Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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

OFT throw in the towel


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5238 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

So they can't stop the banks from Trading Unfairly, they can't enforce a statute that is already in place and they can't protect the public from financial institutions who want to charge exhorbitant fees.

 

So can anyone tell me: what is the actual purpose of the OFT?

 

BBC News - Regulator drops bank charges case

Link to post
Share on other sites

To lead the public on a wild goose chase and keep their minds focused on the false hope that they will get some sort of justice.

 

The OFT should be sued for misleading us :mad:, they knew what they were doinf right from the start, its all a game for them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Errrrrmmmm..................I can't think of any reason they exist

I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OFT should be closed down for incompetence - they have never taken their authority over these companies seriously and seem to exist to 'shore up' the establishment.

 

Its also another example of the big boys manipulating the legal system in their favour and scaring off any recognisable competition.

 

I think the OFT are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Office of Farce Trading?

 

Nothing I have seen dissuades me from the thought that a deal has been struck "somewhere".......... for the historic charges case to be put to rest and new "fairer" i.e. less small print perhaps on new charges.

 

The banks clearly cant afford to pay out yet more "tax payers money" repaying yes you've guessed it tax payers.... and so long as a deal is struck on future charging, Brown/Darling will trumpet it as "another" succesful campaign on behalf of the great British tax paying public.

 

Yes I'm a cynic :-(

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They (The banks) lose two court battles and appeal and win in the supreme Court when all of the evidence is that they are in the wrong?

 

and then the entire claim is dropped in favour of a non legally enforceable agreement?

 

It stinks, This government are rotten to the core and the sooner My lottery numbers come up and I can afford to live elsewhere..... the better

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is, the banks hold all the financial power in this and other countries. The Government will never let the OFT do anything to upset them. That's the ONLY reason they have shied away. In anycase, the Judges will uphold anything that the banks say, as they are controlled by Government in things lioke this (even though they're supposed to be independent)

I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the essence of the whole affair is that 'fairness' isn't a legally-recognised concept.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew they'd bottle it,the banking sector is in crisis. Personaly I think it just came at the wrong time for the consumer. Be prepaired for more changes regarding banking practices in favour fo banks.

 

Justices, fairness are things that no longer apply to this country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying this about the OFT and the like for a long time

 

Hate to say I told you so,but....

 

"I told you so"

 

People-as far as possible you need to organize your affairs to make sure that your exposure to the banking system is as limited as humanly possible

 

Cash was,is,and shall be king in our household

  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

No heart... or some backhander was negotiated.

 

I can't think of any reason for a regulator to exist where they can't regulate.

 

 

Had we won this would have cost the banks billions,they would have lost a revenue stream that generates billions and they would have to right off billions in OD's.

 

Are you suggesting some underhand tactics were at play? Surely, not, how dare you suggest such a thing, that would never happen in country like the UK. :cool:

We live in an unmoderated country why should the net be any different?

Bring back free speech we miss it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

we have reduced our exposure to HBOS by paying the mortgage the minute my ill-health works pension hits the bank using Visa Electron card over the phone,and when the benefits go in that we get via BACS,withdraw them to cash

 

still get some giros which the Post Office deal with,and direct debits on the account total 3,all for insurance

 

we hope to pay the house and car insurance in one go at renewal,doing away with 2 of them

 

it can be done....HBOS don't make a cold cent out of us,as we operate a basic account with no bells and whistles.They wanted us to upgrade to a "normal account" but we told them we were fine ,thanks!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party -- Government Pensions Etc to only be paid via the Post Office, close all Bank Accounts where possible or Leave main stream Banks, 2 months of non use of banking system bring to their knees?/ only an idea, remember people power, call on all politicians to give proper power to the Regulatory Authorities or disband them.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party -- Government Pensions Etc to only be paid via the Post Office, close all Bank Accounts where possible or Leave main stream Banks, 2 months of non use of banking system bring to their knees?/ only an idea, remember people power, call on all politicians to give proper power to the Regulatory Authorities or disband them.

 

 

This is the whole point, if everyone could avoid being excessively overdrawn, or prevent their becoming eligible for the banks special rates for the less well off then not only would the debt mountain be massively reduced, but the banks would get a financial smack in the mouth.

 

But it's not that simple, people do get made redundant, people do get paid late, or become victims of fraud, or simple benefits cock ups, the banks make it their business to target these unfortunate people and the Government by their allowing of the OFT to be neutered are showing that they approve of this situation.

 

They had their chance to let the banks go bust, but it wasd deemed to be not in the publics interest to do so.

 

They had their chance to put them back in their boxes when we bought them out/saved them/however you want to phrase it, but they didn't do so

 

And finally they had their chance to make the banks behave by enforcing existing laws and giving the government arm responsible for the safety of their consumers the powers to deal with it and yet again they refuse to do so.

 

I have a mortgage with Northern Rock, a bank which, in principle I have an interest in, yet the rate applied to my mortgage is a massive 4.25% above the BOE rate, this is the reason that Northern Rock are "repaying" the loan, not because of the actions of any politicians, or even the prudent management odf the bankers themselves, but because the politicians allow the bankers to squeeze their customers. This OFT cop out is just another extension of the same policy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another useless government 'quango' masquerading as a Consumer Knight in shining Armour.

Yet all they do is protect their fat salaries, Bonuses and no doubt inflation proof pensions.

If I have been helpful please tickle my scales or better still contribute to CAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

am i the only one who can feel something bigger coming from this whole episode?

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...