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

Can Mercers Issue Default Notices?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5125 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

87 Need for default notice

(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a) to terminate the agreement, or

(b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or...

 

Need to understand more about Default notices--have read a zillion threads and posts but would appreciate some opinions please.

 

Brief background Card obtained in 1993.I recovered my late charges dated to early this year from Barclaycard in July.

Failure to supply me with a true copy of my agreement despite several requests lead to me putting the account into dispute in early August and I stopped paying them.

Received demands and many phone calls but no agreement arrived; they continued to add late charges and then an over limit charge.

 

Last wrote by SD 14 days ago requesting agreement but no reply.

 

Today I received a Default Notice under section 87 from Mercers,pasted at bottom of post.The date to rectify by is spot on and I have omitted the OFT information section that was found beneath the sections that I have posted below.

 

Questions

 

a] As there is no section 87 in the 1974 CCA is this notice invalid.

 

b] I know that Mercers is a part of Barclaycard but are Mercers legally allowed to issue a D/N for my Barclaycard account using Mercers headed paper?

 

c] As section 1 of CCA 1974 includes the words .... of a regulated agreement,— is the D/N invalid as the existence of a regulated agreement has yet to be proven by supplying me with a copy of it?

d] If I fail to pay the requested sum they state that the following action may be taken..

'A debt collection agency will send a formal demand to you.This will ask for repayment of the whole balance'

Don't Barclaycard have to first terminate the alleged contract before instruction to collect the whole sum is made or does Section 87 [1] allow them to demand all before terminating?

 

e] As any future termination will include the most recent late charges and over limit fee and the interest on them ,will that invalidate the termination or since repaying the earlier late charges to me and by now calling them 'Default Charges' does this make a difference?

 

Advise or suggestions also as to what I should or shouldn't do next please.

s0h46il9xy.jpg

2wkw5n829x.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercers Is Barclaycards Inhouse Dca

 

It Will Be Barclays That Issue The Default

 

I know that Mercers are inhouse but the D/N posted above is on a Mercers headed letter with only the briefest mention of Barclays as in..

 

'We act as agents for Barclays PLC trading as Barclaycard'

 

Wouldn't Barclays have to issue a D/N using their own name with their trading address etc.shown?

 

Although the D/N I got from Halifax was invalid in other respects it was from Halifax on their headed letter and not from an in house agent!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now This Is Interesting

 

Mercers Can Issue A Default Notice If The Account Has Been Assigned To Them

 

Well As Mercers Is Barclaycard, So No Assignment

 

My Opinion Is They Have Shot Them Self In The Foot Big Time But Await Confirmation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now This Is Interesting

 

Mercers Can Issue A Default Notice If The Account Has Been Assigned To Them

 

Well As Mercers Is Barclaycard, So No Assignment

 

My Opinion Is They Have Shot Them Self In The Foot Big Time But Await Confirmation

 

I thought it strange as well--their other statement about what may happen if I don't pay is also strange, I think.

 

I'll probably just wait out the 14 days and see what transpires as I'm confidant on several other points that they cannot enforce but the purchase of a 'Truecall' looms closer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

WORTH CHECKING THE DEFAULT NOTICE

 

 

 

Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561)

 

 

Quote:

SCHEDULE 2

FORM OF DEFAULT NOTICE BEFORE A CREDITOR OR OWNER CAN BECOME ENTITLED, BY REASON OF ANY BREACH BY THE

DEBTOR OR HIRER OF A REGULATED AGREEEMENT, TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT, DEMAND EARLIER PAYMENT OF ANY

SUM, RECOVER POSSESSION OF ANY GOODS OR LAND, TREAT ANY RIGHT CONFERRED ON THE DEBTOR OR HIRER BY THE

AGREEMENT AS TERMINATED, RESTRICTED OR DEFERRED OR ENFORCE ANY SECURITY

Regulation 2(2)

Details of agreement

 

1

A description of the agreement sufficient to identify it.

 

Parties to agreement

2

(1) The name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

(2) The name and postal address of the debtor or hirer.

 

Details of breach of agreement and action required to remedy, or pay compensation for, the breach

3

A specification of:--

(a) the provision of the agreement alleged to have been breached; and

(b) the nature of the alleged breach of the agreement, specifying clearly the matters complained of; and either

© if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date, being a date [not less than

fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which that action is to be taken; or

(d) if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach and

the date, being a date [not less than fourteen days] after the date of service of the notice, before which it is to be paid.

 

relevant case law is this too...

 

DEFAULT NOTICE

 

The Need for a Default notice

Notwithstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit act 1974 has been attached to the petition.

It is denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant

Notwithstanding the above points, I put the claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. I note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)

Service of a default notice is a statutory requirement as laid out in sections 87,88 and 89 Consumer Credit Act 1974. Section 87 makes it clear that a default notice must be served before a creditor can seek to terminate the agreement or demand repayment of sums due to a breach of the agreement. therefore without a valid default notice, I suggest the claimants case falls flat and cannot proceed and to do so is clearly contrary to the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

__________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything appears compliant apart from..

 

Parties to agreement

2

(1) The name and a postal address of the creditor or owner.

 

Unless Mercers PO Box in Liverpool is also the address where we should send all our Barclay PLC correspondence to, then they would appear to have a real problem with this D/N.

 

And then there's also the other points I raised about it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Middenmess,

I have just checked through reams of DPA paper from BC.

 

I also received a DN from merciless on a BC without any CCA.

 

You should note that the DN states "we are acting as agents for".

 

I am 2 Years ahead of you, in my case they eventually issued a claim through HC, who bravely ran away after seeing the defence.

 

You can look forward to receiving an offer too good to miss ie. pay £500 and we will deduct a further £250 etc, in due course.

 

All the best

 

Bill

Edited by Bill Shidding
Link to post
Share on other sites

You can look forward to receiving an offer too good to miss ie. pay £500 and we will deduct a further £250 etc, in due course.

 

LOL-can hardly wait.

So far I have....

partially illegible application

two different sets of T & C's for my 'agreement'

a number of irrelevant cut & paste letters

someone else's application

someone else's private references from a bank

awaiting 4 lots of complaints procedures requested from telephone callers

and not without surprise, an iffy D/N.

 

I keep saying that I'll look into the PPI aspect,multiple agreements and section 59 but I think that I have time on my side.

 

Bring it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far (they) have....

partially illegible application

two different sets of T & C's for my 'agreement'

a number of irrelevant cut & paste letters

someone else's application

someone else's private references from a bank

awaiting 4 lots of complaints procedures requested from telephone callers

and not without surprise, an iffy D/N.

 

As merciless have stated that they are acting as "agents" on the DN, this should indicate that they are not the actual owners.

If I remember correctly, merciless are a non-trading company. No income, no accounts, no profit and no tax!

 

If only I knew then, what I know now!!

(Hi guest)

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this part of the CCA apply..

 

Action intended to be taken by creditor or owner

 

6

 

A clear and unambiguous statement by the creditor or owner indicating, if any action specified under paragraph 3© or (d) as required to be taken is not duly taken or if no such action is required to be taken, the action which he intends to take by reason of the breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement—

 

To this part of the D/N that I posted at #1

 

'.......they may take further action against you.....'

 

unambiguous - admitting of no doubt or misunderstanding; having only one meaning or interpretation and leading to only one conclusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the lovely Merciless.

 

3 years ago I had some very unpleasant dealings with this lot of muppets. The endless phone calls, with a slightly hidden threatening agenda, became more than irritating. My personal record was 22 in a single day!

 

They send multiple threat-o-grams too - these come in birthday card sized envelopes addressed using Comic Sans font (apt really). Inside is a rather abrupt postcard printed in red ink threatening to eat your first born etc :)

 

They never acknowledged anything sent by post (recorded or SD) with the standard excuse being 'it must still be in the post room'.

 

Eventually they'll pass it on to a ****** DCA and then the fun begins. A 1993 agreement like yours is highly likely to be legally unenforceable. Mine was much later than that and, whilst the DCA tried it on hard, Sharklays were eventually forced to back down and drop the case against me.

 

Of course, that didn't stop them from attempting to pass it on to another DCA earlier this year. They soon buggered off when my solicitor rang them to inform them of their mistake :) Apparently 'apologetic' isn't sufficient to describe the grovelling.

 

All the best,

 

D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The endless phone calls.....My personal record was 22 in a single day!

Wow!-That's a difficult total to beat!

 

I might have a chance to better that eventually as although I received a meagre 3 yesterday they were made during the 14 days to rectify the default period--bless 'em,they are probably practising for a later onslaught!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took to asking them if they had a policy about abusive phone calls - they were phoning every day - the average reached 5-6 calls per day.

 

When they couldn't answer I just launched into total vulgar abuse - nothing angry - I eventually just calmly swore at them randomly until the phone was put down on me.

 

"Ah yes you've phoned the abuse line ... I have a special script for you."

 

Random 'naughty' words with no sentences. They're bullies and didn't know what to do - it's not in their script. Bunch of ****ing ****ers. They can **** the **** off the ****ing ****ards. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dated as 'X' they send me a D/N with 14 days to rectify the default and state that they are 'agents for Barclaycard'.

 

Then in today's post,dated as 'X+1' I receive an IMPORTANT NOTICE from them telling me that as they have been unable to contact me they will be instructing a local debt collector to visit me to collect payment.In this letter they are 'dealing with my account on behalf of Barclaycard'

 

Oooh scary:shock:

 

The D/N details a Balance and a specified amount [the arrears] due.

 

Today's scary letter details Outstanding balance with Payment due [same sum as the specified amount above]

 

Now am I wrong in thinking that you can only have an Outstanding balance on a running credit account if the account has been terminated or am I being somewhat pedantic about the terminology they have used?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the 'local debt collector' visit threat too. I sent them a note back saying that I would consider such a visit as aggravated trespass and, should it happen, would phone the police referring to a breach of the peace and then, if necessary, forcibly remove their agent from my property.

 

I also pointed out that any right of access to my property that they, or any of their agents, considered was theirs was formally rescinded.

 

Their response - well, guess :) They continued to phone and make similar threats by mail having completely ignored what I'd said.

 

They're a very loud laughable yappy dog with no teeth. They don't actually do anything themselves. Eventually they'll give up and pass the account on to a 'real' ****** DCA (Sharklays use a variety of these). At that point the threats get worse and then legal action may well commence. Then it will be 'game on' - if you're unlucky you may well get someone competent but I doubt it. In my case, and from everything that I've read on these boards, you'll get a fight against a bunch of idiots that bend and break all of the rules.

 

D

 

P.S I should have added that my fight ended up in the hands of Sharklays' main legal man (via Optimistic Legal Services - an incompetent bunch of clowns who were dumped in the latter part of the process) and he ended up giving up on their behalf. If you're looking in Adrian, good evening!

Edited by Delfi101
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any views on this party piece :)

 

March DN from Mercers (on behalf of Barclays T/A Barclaycard)

 

May (from Barclaycard) Your account has been withdrawn - you must destroy your card

 

June 2nd Mercers DN received

 

All whilst account in dispute No CCA & complaints with ICO (missing statements) & FOS (Mis selling PPI)

 

Barclaycard admit mis selling PPI but wont refund ALL premiums & interest, FOS also uphold my complaint

 

Therefore not only is the DN non compliant it also states the wrong amount :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd let them make the next move and counterclaim if they take it to court.

 

The important thing is to realise that you have time on your side - ALWAYS. The legal process has deadlines that you have to meet even though these scumbags almost never play by the rules. It is wise to 'play the game' and do everything meticulously.

 

These parasites play on the idea that things are very short term and that they can send in 'bailiffs' tomorrow. They're not and they can't.

 

You could be brave and initiate proceedings yourself I guess but at this stage a letter of complaint to Sharklays (sent SD or recorded) would be enough documentary evidence.

 

If you don't have a Notice of Assignment then make sure you send letters to the idiots making the threats AND the supposed creditor.

 

Keep absolutely everything (including envelopes). Do not ever deal with them over the phone - EVER. Document all contact made and keep a diary.

 

It may be worth you starting your own thread on this as it's a bit of a hijack of this one :)

 

D

Edited by Delfi101
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your input

 

Firstly I DO NOT Hijack other CAG members threads & was not doing so to this one.

 

This thread is about Mercers dodgy default notices and I posted as to what they have done to me so others can see how they work, after all look at the thread title -yes Mercers have TWICE in my case - both non compliant!

 

I do have my own thread thanks - as I said I post here in response to the thread title, as it implies a discussion thread as to whether Mercers can issue DN's, I posted MY experience as part of that discussion.

 

My complaints are well advanced with the ICO & FOS and I do not fear Barclaycard making the first move, they WONT - they are on very dodgy ground & it is ME that is taking THEM to court!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...