Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

Halifax reposession in 1999


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2975 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

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi All.

 

I have received the SAR.....loads of info in regarding letters sent to me and print outs of the database with traces etc etc.

There is even a database log print out that says

Default: Wilful Refusal to Pay...!!

There is actually no default notice though, but just this log print out.

What else should i be looking for?

DOP date for the default is 27/11/1997

There is even a log that says the debt was written off in 12/12/00 - reason: Uneconomical to continue.

Really confused now :|

Edited by centosboy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also since found out that the reposession was actually in 1997....

Quite hard to make sense of it all as they have mainly sent me print outs of the database logs, but not all the letters that were sent out to match those logs.

I understand some of the letters sent out are automatically generated, and these are the ones that i do not have hard copies of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have also since found out that the reposession was actually in 1997....

Quite hard to make sense of it all as they have mainly sent me print outs of the database logs, but not all the letters that were sent out to match those logs.

I understand some of the letters sent out are automatically generated, and these are the ones that i do not have hard copies of.

its game over statute barred :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case Shoosmiths will already know that it is statute barred - you should ignore any further communication you get regarding this.

 

If they threaten they will take the matter further, you can then write and tell them that the account is stature barred as they very well know.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do i have any other ammunition apart from the stat barred thingy?

What about the printout that says the debt had been written off and archived in 2000? I found that a bit odd....and why were all these agencies after me if the debt had been written off? It turns out that these agencies were sending letters to addresses that i had lived in previously...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do i have any other ammunition apart from the stat barred thingy?

What about the printout that says the debt had been written off and archived in 2000? I found that a bit odd....and why were all these agencies after me if the debt had been written off? It turns out that these agencies were sending letters to addresses that i had lived in previously...

 

They were probably trying to get you to make contact before it became stat. barred. Personally, I would count this one as a success and let the other stuff go.... it's not uncommon for debts to be shown as "written off" for accounting purposes, yet still get passed to other departments or sold off for peanuts to DCAs as bad debt... :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh - one more thing...one of the print outs of the database log has a tick box that says outside limitation period. I assume this rubber stamps the case??

Sorry if i am sounding dumb - but i just want to be 100% before i reply back to shoosmiths

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact remains that it's down to Shoosmiths to prove that an account is not stat. barred...

 

I would write back and say....

 

I do not acknowledge any debt to your company and/or to any company you claim to represent.

 

According to information received in my SAR to Halifax, this account is statute barred and as such, any instructions from Halifax to begin harrassing me for payment are contary to the law. In light of the information I now have in my possession, any further unsubstantiated demands for money will now be reported to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority and any other official body as I see fit and without further notice.

 

I trust that this now clarifies the situation and look forward to your written confirmation that this matter is now closed and that your files have been destroyed.

 

Somthing like that.... by rec. delivery.... Don't give them any information; it's up to them to have it before harrassing you for money in the first place.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently there are many cases that the court has ruled that limitation period starts from the sale date?

 

They are wrong.... and if that's happened to people, they need to appeal it.

 

As a firm of sols., Shoosmiths should know this, but a lot of companies bank on consumer ignorance in matters like this.. It's actually from the date of default and not the repossession date.... which should make your account even more stat. barred than it is.

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are wrong.... and if that's happened to people, they need to appeal it.

 

As a firm of sols., Shoosmiths should know this, but a lot of companies bank on consumer ignorance in matters like this.. It's actually from the date of default and not the repossession date.... which should make your account even more stat. barred than it is.

 

:)

 

 

Are there any recent threads that you know of where someone has used limitations act as their defence and have won?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Just a quick update.....I took all the documentation to a legal centre for scrutinisation, but they could not really get a clear picture from the documentation sent by Halifax. They wrote to shoosmiths requesting more detail, who in turn wrote to Halifax. This was in June and august last year, but no response. The legal centre has written to shoosmiths again earlier this month. They are requesting valuations etc....all the things Halifax should have sent me, but didn't. Now I wait........

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • 4 years later...

Thanks for the update.

 

Your case will interest another Cagger who is being chased, so will let them know.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Donation to the forum at the month end :)

 

That's great, thanks for letting us know.

 

And thank you for your offer of a donation - it will be very much appreciated :)

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Many thanks, much appreciated.

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...