Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
  • 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

Clarity working for CitiCard, now cabot !! - **You really couldn't make this up!!**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4929 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

This will amuse and at the same time may infuriate...

In an attempt to settle a large and long outstanding credit card debt, I recently sent a full and final settlement cheque/letter to the DCA of 10p in the £. (A mob called Clarity working for CitiCard). It was slightly a tongue in cheek attempt as I didn't really expect it to work.

I also notated the cheque as well as making it clear in my letter that this was a full and final settlement payment. Obviously I retained copies.

Anyway, to my surprise and delight, they banked the cheque and it cleared my account last week.:)

Now this is the great bit...

They phoned me two days ago to say they made a mistake and shouldn't have banked the cheque and they're going send me back the money (direct into my account) and continue chasing me for the debt in full. :confused:

Am I going mad?

Anyone (especially those on here with some legal training) care to comment?

Tony.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you state your payment was also in 'consideration' of an early settlement

 

If presenting a creditor with a full & final fait accompli it's important to also include a 'consideration' which can be either £1 or early settlement.

 

In the meantime maintain your position, debt paid & if they attempt to renege on the deal come back here

Edited by JonCris
Link to post
Share on other sites

My letter made it clear that it was a "Full and Final Settlement". I didn't mention the word "consideration".

What should I do if the money finds its way back into my account? It could just end up going backwards and forwards between us. Should I just hang onto it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

additIn that case whilst I would maintain my position with them 'debt paid' I doubt a court will support you. The court will say you left them no choice but to accept your payment hence the need for a 'consideration' (additional benefit) for you to overcome any court objection

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its one to test if they return payment and continue to chase the debt.

 

Sorry I can't offer you more than recent case law.

 

Out of interest, how long ago did you send the cheque, how long before they presented it and how exactly did you word the settlement offer?

 

I have a feeling that they may have shot themselves in the foot, if they were of the belief that they had acted correctly they'd still be pursuing the balance prior to returning funds.

 

Gez

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its one to test if they return payment and continue to chase the debt.

 

Sorry I can't offer you more than recent case law.

 

Out of interest, how long ago did you send the cheque, how long before they presented it and how exactly did you word the settlement offer?

 

I have a feeling that they may have shot themselves in the foot, if they were of the belief that they had acted correctly they'd still be pursuing the balance prior to returning funds.

 

Gez

 

 

I agree. It may be that (mistakenly) they think they have boobed cos if they didn't they would as Gez states be simply chasing you for the balance

 

Also having banked the cheque they cannot now return the original which means you can return their cheque whilst continuing to argue F&F;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

The tale continues...

Some nine months after the DCA accepted my offer of payment (Clarity on behalf of CitiCard) and banked the cheque, I've had a letter from Cabot who have acquired the debt and are chasing me for the full sum due. They've also entered a default on my credit record.

I've sent them copies of the correspondence showing that the DCA accepted my offer.

Is there anything else I should be doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tale continues...

Some nine months after the DCA accepted my offer of payment (Clarity on behalf of CitiCard) and banked the cheque, I've had a letter from Cabot who have acquired the debt and are chasing me for the full sum due. They've also entered a default on my credit record.

I've sent them copies of the correspondence showing that the DCA accepted my offer.

Is there anything else I should be doing?

 

If Cabot have fully purchased the debt they are entitled to take over the default on your account, just make sure the date hasnt changed.

 

If you've maintained your position that the debt has been paid then we need to see what Cabot come back with, it might be worth raising a complaint with cabots local trading standards as if the debt is settled then its a breach of the oft debt collection guidelines to chase for more money, send trading standards the same letters you have cabt as proof.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

slight rename and move to citi forum.

 

dx

siteteam

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Followed the link at 6 but cannot find the details.

 

Any ideas?

 

Regards,

 

Bosun.

Please note: I have no formal qualifications in this area and any advice offered is given in good faith. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...