Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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

UKPC and DEBT RECOVERY PLUS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5389 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

i have a parking ticket sent to me in the post by UKPC for parking in catford island retail park.There was a sign clearly stating that there was two hours free parking .. my son parked for 15 mins and the car is registered to his father. There was no parking ticket place on my car the only thing i heard about it was a letter from UKPC stating i owed £90.

Then a very strongly worded letter from Debt Recovery Plus stating it is a legal requiremnt to send notice of intended litigation... i was not the driver only the owner and i have a photo of the sign at the premises that clearly states i my vehicle was allowed to pqark for 2 hours...and it stayed for 15 mins !! what to do and what letter to use???:-x:-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

what to do

do nowt, nil, nadda

 

and what letter to use???

Not worth bothering with. It's been found on CAG over time that the PPCs don't even bother to read whatever letter you send them. To be honest, I think we are still awaiting evidence that anyone in the PPCs can actually read.

 

 

 

Ignore them completely

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will probably get a few letters from them, the "debt Collection agency" on the next desk and possibly even get one from the "solicitors" (that's the tea-monkey).

Ignore them all!

Eventually they will give up and hound someone who is not so wise.

 

Bear in mind that you have not received a fine, you have received an unenforcible [problem] invoice.

If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

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

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

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

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just confirm i should ignore them and not even bother send them a letter to tell them that i was not driving???Can they pursue this in the court or send baliff as they threatened??? firstly i did not get a ticket on the car..secondly i was not driving... thirdly it stated that parking could be for 2 hours free the car was there for 15 mins!!! and finally shall i bother telling them this or really just ignore them with no repercussions???

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah you can ignore it... as said here you're going to get all sorts of letters.. Its not a debt so they can't do anything to your credit file or give you a CCJ as it has to go to court first. They are well aware that you may not be the driver so they are just trying it on.

 

It is the first thing a court would ask and it would be thrown out on those grounds!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you admit you are the driver, then you are admitting that you breached the terms of the supposed contract... this is usually a flaw in the whole [problem] because they send the ticket to the registered keeper who is not necessarly the driver! By admitting in a letter you are the driver it seems to give the PPCs a bit of encouragement to take things further!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just confirm i should ignore them and not even bother send them a letter to tell them that i was not driving???

 

No, a complete waste of your time and money.

 

Can they pursue this in the court

 

Yes, but they won't

 

or send baliff as they threatened???

 

To get to the baliff stage, they first have to take you to court (see above). Then they have to win:lol::lol::lol:

Then you have to fail to pay the judgement, then and only then they apply for enforcement and the bailiff gets involved.

 

firstly i did not get a ticket on the car..secondly i was not driving...

 

Then they have absolutely no case against you. Under no circumstances contact them especially do not identify the driver.

thirdly it stated that parking could be for 2 hours free the car was there for 15 mins!!! and finally shall i bother telling them this or really just ignore them with no repercussions???

 

Just ignore them, give them nothing to go on, and nowhere to go.

 

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you admit you are the driver, then you are admitting that you breached the terms of the supposed contract... this is usually a flaw in the whole [problem] because they send the ticket to the registered keeper who is not necessarly the driver! By admitting in a letter you are the driver it seems to give the PPCs a bit of encouragement to take things further!

 

LONDONCASS: What do you mean?

 

Got to try and sleep soon!........................

Link to post
Share on other sites

but a case was taken to court in the past and the PPC won because the defendant admitted to being the driver on a forum!

 

The PPC won because the defendant had a poor defence and dwelled on the driver side of things.

 

If you weren't the driver, great. You have a cast iron defence.

 

If you were the driver, don't spend your time dodging the issue and looking bad. Concentrate on the myriad of defences regarding the unenforceability of the charge.

 

It is the driver who breached the contract

 

And what is the remedy for alleged breach of contract...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

and the remedy is?........

 

.... to return the claimant (landowner) to the same position he would have been in had the breach of contract not taken place.

 

i.e. if you overstayed in a free carpark by 5 minutes, then you should compenstate the landowner (not a 3rd party PPC) for the revenue he has lost by you using the car park for too long. Loss = 0

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bit confused though, do I have to conpensate the landowner whoever that is now or later?

 

How would the landowner be loss=0?

 

Probably being thick here but if I understood it I would probably be a lawyer!

 

I will in time make a donation to this site BUT I cant do paypal so may get the wife to register and do it for me(long story)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What crem is saying that this is a civil matter. This means that you can not be taken to court and made to pay a fine or a penalty, as that would be a punishment and no joe blogs can impose a penalty on another.

 

If the car park charged £1 per hour, and you paid £1, but stayed for two, then the landowner could take you to court for breach of contract, and only sue you for its loss because of it... which would be £1 (for the second hour). He could not charge you £70 for a PCN etc. because the only loss incurred would be the £1 if someone else had actually used the space and paid!

 

If it's a free car park, then they lost £0 by you overstaying because if someone else had come along, they would have been doing it for free too!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...