Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi T911 and welcome to CAG. As you say, an interesting screw up. So much for quality control! Anyway, our regular advice is to ignore all of their increasingly threatening missives... UNLESS you get a letter of claim, then come back here and we'll help you write a "snotty letter" to help them decide whether to take it any further with their stoopid pics. If you get mail you're unsure of, just upload it for the team to have a look.
    • Thanks @lolerzthat's an extremely helpful post. There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in. I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm. VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert. Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months? I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park?  Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?
    • That is so very tempting.   They are doing my annual review as we speak and I'm waiting for their response once I have it I will consider my next steps.    The debt camel website mentioned above is amzing and helping to. Education me alot    
    • Sending you a big hug. I’m sorry your going through this. The letters they send sound aweful, and the waiting game for them to stop. But these guys seem so knowledgable and these letters should stop. Hang in there, and keep in touch. Don’t feel alone 
    • In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA. Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Not saying it doesn't happen mind. I've done some more digging on this: Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system. Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that. Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding. At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place. I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord). It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.  
  • 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

Keep up the Good work!


Major Player
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

Hi all, thought that I had seen a few people feeling a little wary about the action that they have or are taken, wanted to point you in the direction of the FOS stats:

 

Complaints data

 

You can see on the resolved cases from the six months to December, overall an incredible 92% of cases referred to the FOS after Welcome rejected the complaint were found in favour of the customer and an even more impressive 96% of PPI misselling cases where found in favour of the customer when Welcome had rejected the claim in the first place.

 

The work of everybody on here makes things like this happen, it goes to show that through combined knowledge and experience a difference can be made. I would also say that this means for those who Welcome are giving the run around to, remember, they might think that they are getting a small measure of success in batting your complaints around, however don't lose heart as the FOS can see who is actually in the right!:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right Major :) . . . most of us on here do not want a free ride or a loan that we do not expect to pay back, we jst want to be treated fairly in a moral and professional sense. There are laws to ensure this happens and we will defend ourselves and not only receive justice but allow the path for others.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, thought that I had seen a few people feeling a little wary about the action that they have or are taken, wanted to point you in the direction of the FOS stats:

 

Complaints data

 

You can see on the resolved cases from the six months to December, overall an incredible 92% of cases referred to the FOS after Welcome rejected the complaint were found in favour of the customer and an even more impressive 96% of PPI misselling cases where found in favour of the customer when Welcome had rejected the claim in the first place.

 

The work of everybody on here makes things like this happen, it goes to show that through combined knowledge and experience a difference can be made. I would also say that this means for those who Welcome are giving the run around to, remember, they might think that they are getting a small measure of success in batting your complaints around, however don't lose heart as the FOS can see who is actually in the right!:cool:

 

I Did say this Feller would be an ASSET!!! Brilliant Stuff Major. Thank You Very Much. Your Input is Really Invaluable to ALL here on the Welscum Forum!!!:)

 

Cheers, MARK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right Major :) . . . most of us on here do not want a free ride or a loan that we do not expect to pay back, we jst want to be treated fairly in a moral and professional sense. There are laws to ensure this happens and we will defend ourselves and not only receive justice but allow the path for others.

 

 

I agree with this, the majority of us (the ones here doing research to find out rights etc) dont want to wriggle out of a debt we just want companies to stick to the rules which are there for everyones protection funnily enough including their own :rolleyes:

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, take myself for example I have been paying them for 6 years since 2004 and always played their game and spoke on phone and made payments, never questioned them and only now out of frustration and gaining of knowledge that I question their motives and professsionalism and am first ashamed I have allowed myself to be treated this way and now willing to challenge their previous and current actions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not for you to be ashamed its for them to be ashamed they are the ones taking advantage of people that at the time of using their company have very little choice! And with hindsight and knowledge its easy now to see how we have been treated but not so easy at the time. I think CAG is fab because it makes you realise that you arent alone in all of this!

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not for you to be ashamed its for them to be ashamed they are the ones taking advantage of people that at the time of using their company have very little choice! And with hindsight and knowledge its easy now to see how we have been treated but not so easy at the time. I think CAG is fab because it makes you realise that you arent alone in all of this!

 

And that MY Friends is the Exact Reason WE Will ALL WIN against these ****!!!

 

WE Found Out WE were being Conned, Diddled, De- Frauded and Theft IS Being Perpetrated Against US. When ALL WE Need is Fairness And Understanding in Our Dealings With this ****.

 

The Strength of Feeling Has Been Unleashed. The Difference NOW is The Knowledge is There, Along With STRENGTH in Numbers.

 

We Played The Game Long Enough. Feeling Indebted to Them because There Was No One Else, and they HELPED Us Out of a Stickey Patch, or something like that.

 

Now WE Have Found that They Make up Their Own Rules has they Go Along!!!

 

That IS SHAME ON THEM, And SHAME on A Government that Allows Them to Operate in This Fashion.

 

Cheers, MARK

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Financial Ombudsman Service is able to deal with complaints about sales that happened before 14 January 2005 as long as the policy was sold by a high street bank or the firm was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC), I'm pretty sure that Welcome were not.

 

If the firm you dealt with wasn't a major bank or a GISC member, but was a member of the Finance & Leasing Association (FLA), then the FLA may have to deal with your complaint, rather than the Financial Ombudsman Service, I think Welcome were a member.

 

Welcome must tell you which body your complaint can be referred to in their rejection letter, if they haven't then this alone is cause for complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Major Player, the agreement was a welcome agreement dated 2003. In 2008 we exausted our complaint with welcome and sent to the FOS who took one year to say that they could not help as Welcome had refused them any information on the grounds that at that time they were not regulated by FSA. This only came by letter to us from FOS and not welcome. The OFT refused help also, it seems that no authority is able to help people with these old agreements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FLA are the old boys club though arent they?? or is that some other set of letters lol

I am a consumer just like you, please get a second opinion or investigate yourself on anything I advise as I am in no way legally trained. Everything I know has come from the Mighty CAG and fellow CAGGERS. :cool:

 

If I have helped in any way please click my reputation star and make a donation to CAG to enable us all to continue to help each other :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not for you to be ashamed its for them to be ashamed they are the ones taking advantage of people that at the time of using their company have very little choice! And with hindsight and knowledge its easy now to see how we have been treated but not so easy at the time. I think CAG is fab because it makes you realise that you arent alone in all of this!

 

Couldn't have said it better myself....people have been taken advantage of for far too long.

Thanks to everyone involved with CAG.

Somedays I feel I am leading my daughter's boyfriend down a wrong road by urging him to fight Welcome but when I come onto the forum I realise if we all keep fighting, hopefully things will change for the better.

 

Thanks....you are all wonderful

Dawnx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...