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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

cl finance vs me - case struck out - what next please?


gwa70
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5202 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

the judge issued order for them to comply by 27th and this daye having passed i was advised by clerk that case is automatically struck out as per judges order.......she then added case was dead unless claimant provided cca etc in the future....................now surely a struck out claim is dead in the water and a new claim would have to be filed if they wanted to go at me again??

with this in mind what is my next move...........court said i wouldn,t receive anything in writing to confirm struck out status but can assume it is as claimant hasn,t complied.................i want to act now if i can to drive nail into claimants coffin so they go away and don,t dream of coming back................any advice please

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter from the court telling me the case was struck out and they gave them 7 days to respond (this was with Link), I called the court after the 7 days and was told they had not responded - end of story one would hope that was back in early 2009.

Not a peep from them except for a statement at the end of 2009.

DG

I have no legal training my knowledge comes from my personal life experiences

Please help keep the forum alive by making a donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

it was the clerks comment that i would hear nothing unless the claimant wrote to the court or sent in the docs they needed that sent alarm bells ringing...........she wasn,t able to confirm that the claim was dead so got me thinking that maybe i should be pro active and make some sort of move to leave nothing to chance...........court advice seemed a bit vague thats all..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the judge ruled 27th for response and they've not done it - should be end of story as far as I know, if I'm wrong someone will let us know.

 

DG:)

I have no legal training my knowledge comes from my personal life experiences

Please help keep the forum alive by making a donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with CL is you shouldn't expect anything. Personally I would want something in writing, confirming that the case has been struck out, & CL can't just reinstate the claim when it suits them.

Also, as they have failed to enforce judgement, don't be surprised if they pass it back to the origonal creditor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so do i write to the court asking for confirmation.........what would i say...........on the subject of original creditior if cl can,t provide original cca etc then the chances of original being avble to is by default nil or surely they would have by now............its been going on for nearly a year.........assuming cl back off then is there an avenue for trying to get original creditor to write the debt off as legally they have no leg to stand on....anyone had any luck going down this route

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the court clerk is confusing 'struck out' with 'stayed'. What did the judge's order say? If it said the claim would be 'struck out' for non-compliance with the order, then write to the court requesting that the case be properly struck out. You want it in writing. If the judge had made an order, then you shouldn't need to file an N244.

 

Otherwise it may come back to bite you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

judges order said it would be struck out by 27th if no reply received.............clerk said no reply so judges order would automatically come into force........i said would i receive a letter and she said no as the order was clear..................if i am to write tot he court again what is best way to word it.........a simple " in light of the non response to your order dated xxxx could the court please confirm in woritng that this claim is now struck out"................would this do???

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

When CL failed to enforce judgement against me, they passed it back to Santander without giving them any background whatsoever. They had no knowledge that a claim had been filed, & had gone to court.

 

How can they pass it back when they supposedly bought it? Was it sale or return? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this has been my first response to Santander. I have told them that I am not prepared to discuss any background to this account. As far as I'm concerned CL still "Absolutely" own this debt.

 

Quite right! Unless the assignment wasn't what it seemed and someone has been telling fibs...

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i,m a bit confused.....if cl pass it back or to someone else we are likely to go throught the same carry on...........if they can,t provided the CCA etc then surely after 18 months noone will and therefore noone is goong to have a legal leg to stand on...............so what next...just wait for 6 years etc and go for statue barred??.....................

 

i,ve had various people chase me for other credit card debts and every one has backed off after cca request............they all say the debt has been passed back to the original creditor.............i,ve heard nothing from anyone since so do i just sit and do nothing or is there anything i can do with original creditor ...ie attempt to get them to write it off etc..

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...