Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
  • 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

Defaults, CCJ's and the 6 year rule?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5283 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,

 

I am in the process of looking to remove defaults and possibly one CCJ (from Bannatynes).

 

I understand the 6 year rule regarding Statute Barred etc.

 

What I would like to clarify is that "IF" I submit a SAR or CCA request does this mean I am acknowleging the debt and so resetting the clock on the 6 year rule ????

 

 

All of my debts are pre 2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

No, all you are doing is getting your data or any agreement. If you put at the top of your CCA request," I do not acknowledge any debt to you or any company you claim to represent" that will cover you.

The SAR, as I said is just a request for info, nothing more.

 

fox

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I've recently found a letter from Lowell for an old debt from June 2002.

 

 

I am certain that the debt is statue barred and have a letter ready to send off to them tomorrow by recorded delivery.

 

 

How long do they normaly take to reply if at all?

 

 

Where do I stand if the debt is sold on or passed to another division of the group as I am aware Lowell has many different sub companys?

 

Is there something I can include in my letter in order to stop repeat letters coming from other DCA for the same statue barred debt?

 

I have included the PLEASE NOTE THIS LETTER IS IN NO WAY AN ACKNOWLEGEMENT OF THIS ALLEGED DEBT TO YOU OR ANY COMPANY YOU REPRESENT. I have also not signed the letter only printed.

 

Is there anything else I should include?

 

Many thanks.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The lowlifes will no doubt say "an attempted payment was made on XXXX".

 

Ignore this. Once you have told them it is SB, it is down to them to prove it isn't. They won't be able to based on your dates.

If they flog the debt on. complain to them and to the new DCA and the OFT/Trading Standards

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Silver Fox,

 

can I ssume then that Lowell will just keep pestering me for this debt but through there other sub companies? Is it possible that they can default me on this even though they are not the original creditor and it is over the6 year statute barred rule?

 

Is there not some form of action I can take under the CCA that once the debt is statute barred it can no longer be sold to other companies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's possible either Red or Hamptons (Il)legal will have a go but I wouldn't bother getting into a letter ping pong with them. You will have stated your case, let them deal with it.

They will go away eventually.

 

Before a debt is sold, it must be defaulted and the account terminated so therefore, at some time in the previous 6 years, you must have been defaulted. You cannot be defaulted for the same debt twice. If they tried it, you could sue them for compensation. This will fall off your credit file (if it hasn't already) but I would get a copy of your file for the next few months.

 

Not much you can do to stop Lowells selling this debt on to anyone else as they don't tell each other whether a debt is SB or not. They just try to get it off their books. Like I said, you would have cause for complaint if anyone else came out of the woodwork.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

as fox says they will try the "attempted payment crap "

 

followed by passed on to red and hamptons crap

 

as soon as that starts report to OFT and TS

 

although a letter to compliance complaining that they are attempting to collect on a debt that they have been advised is statute,usually stops them in their tracks.but will not stop a pass off to muck hall or similar outfit.

 

but why deny the OFT/TS the chance of another registered complaint against these cretins..and another warning slap:D

 

SAM

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

NO it isn't

 

It is a legal request for information as laid out in statute

 

Basically, I want to see every piece of information that your company holds on me, this could be from a bank, a doctor, the police, or even a former employer. it is not specific to credit or debt

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...