Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • 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.  
  • 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

Carcraft/blackhorse/CLfinance PPI


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5188 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, im trying to help my sister out so here goes..

 

They (my sister and husband) bought car in 1998. He lost job a year later and had the car returned. He still owed app. £9k after they took the car back (for an escort). The agreement was with chartered trust (who is now blackhorse) and they have sold the debt to CL finance. The amount still owing is approx £2000.

 

Now a couple of months ago I requested a cca and they complied Agreement . however they noticed PPI on there for approx 2300. Having looked at this and listened to them they were unaware that this ppi was additional cost.

 

Carcraft stating when they got the car it was included in the loan. They didnt get a policy and basically new nothing about it. (it is posible that when he lost his job he was covered by the ppi but has no idea as they have never seen a policy).

So as it stands we think the ppi was misold. I am unsure as to the next step as technically the ppi has not been paid (as £2000 is still outstanding and being collected by CL Finance). We have told cl finance that what is outstanding is misold ppi and will not be paid. if they want it they can collect off blackhorse or carcraft. Cl finance sent it on to blackhorse who state they do not accept responsilbility as they did not sell the PPI and passed it on to carcraft, until now we have heard nothing from carcraft.

 

Now as far as we are concerned we do not want to reclaim it off carcraft and then pay off cl finance. we simply do not want to pay cl finance the £2000 outstanding. Is this the way to go?

 

So far the letter are:

Agreement - http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx89/nagasis/agreement1.jpg

 

Blackhorse stating they didn't sell the PPI so bugger off.[url=http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx89/nagasis/agreement1.jpg][/url] http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx89/nagasis/bh1.jpg

 

Carcraft stating it is statute barred: http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx89/nagasis/carcraft1.jpg

Edited by Nagasis
Link to post
Share on other sites

little update.

 

Heard from Carcraft. They state statute barred so go away.

 

Have responded that as the PPI on the agreement was first seen in december 2009 under section 14A of the limitation act, an action can still and will be brought. Obviously they think i'm dumb :D .

 

Further more as the carcraft employee deliberately mis informed them by stating it was all included and not giving them any policy or information then an action will be brought under the misrepresentation act 1967 and fraud act 2006.

 

they have 14 days (which they won't respond or think i'm bluffing)and I will file with local cc

.

 

I will start on draft poc's in the next couple of days.

 

Have also told cl finance to go swivel, if they want their cash go see blackhorse or carcraft.

 

Its been a while (well six months :p ) since I issued against someone and I'm looking forward to it. Tesco and united utilites thought I was bluffing until they got slapped with a ccj. :p

Edited by Nagasis
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I need to move on and although I'm still waiting to hear from carcraft I suspect their response will be the same... bugger off statuted barred. It is not statute barred as the first time they saw the completed agreement was december 2009.

The agreement was signed blank and it was completed after they had left the showroom. They had been kept in there for hours. The carcraft employee stating 'just signed here and you can go, i'll fill the rest in later'. There is an X where he was required to sign.

 

So..

I'm now certain its carcraft that I have to pursue and I don't think the FOS would be interested as it was in 1998.

 

I would normally SAR carcraft but what could they provide me if I did? I have the agreement and most of the PPI is still outstanding to cl finance/lewis so i'm not looking for any payment history.

 

Lewis have threatened court action if it isnt paid.

 

Any help would be nice

Edited by Nagasis
Link to post
Share on other sites

I Would Very Much Like To Take This One On

 

For A Start Its Down To Blackhorse, Not Carcraft

 

Now Ime Going To Be Realy Nasty As Its Clueless And Lewis

 

Do They Own This Debt

Has It Been Assigned To Them ABSOLUTE

 

AND WHEN WAS IT ASSIGNED

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Would Very Much Like To Take This One On

 

For A Start Its Down To Blackhorse, Not Carcraft

 

Now Ime Going To Be Realy Nasty As Its Clueless And Lewis

 

Do They Own This Debt

Has It Been Assigned To Them ABSOLUTE

 

AND WHEN WAS IT ASSIGNED

 

Thank you post gg. Yes CL Finace are the creditor and it was assigned to them 25th January 2005.

 

Here is the letter: http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx89/nagasis/assigned.jpg

 

they also confirm in a very recent letter when asking for the agreement that they (cl finance ) is the creditor here http://i744.photobucket.com/albums/xx89/nagasis/clf1.jpg

Edited by Nagasis
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Its Not Statute Barred As These Cretins Are Trying To Maintain:D

 

How Do You Want To Play This

 

 

quickly as possible :D .

 

I'm not afraid to issue proceedings or anything like that if that helps.

 

I have wrote to both cl finance and lewis and carcraft.

 

do you want to see these? . If it is clueless :D and lewis then I may have made a booby with carcraft :|

 

Edit i might have made a booby full stop

Link to post
Share on other sites

What You Have To Remember Is Clueless And Lewis Are Now The Creditor By Right Of Assignment

 

Blackhorse Will Say Go To Clueless But You Can Sar Blackhorse

 

I Need To See The Docs You Have Sent

 

ok thanks postgg. will scan up.

 

do you want me to post them here (as carcraft will receive it 2moro and lewis received theirs today by fax) or does it not matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You Do Know That Cl Finance And Lewis Are The Same In All But Name

 

The Only Thing Missing Is There Muppett Solicitor Cohen

 

no i didn't know that but found it strange they had similar addresses. :mad: now i know why

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check Back Tomorow And Ill Compose A Letter For You To Cut And Paste With

 

It Will Give You An Idea

 

Dont Be Surprised Clueless Will Drop This Account Like A Hot Potato

 

 

thanks postgg. much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check Back Tomorow And Ill Compose A Letter For You To Cut And Paste With

 

It Will Give You An Idea

 

Dont Be Surprised Clueless Will Drop This Account Like A Hot Potato

 

hi postgg, do you have that letter to hand at all, thanks ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update:

Have received sar from Blackhorse.

Nothing on PPI.

However recieved statements which show debt was written off in 2000.

Also even if the debt was not written off the NOA balance that CL Finace claim was owed is £500 more than what it should have been.

 

Also seems like they paid a secret commision to a carcraft employee.

 

So as it stands, there is so much wrong with this account from misold ppi, secret commision, debt written off then sold 4 years later, cl finance adding £500 on to balance for the hell of it.

 

I am wondering which track to take. I think my options are:

1) reclaimPPI - still on going al though everyone has gone quiet.

2) Pursue the implications of secret commisions

3) reclaim all monies paid since oct 2000 as debt was written off and has shown a 0 balance since oct 2000.

 

 

 

 

img002.jpg

Edited by Nagasis
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...