Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • 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.  
  • 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 
        • Like
      • 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

I think I may have annoyed Mercers a little!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5257 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 there, this is my first post so if i have put it in the wrong place i'm sorry!

 

First i have to say a huge thank you to this web site, I am having an ongoing battle with Barclays who have been scaring the daylights out of my mother. But that is another story and i will post that at a later date.

 

So i'll get to the point.

 

I contacted Companies house about mercers, I asked them how a company that is listed as non-trading is allowed to issue illegal default notices and if they are not submitting accounts, how come they are allowed to collect money?

 

The reply i got was what i expected, they can do this because they collect on behalf of the banks...

 

Not happy with this i mailed back that on the back of their letters they ask you to write cheques payable to Mercers debt collections. As i was self employed i told companies house that if i asked my customers to write my cheques in a different name or account, the tax man would not like it and i would get done for fraud! so how come they could?

 

I got a message back asking me if i had proof of this could i please send it to them (i did) as they would like to look into it further...

 

Now i never paid these people anything, as the account is in dispute. But lots of people must have? Maybe admin can help me here?

 

If i can show companies house that mercers have been collecting money especially cheques in there name then they have been trading, if they have been trading and not submitting there accounts then surly something would be done about the bully people they are?

 

Maybe we have a little chance here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you,

 

I had another mail from Companies house saying they are looking into this and i will hear back in a couple of days.

 

I just think it's about time the little person got to bully them for a change.

 

Wierd thing is my mother nor me have had any calls from them in the past couple of days....

 

It should be simple enough, if i can prove they have been recieving payments, but have not been publishing accounts whether they are just a department of Barcleys or not, Its still breaking the law.

 

I'll just have to wait and see how it pans out.

 

Ian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very interesting. Companies House shows Mercers Debt Collections Ltd as having filed dormant company account for the year to 31 December 2008. In order to file these accounts the directors have to certify that it hasn't undertaken any significant financial transactions. Essentially this means that it can't have any income or pay any bills except for the annual return fee to Companies House.

 

A dormant company can have a bank account but it can't use it to any significant extent during the year. There is nothing to stop the company doing non-financial work (such as sending out threatograms) although it would be interesting to know how this work can be resourced.

 

Three things could be going on here:

 

1) The company may have started trading since 1 January 2009

2) The cheques are not being made payable to the company. Do the demands for payment specify the payee as the correct name of the company including the Limited suffix?

3) The company is processing payments and has financial transactions that would not allow dormant financial statements to be filed. If that's the case they are in serious trouble with Companies House and potentially the taxman as tax returns and supporting financial statements are still required for dormant companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Seminole, One of my main question to companies house was, on the back of the theatograms is:

 

Please make cheques payable to " Mercers Debt Collections Ltd"

 

Surely that is trading so they should be submitting accounts,

 

I'm just waiting for the e-mail that will say, because of some unheard of law or gray area they can do what they please!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just recieved this from Companies House this morning:

 

Thank you for your email. I can see what you mean regarding making the payment to Mercers Debt Collections Limited. Your email will be passed to a case officer within the team for further consideration.

 

Yours sincerely

 

A****** O*****

Technical Offences Team

 

Oh dear Mercer's !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thats exactly what i was thinking!

 

I will keep on with this, i want to give them as much grief as i can after dealing with the stress they gave my mother, and no doubt countless other unfortunate people who have had the same dealings.

 

If i get some time i will post the problems i have had with Barcleys/Mercers in a new thread as i think i still need a hand there, But thanks to this forum i am managing to slowly get things sorted, but thats another story.

 

 

Can any one tell me who is/are the people who set this forum up? I think i may be able to help with some advertising for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny thats exactly what i was thinking!

 

I will keep on with this, i want to give them as much grief as i can after dealing with the stress they gave my mother, and no doubt countless other unfortunate people who have had the same dealings.

 

If i get some time i will post the problems i have had with Barcleys/Mercers in a new thread as i think i still need a hand there, But thanks to this forum i am managing to slowly get things sorted, but thats another story.

 

 

Can any one tell me who is/are the people who set this forum up? I think i may be able to help with some advertising for them.

 

Click on the warning triangle on the left hand side and ask for one of the site team to contact you.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching this with interest! Another little story to add to my portfolio of BC/Mercers for the courts to hear!

Can't wait for the next instalment!!

 

Do you have a thread i can mull over it might help me with this, the more ammo i have the better.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might have something here - fingers crossed! Early days in my dealings with them on behalf of Barclaysharks - CCCS are I think going to send the Barclaysharks payment to Mercers?! (they detail them on the DMP that is about to start). Not sure if this helps any (or if it means I should be worried about CCCS! :eek:).

As BB rightly says unlike the OFT companies house actually use their teeth! :)

MJC 007.5 :cool:

 

Advice or opinions offered by mjc 007.5 are personal, offered in good faith and without prejudice or liability. Your decisions and actions are your own and should you be in any doubt then please seek the opinion of a fully qualified and insured professional

 

:) If you think I have helped you please feel free to click on my scales :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...