarding a virgin credit card.

She has received the following back, could you please check it and see if its enforceable or not and if not next course of action please?

 

I have removed her address, signature and date from the documents.

 

Thank you

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu277/stinkyfeet_2009/DSC01493.jpg

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu277/stinkyfeet_2009/DSC01494.jpg

Advice & opinions given by Stinkyfeet are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't read the second document......is it that bad or is it just a poor scan??

 

The document isnt great but my camera aint doing a grand job. Have re-done it and included in this post

 

http://i655.photobucket.com/albums/uu277/stinkyfeet_2009/DSC01496.jpg

Advice & opinions given by Stinkyfeet are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This CCA looks to be a torn off form which you you can see a scissor line above the 'please sign this form and return to us'/

September 2002 was the date marked.

Payment protection cover was applied, yes.

Again thank you

Advice & opinions given by Stinkyfeet are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, Link Financial have not fully complied with your S78 CCA Request!

 

Note that they are obligated to provide:

all documents that are referred to in it; the alleged agreement.

Therefore, to fully comply Link must provide the documemtation relating to the PPI.

 

Secondly, the torn off slip or, form does not an agreement make;

 

Irredeemably unenforceable.

 

Link Financial remain in default of your s78 CCA Request!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the following letter:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Thank you for your letter of xx/xx/xx, 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. A copy of which is enclosed for your perusal and ease of reference.

 

You have failed to comply with my request, and as such the account is now in default as of **DATE**.(12+2 days after you sent the CCA request)

 

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 78(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 therefore request a copy of your official complaints procedure which you are obliged to supply.

I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you in writing.

 

 

Yours faithfully,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the following letter:

 

Unfortunately, Link Financial will state that they have complied!

 

However, until such time that they supply the inception T&C's plus all docs relating to the PPI; they have not.

 

The ball is firmly, back in their court.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

They sure will, but it's best to have a paper trail going.....

 

Always!

 

Most of these DCA's, Link are no different, will send what they see as compliance docs...

 

One, must point out in Plain & Simple Crystal Clear English, that they have NOT complied and keep pursuing for ALL the Documents that they are obligated to provide.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, Thank you for that guys and girls, have spoke to mother in law and she hasn't heard further from them, have advised on the letter above but advised she only should send when she hears from them again, is this correct?

As they haven't been in touch since this thought it would be pointless her sending anything yet till she hears off them.

 

Again and as always, thank you

Advice & opinions given by Stinkyfeet are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional. :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter above puts the account firmly into dispute - that way they know that you know your rights. By not putting it into dispute, they will presume you accept the CCA as being correct and will carry on regardless.

 

It is your choice though :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...