Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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

Barclaycard - Mercers/Calder/DML


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5308 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

Barclaycard failed to provide a CCA, even after letter 7 so I handed the case over to the FOS because they were pursuing unlawfully.

 

Barclaycard then handed over to Mercers, who chased the debt. I informed them that the account was in dispute and should be returned to Barclaycard. They did then Barclaycard handed over the Calder, I informed Calder of the situation and they chose to ignore the dispute. Calder has handed over to Debt Managers Ltd and they are now harassing me. They phoned me today and I asked them who DML was they would not say I later found out that it was Debt Managers Ltd, Edinburgh, I informed them of the situation and they asked me to get the FOS to contact them.

 

I should stress that every letter has been copies into the FOS and all letters were sent RC.

 

Could someone please let me know where I stand.

 

Do I wait for a knock at the door or hope that the FOS replies in time to stop such action ?

 

:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never speak to a DCA on the phone unless you are able to record the call......... it's always starnge how parts of a phone conversation are forgotten. :rolleyes:

 

Write to DML stating the account is in dispute and ask them to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (which i doubt they won't) and include the telephone harrassment paragraphs as well.

 

Please try to keep all contact with creditors to being in writing as you will then have paper evidence of what has been stated.

Edited by supasnooper
added

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you ... They caught me off guard, when I asked who DML was they wouldn't say... very strange. They asked for personal info which I was unwilling to divulge and they said they could not discuss the account, I said I could not offer any further info and directed them to the FOS.

 

I was brief and to the point and have followed it up with a letter to be sent recorded delivery.

 

I'm not sure why barclaycard would insist on handing this to 3 different DCA's when the account is in dispute and the case is being handled by the FOS. Lloyds have done the same - Is this normal practice ?

 

Thanks again for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst they should not be doing this, most creditors are !

 

Different DCA's have different tactics and methods to obtain collection - I'm sure you've read about most of them.

 

You need to report them to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and to the Office of Fair Trading for breaching their debt collection guidelines.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about debt managers ltd but Calders and Mercers ARE Barclaysharks internal DCA's so they havent really passed it as such... other than walking to the end of the corridor possibly :-D

 

So once you've told one lot that the account is with the FOS, they all know it, they just dont care I'm afraid.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DML wrote to me three times about the MSDW barclaycard. They sent a so-called copy of my agreement with bits missing all over the place. Wrote to them three times to point this out. Had already pointed this out to barclaycard who didn't answer the question either.

 

I read on Whocallsme that Debt Managers work for Barclaycard on "uncollectable debts". I don't know if I'll hear from them again.

 

I've now been sent to Moorcroft.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks

 

B'card did not respond to my letters, all send recorded, so I guess I have to wait now for the FOS outcome. At least if it goes to court I can show that I did everything possible to keep them informed and the reason for my dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...