Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • 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

Lowell and Barclaycard debt poss SB'd


Azuma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5298 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 215
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

often wonder if lowell ever read these posts.

with them been mindless idiots,wonder if they know what we are on about.

 

will pms if i see a lowell/red/hampton letter signed m.meg:Dor f.teller

 

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

After reading this post it looks like fun times ahead for me with these lol. Must be frustrating to see this happening but at least your able to see your credit report im still waiting as they need to do further checks! whatever that mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hey guys,

 

i posted a thread a little while back regading Lowell (likely suspects :( lol ) they basically claimed to have taken over an old debt of mine, i sent them the SB letter as i was positive it'd be past 6 years since acknowledgement.

 

They sent me back some bulls**t response about it not being SB because an "ATTEMPTED PAYMENT" was made in Feb 2005.

 

My question is, what the hell is an "attempted payment" and where do these DCA's get the logic behind a statement like this?

 

Is it just me or could this be another vague answer, where they don't actually know anything about payments being made, but would use the word "attempted" as a way to cover themselves if they were ever found to be telling porkies?

 

For example, they are not saying "a payment WAS made" but rather they "believe" a payment "could have" been made on this date. :( haha

 

Rather bemused to say the least???!!!

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey guys,

 

i posted a thread a little while back regading Lowell (likely suspects :( lol ) they basically claimed to have taken over an old debt of mine, i sent them the SB letter as i was positive it'd be past 6 years since acknowledgement.

 

They sent me back some bulls**t response about it not being SB because an "ATTEMPTED PAYMENT" was made in Feb 2005.

 

My question is, what the hell is an "attempted payment" and where do these DCA's get the logic behind a statement like this?

 

Is it just me or could this be another vague answer, where they don't actually know anything about payments being made, but would use the word "attempted" as a way to cover themselves if they were ever found to be telling porkies?

 

For example, they are not saying "a payment WAS made" but rather they "believe" a payment "could have" been made on this date. :( haha

 

Rather bemused to say the least???!!!

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Az

 

Its the latest DCA trick in reply to Stat Barred letters apparently. I think you are correct in your asumption on the "attempted" bit too ;-)

 

Just ask for evidence of this "attempted payment", i.e. a paying in slip that has been marked rejected, a time/date when a payment was bounced etc. Without evidence its all talk :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be wrong but I wonder if they are meaning that a payment was sent either to the OC or DCA at the time but wasnt processed, maybe the account was closed and it bounced back to you ?

 

I would imagine though they need to provide proof of this, or it could be they are just trying to get you to admit its your debt.

 

Someone with a bit more know will come along to advise next step no doubt.

 

 

ETA they already did, ignore me :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm,

 

what i think they might be "trying" to say is that payment was attempted to be taken, but couldn't for some reason.

 

However, i think this debt is for a credit card, in which case, the only place a payment could've been "attempted" would be from my current account, and that wouldn't have happened.

 

either way, i ignored this letter for now, after all it's not up to me to prove this debt IS S.B. it's their job to prove that it ISN'T. :)

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

either way, i ignored this letter for now, after all it's not up to me to prove this debt IS S.B. it's their job to prove that it ISN'T. :)

 

Az

 

Correct :-D

 

Just keep in your mind that this "attempted payment" is being used by a few DCA's now so without evidence isnt worth the paper its printed on :-)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the new DCA thought police in action. Lowells and others have employed a mystic to read your mind. Apparently back in Feb 2005 you had a fleeting thought about paying a debt. Then you thought NAH!!

 

Lowells have linked into your old memories and pulled this thought to justify their ridiculous statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct :-D

 

Just keep in your mind that this "attempted payment" is being used by a few DCA's now so without evidence isnt worth the paper its printed on :-)

 

S.

 

haha, pretty much like EVERY letter i have recieved from these clowns then? :D

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam614 has a great situation with an attempted payment, that according to the DCA was attempted by his/her sister, even though she was in hospital after giving birth the day before, and the attempt was on a sunday! If they do come back to you with a specific date, i would suggest checking what day of the week it was, you never know it could also be a sunday. Maybe they have evidence of you standing outside your bank on a sunday shaking your head wondering why you can't pay this DCA.

Edited by jimdev1976
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the new DCA thought police in action. Lowells and others have employed a mystic to read your mind. Apparently back in Feb 2005 you had a fleeting thought about paying a debt. Then you thought NAH!!

 

Lowells have linked into your old memories and pulled this thought to justify their ridiculous statement

 

hahahaha, i can just see them now sat around with someone saying "so who has a new way of lieing to people, but making it sound as if we're completely stupid at the same time" then some loser putting his hand up and saying "we can say, an attempted payment was made in xx" then the others giving him a standing ovation, whislt this one cretin laps up the false bravado place on him.

 

haha, i'd love to be a fly on the wall in their offices sometimes! :D

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam614 has a great situation with an attempted payment, that according to the DCA was attempted by his sister, even though she was in hospital after giving birth the day before, and the attempt was on a sunday! If they do come back to you with a specific date, i would suggest checking what day of the week it was, you never know it could also be a sunday. Maybe they have evidence of you standing outside your bank on a sunday shaking your head wondering why you can't pay this DCA.

 

lol, typical idiocy from these cretins, by the way i'm pretty sure Sam614 is a woman (just incase you drop yourself in it with her lol) - back to the date, i think it was a Friday. The amusing thing is that I was in the marines up until 2007 and between Nov 2004 and Sept 2005 i was in Bosnia on tour, sooooo unless i stopped into a Barclays in the middle of a conflict, they are talking complete bull. :rolleyes:

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

PGH, the letter in question reads as follows:

 

"Thank you for your letter, concerning the above account.

 

We would advise you that the limitation act 1980 section 5 is not applicable in your case and would refer you to section 29 (7) of the limitation which states "A current period of limitation may be repeatedly extended under this section by further acknowledgement or payment". Your last attempted payment date on this account was dated 17th February 2005.

 

We trust this clarifies the situation and look forward to receiving your payment proposals."

 

Your Sincerely

 

Samantha Barnard

Customer Services

 

------------------------------------------------------------

 

What do you make of this? lol

 

Az

Link to post
Share on other sites

got to be a figment of their somewhat limited imagination :)

just like their attempted threats in an attempted letter to get you to pay an attmepted alleged debt i suppose :confused::D

 

lol, reminds me of a response PGH gave me previously, he / she said i should send a letter of the following:

 

Dear Cretins

 

Thank you for pointing out that an ATTEMPT to pay was ATTEMPTED on date - I would be curious to know how this ATTEMPTED ATTEMP was ATTEMPTED and who actually ATTEMPTED to ATTEMPT to make this ATTEMPTED payment.

 

It certainly was not me I would be very foolish to acutally make an ATTEMPTED payment for a debt that is alledgedly mine, so the question remains, who did try to ATTEMPT this ATTEMPTED ATTEMP at making an ATTEMPTED Payment.

 

When you discover the the identity of the ATTEMPTED payee pleasein form me as I would like to report them to the police for identity theft for making the ATTEMPTED ATTEMPT at the ATTEMPTED ATTEMP to ATTEMPT the payment.

 

I hope that this ATTEMPT to set the record straight reference the ATTEMPTED ATTEMPT to ATTEMPT to make an ATTEMPTED payment is understood.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

Although i was very tempted, i decided not to get involved with this game of cat and mouse they so obviously enjoy playing with people :rolleyes:

 

Az :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

February 2005.

 

haha you think they could have been inventive and picked a different month/year from the other letters weve seen on this site :-D

 

 

[edit] Oh and it this is lowells new tactic at attempting to side step the OFT guidelines on SB debts then we need to collate all the cases this happens and inform the OFT as obviously the few we see on here will be the tip of the iceberg

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...