Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • 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!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
  • 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

Ruthbridge


Lizzy69
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5325 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 all!

 

Approximately 10 days ago we received a letter from Ruthbridge "to the occupier" requesting to contact them immediately. As it wasn't addressed to anyone we ignored it and threw it away.

 

Today a letter came from them again, this time addressed to dh "Notice Before Proceedings".

 

Unfortunately I am unable to scan the letter in but the key points are as follows;

 

Client Name: Cabot Financial Europe Limited

Assigned From: MBNA Cards

Regarding: Credit Card

Client Ref: xxxxxxxx (i know i've put x's but this is important)

Balance: £xxxx.xx

 

Ist paragraph: We have been instructed by the above named client to retrieve the outstanding balance in full. Failure to respond to this notice within seven days may result in legal action being commenced by our client. :eek: MAY result??????

 

Now as I see it the first thing to do is send a CCA request. So I opened up another CCA request letter that was sent in July to another DCA so that I could just change the date, address and client ref. When I got to the client ref part, I noticed it was the same refernce number, what a coincidence eh?

 

The response from the earlier DCA was that they couldn't comply with the request and were sending it back to their client.

 

So obviously it's been sold on again, should we send anothe CCA request to Ruthbridge and await their repsonse?

 

Looking forward to your advice.........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the copy of the letter from the earlier dca with this

 

"I am bemused as to why you are collecting this disputed date. On XXXX date a CCA request was sent to XXX and they sent the attached letter.

 

This debt is clearly in dispute and I would remind you of the OFT guidelines in collecting disputed debts AND using multiple collection agencies.

 

Please do not contact us again with regard to this matter unless it is to provide the CCA originally requested on XXX date.

 

Don't sign the letter (or use a signature font).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, complaint to the office of fair trading and also to trading standards. Also complain under CPUT.

 

When you write to Cabot tell them that in the circumstances you are complaining to the office of fair trading about their tactics.

 

Also send another complaint separately to the office of fair trading about the first DCA who had sold on your unenforceable account.

 

Do make sure that you send all of these complaints. It is very important to get on record. Keep copies of everything. Keep the pressure on so that these people know that when they behave like this that they will have to answer to these organisations

Link to post
Share on other sites

you can try this one if you like

 

 

 

 

 

ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE

 

Date:

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated XXXXX

 

This account is in dispute with **original creditor/DCA** and has been since DATE .

Not only is this a breach of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in line with the Office Of Fair Trading's debt collection guidelines, but also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Data Protection Act 1998

 

My previous dispute from **DATE** has NOT been answered.

 

As **original creditor/name of debt collection agency** are now in default of my Consumer Credit Act agreementrequest and have also breached *s10 Data Protection Act request , I consider this account to be in SERIOUS DISPUTE.

 

As you are aware while my Consumer Credit Act request remains in default enforcement action is NOT permitted, under s127 this constitutes a complete defence at law.

 

Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS.

 

Now I would respectfully suggest that this account is returned to the **original creditor/DCA** for resolution of these defaults and breaches, as **New DCA** cannot lawfully pursue any enforcement activities.

 

If **New DCA** chooses to ignore my dispute and attempt enforcement, I will initiate legal action and file reports with the appropriate authorities, including, but not limited to, Trading Standards, Office of Fair Trading, Information Commissioners Office, Financial Ombudsman Service and possible court action.

 

After taking advice, I am of the opinion that any continued pursuit is in violation of the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 in line with the Office Of Fair Tradings Collection Guidelines

 

I hope that this will not be necessary and an acceptable solution can be accomplished.

 

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

Hi

 

Thanks for the replies and I now have a few questions:

 

1. Should i still send a letter to Ruthbridge?

 

2. Who are Cabot, are they a DCA?

 

3. Does anyone have the address for Cabot?

 

4. Are there any templates that I can send to Cabot?

 

5. Who do I address the letters to for Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards?

 

6. Again are there any templates for the above?

 

Loads of questions I know but I really appreciate your help..........

Link to post
Share on other sites

First point - If you receive a communication from a debt collection agency which breaches the debt collection guidance, please don't throw it away! Complaints carry a lot more weight with evidence.

 

Answers -

 

1 You don't need to send another CCA request letter to Ruthbish. It may be a good idea to send them something, but not that.

 

2 Yes, an extremely nasty and underhanded one. I will give you some links in a later post to threads where they are being dealt with. I will also give you a link to the blog of a CAGger which has plenty of useful information on this shower.

 

3 Yes, it is on the blog. I will link to it for you.

 

4 What exactly do you want to say to them?

 

5 Good question. I know noomill060 found an email address for the OFT. I had it stored on my old PC but I don't have it now. I'm still trying to rebuild my folder of useful information. If anybody can give us a link, it will help.

 

6 I don't think so, but I'll try to find out.

 

SH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SH

 

I will work on this over the weekend.

 

Do you think I should send the "account in dispute" to Ruthbish as the previous DCA returned the postal order saying they were referring it back to Cabot as they couldn't provide a CCA?

 

If not what do you suggest?

 

Sorry for so many questions but I am not very "clued" up when it comes to this sort of thing

 

Thanks all..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cabot are desperate for cash having revealed a £6m loss the other week. They pass on accounts to various debt collectors. If Ruthbish have been handed this one after another cretin had a go then its extremely likely they have nothing by way of paperwork.My first instinct is to ignore letters from companies like Ruthbridge but complaints against them are mounting up so perhaps telling them this is in disupte and has been for some time would not be a bad idea. failing to respond properly would be looked on as reason to complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

We have today received a letter from Ruthbridge again! This time using words like "may" go to court for bankruptcy etc etc etc.

 

However further on down the letter they say that they are willing to accept part payment (aprox 50% reduction) in full & final settlement. As an added incentive they would request the credit agencies to mark the credit file "satisfied". Hmmmmmmmmmm very odd indeed.

 

Now the letter that "debt4get" posted was sent to them by recorded delivery so this may have crossed in the post.

 

What do you think the next course of action should be?

 

Any advice greatly welcomed.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry! I have just realised I didn't return to this thread and provide the links I promised.

 

Here is the link to a fellow CAGger's blog about Crapbot -

 

Cabot Financial Blog

 

Here are some Crapbot Farcical threads -

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/80270-litigation-tbern123-cabot-financial.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/54029-seahorse-cabot.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/104668-cabot-windywoo.html

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/73598-dealing-cabot-101-cabot.html

 

Regarding the letter from Ruthbish, it is evidence that they know they are screwed. If they could go to court, get a CCJ, and have you bled like a leech for years to come, do you think they would be offering "generous" settlements?

 

You have already sent the letter to Ruthbish telling them that the previous shower of crud were in default of your CCA request, so there is no need to communicate with them further on the subject.

 

What you need to do is complain to the OFT and TS, and then write to Ruthbish again telling them that you have done just that. This also gives you a chance to ask for their formal complaints procedure, which they are obliged to supply. If they keep being silly, you may have a chance to escalate any complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which, despite being less use than a chocolate fireguard, may just charge them £450 for the investigation. This should be a deterrent to them as they will already be aware that they cannot screw any money out of you - hence the silly "offer".

 

SH

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...