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.
      • 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

Considering sending this letter, want a default notice removed.


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5178 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

Could you guys have a read and tell me what you think please. I am slightly concerned about opening a can of worms as we have heard nothing from them for a couple of years, and had thought it resolved until a credit check. This is on behalf of my Husband.

 

NatWest Bank, 135 Bishops Gate, London, EC2M 3UR

Reference Account Number: ..........

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

After recently obtaining a copy of my credit report from Experian I was concerned to note that your company has placed a Default Notice against a current account registered in my name.

 

The account in question was the result of a dispute relating to unfair bank charges levied against me on an unauthorised overdraft following a failure by your organisation to cancel a direct debit as requested. The original default is recorded as 01.07.2006. Furthermore the account is listed as closed, by our mutual agreement, on 09.11.2008. As far as I was concerned until viewing my credit report that was the end of the matter and that upon the cessation of our agreement your right to distribute any data about myself also ended.

 

I have no recollection nor record of having received a signed, true and certified copy of the original Default Notice lodged against this account and, as I believe the charges levied to be unfair and unlawful, and subsequently the Default Notice on my account to also be not just unlawful but defamatory and harmful I require you to substantiate this data as soon as possible. I am therefore disputing this Default Notice and the charges, which led to its imposition.

 

I request that under your obligations relating to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended 2006) you supply me with:

 

 

  • A true, signed copy of the original agreement the Default Notice relates to including a statement of account showing the accrued charges as calculated by you against the account, including statements from the date of default until the closing of the account (01.07.2006-09.11.2008).
  • A signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice. A computer generated copy or impending default warning letter will not be satisfactory.
  • Any deed of assignment if the debt was sold on.

 

I would further request that this data is provided to myself within 28 days of receipt of this recorded, signed for, letter. If you are unable to comply with my request or supply me with the data I require then I must insist that all references to this Default Notice are completely removed from my credit files, as they are unsubstantiated.

 

Failure to respond to this Subject Access Request within 40 days constitutes an offence under the Data Protection Act 2002 in relation to the Sixth Data Protection Principle and will leave you at a default of your legal obligations. This will prompt further action on my part, which may include but not be limited to: Contacting the Data Protection Supervisor, The Financial Ombudsman, The Financial Services Authority and Court Action.

 

Yours Faithfully

 

Any thoughts much appreciated :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry, but you cannot demand a signed copy any more under the new guidelines from OFT, See OFT1175con see Part 2: THE PLAIN ENGLISH CONSUMER GUIDANCE (page 29).

 

The copy can be an unsigned copy and it can be a reconstituted agreement as long there was a properly executed agreement inthe first place.

 

The bank is allowed to request payment from you, issue a default notice and pass your details to a CRA.

 

The banks is not allowed to demand early payment of the debt, threaten court action, take possesion of anything bought on credit or take possesion of a security to obtain the loan. Or pass your information to a debt collector.

 

I recommend you read that OFT document before issuing notices.

 

The good news is that if the debt is unenfoceable because they cannot find the documentation then the Bank MUST tell you in writing at the time of your CAA.

 

regards

 

Ieuan

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...