Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have a feeling you have a LOC on the way, from those lovely people at ALLIANCE PARKING. We got one a few weeks back for the same NTK date and location as yours .. 🤬
    • The "grief tech" firms helping users create talking avatars of their dead relatives.View the full article
    • I do disagree with you regarding one thing - we are not very good with letters or these situations and are slow on the uptake. So far you have stood up to Excel and their threats, immediately given us the information in the sticky, done loads of reading up to educate yourselves, learnt from the mistake of outing the driver so you'll know not to do so in the future, got on to the organ grinder to try to get them to call off their dogs, etc., etc.  Good grief - we wish everyone who came here would do this!!! Most people who get these invoices sadly think they have been fined and if they don't pay a drone from Ukraine will be diverted and will fall on their home (or some such vague grand apocalyptic threat) and they fold and give in.  You haven't.  Well done. Don't worry - you won't be paying a penny.  Although it will take some time to see off this vile company.
    • Spot on!  You learn quickly. Who cares if the case gets sent to debt collectors?  They have no powers.  All the effort you will have to put in will be to open envelopes - and then spend time laughing at their daft "threats".  No stress at all!
    • I did ask them why, but seems they have more spare cash than we do .. ;-( .. I doubt their bank would even support a chargeback after a year has passed. Anyway I've constructed my first DRAFT Snotty Letter .. so here goes ..   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you had added. Shall we raise that related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding the ANPR entry / exit periods compared with actual valid parking periods. Especially with no consideration of the legally allowed grace periods and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the issues with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture more useless ANPR photos. We will of course be requesting “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Legal Counsel on behalf of the Vehicle Keeper.  
  • 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

Claim Stayed – Due to Unenforceable CCA Test Cases.


Blondie40
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4297 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 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont mean to be awkard but the OFT guidance thing was posted months ago and is not just doing circles in the CMC areas. It was handed to me on the school playground by a hoddie. How they know who i am and how they know it would interest me is amazingas i NEVER talk CAG on school premises.

 

lol :D

 

you may be talking about something else, as the OFT draft was only put together in the last few weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G

 

The barrister arguing the case in favour of reconstitution is none other than the grand fellow who fought the bank charges for the crooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A link to the original? What link would that be, the missing link presumably.

 

This is retrospective legislation, if true. The original Act makes it quite clear what the lender must have, a valid DN and a signed agreement, containing all the prescribed terms, on a single document. Nowhere does it say, if the lender cannot produce these he can 'link' to them in a document he has just cut'n'pasted on his MacBook!

 

I'm sorry but the legislation was available for lenders to refer to, and implement, at the time every agreement now in dispute was issued. Whose responsibility is it if credit was granted via improperly executed documents?

 

a) The multimillion pound financial institutions, with armies of lawyers at their disposal who would have ratified these agreements

b) the punter who signed the agreement sent to him/her

 

Rant over :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

 

Quite So!

 

"The Creditor" cannot reconstruct a credit agreement, if they do not hold the basis upon which the credit agreement was originally constructed.

 

In other words, houses cannot be built upon sand but upon rock;

if they are built on sand, they will fall down...!

Link to post
Share on other sites

...when the wind blew and the waves dashed against his house, it would fall. Look how the sea had washed the foundation away, and how the roof is falling in! And the people; see how they are fleeing to save their lives! And all this calamity because he built his house upon the sand...

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gave their submissions in court on wednesday, these CLEARLY supported the arguments put forward by the barristers on our side of the fence (consumer side)... to say the lenders barristers were perturbed is putting it VERY mildly i am told :)

 

The main argument being if the Lender wants to reconstitute the agreement it must demonstrate a link to the clients original contract.

 

 

Let's just say that the Banks positively welcomed the OFTs draft guidance in court yesterday

 

 

Ok I'm confused... are we talking two different cases here?

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'm confused... are we talking two different cases here?

 

S.

 

Not sure what he is on about, but i have first hand contact with those IN court, and i can assure you the lenders were not pleased with the OFT's submissions.

 

This is a cast iron fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...when the wind blew and the waves dashed against his house, it would fall. Look how the sea had washed the foundation away, and how the roof is falling in! And the people; see how they are fleeing to save their lives! And all this calamity because he built his house upon the sand...

 

AC

Jesus must have lived on the Isle of Wight.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I'm confused... are we talking two different cases here?

 

S.

 

No my comment referred to the banks view before the oft barrister Steve Neville addressed the court on. They definitely weren't so happy afterwards . The banks position is that all they need to produce under s.78 is a copy of latest T's & C's

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G[/quote

And why are we seeing more and more decsions by judges going in favour of the creditors when they can't produce an agreement?:?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth can any form of reconstitution be accepted when the act requires production of the original for enforcement to be possible.

G[/quote

And why are we seeing more and more decsions by judges going in favour of the creditors when they can't produce an agreement?:?

care to elaborate on these cases?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No my comment referred to the banks view before the oft barrister Steve Neville addressed the court on. They definitely weren't so happy afterwards . The banks position is that all they need to produce under s.78 is a copy of latest T's & C's

 

On the money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No my comment referred to the banks view before the oft barrister Steve Neville addressed the court on. They definitely weren't so happy afterwards . The banks position is that all they need to produce under s.78 is a copy of latest T's & C's

 

Thanks for clarification :-D

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what he is on about, but i have first hand contact with those IN court, and i can assure you the lenders were not pleased with the OFT's submissions.

 

Cheers Baggio.

 

This is a cast iron fact.

 

Hmm there are very few cast iron facts... 1.. youre born... 2.. you pay taxes 3 you die

 

Not even sure number 2 applies to everyone either :-)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

care to elaborate on these cases?

 

I've read 2 recent cases on here where there was no agreement produced and 1 I read yesterday where there was neither an agreement or DN the creditor admitted as much to the court and it made no difference to the outcome. I'm sure I've got that right I'll have a look and find them if I can :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've read 2 recent cases on here where there was no agreement produced and 1 I read yesterday where there was neither an agreement or DN the creditor admitted as much to the court and it made no difference to the outcome. I'm sure I've got that right I'll have a look and find them if I can :confused:

 

Sorry meant to say they couldn't produce the documents,not that they said they never had any!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...