Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks London  if I’ve read correctly the questionaire wants me to post his actual name on a public forum… is that correct.  I’ve only had a quick read so far
    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
    • Here's a suggested modified version for consideration by the team. (Not sure whether it still gives too much away?)   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 added. Shall we raise the 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 parking periods. Especially with no consideration of section 13 in your own trade association's code of practice 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, unmanaged 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 above issues and more, with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture a couple of useless ANPR photos. If you insist on continuing this stupid, money grabbing quest, after having all of the above pointed out, we will of course show this letter to the Judge and request “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. Signed, "Spot". (Vehicle Keeper's pet Dalmation).
  • 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

Scottish court change ‘threatens recovery’ - 02/10/2009


PGH7447
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5236 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

Credit Today online

 

Creditors and debt buyers will be unable to recover debts through the Scottish courts unless they have copies of regulated agreements, under new rules.

 

Experts are calling on those who use the Scottish courts to send representation to the Sheriff Court Rules Council, which initiated the change to the court rules. The change is due to be implemented on 1 December. From then, court actions regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will require a copy of the regulated agreement which will have to be attached to the writ or summons

 

--------

 

Think I will move north of the border

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see they are whingeing already about it and saying the OFT says True Copies are acceptable.

 

At the end of the day they still need the original agreement to enforce the debt or else S 127 applies.

 

Ask the MBNA crowd who lost in court this week because they hadnt the original agreement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone call :D

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

 

At the end of the day they still need the original agreement to enforce the debt or else S 127 applies. quote]

 

Glad to hear this will still apply. There's a huge thread on the forum about MBNA who are allegedly quite adept now at producing copy application forms with prescribed terms squashed conveniently on to a side column bar, or allegedly squashing them on to the opposite side of the page which was originally the MBNA folding return mail address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Away the the Outer Isles...

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/ssi2009/pdf/ssi_20090294_en.pdf

 

paras 2-7

 

I have always wanted to live in the Outer Hebrides;

so beautiful!

 

AC

 

I have a house there AC. It's great when the weather's good, but when it's not so good - be very afraid! The 9.30am-3.30pm midwinter days are also a bit of a b*gger. I think when I retire it will be six months in the Hebrides, six months in the Caribbean. And not a DCA in sight...

 

(Starting to wish I hadn't seen the idiots off!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paras 2 - 7 come into force on 1st December 2009

 

2.—(1) The Ordinary Cause Rules are amended in accordance with the following

subparagraphs.

(2) After rule 3.2 (actions relating to heritable property) insert—

“Actions relating to regulated agreements

3.2A. In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by

section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974(b)—

(a) the initial writ shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and details

of that agreement; and

(b) a copy of the regulated agreement shall be attached to the initial writ.”.

(3) In rule 7.3 (applications for time to pay directions or time orders in undefended causes)—

(a) after paragraph (2) insert—

“(2A) As soon as possible after the application of the defender is lodged, the sheriff clerk

shall send a copy of it to the pursuer by first class ordinary post.”; and

(b) for paragraph (4) substitute—

“(4) Where the pursuer objects to the application of the defender made in accordance with

paragraph (2) he shall on the same date—

(a) complete and lodge with the sheriff clerk Form O3A;

(b) minute for decree in accordance with rule 7.2; and

© send a copy of Form O3A to the defender.

(4A) The sheriff clerk shall then fix a hearing on the application of the defender and

intimate the hearing to the pursuer and the defender.

(4B) The hearing must be fixed for a date within 28 days of the date on which the

Form O3A and the minute for decree are lodged.”.

(4) In the Schedule, for Form O3 (form of citation where application for time to pay direction

and time order may be made) substitute the forms set out in Schedule 1 to this Act of Sederunt.

3.—(1) The Summary Application Rules are amended in accordance with the following

subparagraphs.

(2) In rule 2.4 (the initial writ)©, after paragraph (4) insert—

“(4A) In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by

section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—

(a) the initial writ shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and details

of the agreement; and

(b) a copy of the regulated agreement shall be lodged with the initial writ.”.

(3) In rule 2.22 (applications for time to pay directions or time orders)—

(a) in paragraph (2)(b) for “seven” substitute “14”;

(b) for paragraph (3) substitute—

(a) S.S.I. 2002/133, amended by S.S.I. 2003/26 and 601, 2004/197, 2005/648, 2006/509, 2007/6, 339, 440 and 463, 2008/121,

223 and 365 and 2009/107.

(b) 1974 c.39.

© Rule 2.4 was amended by S.S.I. 2004/197.

3

“(3) On lodging an application under paragraph (2)(b), the defender shall send a copy of

it to the pursuer by first class ordinary post.

(4) Where the pursuer objects to the application of the defender lodged under

paragraph (2)(b) he shall—

(a) complete and lodge with the sheriff clerk Form 5A prior to the date fixed for the

hearing of the summary application; and

(b) send a copy of that form to the defender.

(5) The sheriff clerk shall then fix a hearing in relation to the application under

paragraph (2)(b) and intimate the hearing to the pursuer and the defender.

(6) The sheriff may determine an application under paragraph (2)© without the defender

having to appear.”.

(4) In Form 4 in the Schedule (form of warrant of citation etc.), in paragraph (b), for “seven”

substitute “fourteen”.

(5) For Form 5 in the Schedule (form of notice etc.), substitute the forms set out in Schedule 2 to

this Act of Sederunt.

4.—(1) The Summary Cause Rules are amended in accordance with the following

subparagraphs.

(2) After rule 4.2 (statement of claim) insert—

“Actions relating to regulated agreements

4.2A. In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by

section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—

(a) the statement of claim shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and

details of the agreement; and

(b) a copy of the regulated agreement shall be attached to the summons.”.

(3) In rule 7.2 (application for time to pay direction or time order)—

(a) after paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) The sheriff clerk must on receipt forthwith intimate to the pursuer a copy of any

response lodged under paragraph (1).”;

(b) in paragraph (2), for “two days” substitute “9 days”; and

© for paragraph (4) substitute—

“(4) If the pursuer wishes to oppose the application for a time to pay direction or time

order made in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) he must before the time the sheriff clerk’s

office closes for business on the day occurring 9 days before the calling date—

(a) lodge a minute in Form 19; and

(b) send a copy of that minute to the defender.”.

(4) For Form 1a (summons) in Appendix 1 substitute the form set out in Schedule 3 to this Act

of Sederunt.

(5) For Form 19 (form of minute) in Appendix 1 substitute the form set out in Schedule 4 to this

Act of Sederunt.

5.—(1) The Small Claim Rules are amended in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

(2) After rule 4.2 (statement of claim) insert—

“Actions relating to regulated agreements

4.2A. In an action which relates to a regulated agreement within the meaning given by

section 189(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974—

4

(a) the statement of claim shall include an averment that such an agreement exists and

details of the agreement; and

(b) a copy of the regulated agreement shall be attached to the summons.”.

(3) In rule 8.2 (application for time to pay direction or time order)—

(a) after paragraph (1) insert—

“(1A) The sheriff clerk must on receipt forthwith intimate to the pursuer a copy of any

response lodged under paragraph (1).”;

(b) in paragraph (2) for “two days” substitute “9 days”; and

© for paragraph (4) substitute—

“(4) If the pursuer wishes to oppose the application for a time to pay direction or time

order made in accordance with paragraph (1)(a) he must before the time the sheriff clerk’s

office closes for business on the day occurring 9 days before the hearing date—

(a) lodge a minute in Form 13; and

(b) send a copy of that minute to the defender.”.

(4) For Form 1a in Appendix 1 (summons) substitute the form set out in Schedule 5 to this Act

of Sederunt.

(5) For Form 13 in Appendix 1 (form of minute) substitute the form set out in Schedule 6 to this

Act of Sederunt.

6. But the Ordinary Cause Rules, Summary Application Rules, Summary Cause Rules and Small

Claim Rules as they applied immediately before 1st December 2009 continue to have effect for the

purpose of any application for a time to pay direction or a time order made in connection with an

initial writ or summons, as the case may be, lodged before that date.

Return, calling and hearing dates

7.—(1) In rule 4.5(7) of the Summary Cause Rules (period of notice), for “seven days”

substitute “14 days”.

(2) In rule 9.1(3) of the Small Claim Rules (the hearing), for “seven days” substitute “14 days”.

(3) But rule 4.5(7) of the Summary Cause Rules and rule 9.1(3) of the Small Claim Rules as

they applied immediately before 1st December 2009 continue to have effect for the purpose of any

summons lodged before that date.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed one distinct load of cr*p in the original Credit Today report.

 

They state:

 

"The stance also differs from that taken by the Office of Fair Trading, which states that creditors must provide ‘true copies’ under sections 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act and accepts reconstituted copies as valid."

 

Er, not quite. They are giving misleading info here. Yes, the OFT says a reconstituted or 'true' copy may be used in satisfying a request under section 77/78, ie. a CCA request.

 

However, the OFT most certainly does not agree that this can be used to enforce an agreement in a court of law. It is the law, rather than the OFT, which remains perfectly clear on this.

 

So, in some senses there is no real change in Scotland, just a clarification of the law as it is. Wish they'd do the same in the rest of the UK.

 

It's a shame when so-called 'journalists' resort to blatant pro-industry twisting by misrepresenting the facts. Makes me ashamed to be one...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...