Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep   Matt Hancock United Nations job offer withdrawn WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Anti-poverty campaigners protested over his role in blocking vaccines for developing world  
    • I hope you noticed that your posts have had to be restructured first of all my my site team colleague and then your second post by myself. Please can you present your posts properly spaced and punctuated. It's extreme difficult for people to follow when they are in solid blocks of text – especially when people using small screen such as telephones. Thank you. Please stand by for a fuller reply later
    • So far the declared value is confirmed and documemted the first Claim got agreed and they kept delaying saying the refund will show 5-7 days for BACS but that not true!   I VE been chaising this since 28th september, told on 2nd October I needed to send my bank details again as they seemed they got it wrong but not my fault yet they had it since 2nd October! Thats over 2 weeks! I   GET Money via bank bacs and from Europe and recently in 3 Days and in the UK its same day and instant!   They re messing me about and nothing else!   For contents its a Marshall  speaker small Bluetooth one value 127.99   And 2nd parcel stolen last week and an empty bag delivered yesterday for Marshall Headphones value 121.99 all sold via verifiable links and invoices and all fully covered to its value, and payment all proven as well as refunds.   The first claim was agreed but still no payment   2nd Claim had to file it yesterday and he re the empty bag!
    • Yes it will be straightforward – but you may as well give us better information so we can check that everything is in a row. What was in the parcels? When were they sent? Was the value correctly declared? I understand you had insurance.   Have you been formerly declined compensation? If so then what was the reason given?   Also, you need to spend some time reading up on the Hermes threads on this sub- forum so that you understand the way it goes. It is pretty well always the same. It's essential that you understand the steps and so it is essential that you do the reading. In addition to answering the questions above, please confirm that you have done the reading or the you will be doing it.
    • In order for an NTK to be compliant it has to comply with PoFA. If it is not compliant then the keeper cannot be held liable for the PCN.  I have included the wording from S8 though  s9 is identical in the part I have copied below. You will see that at the beginning  "The Notice  'must' " which in Law means the wording  is to be stictly observed (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f); (d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is— (i)specified in the notice to keeper, and (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)); (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available; (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made; (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).   If you compare that with the NTK you weresent you will see that your one does not include  "   (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) " Your NTK also states that if you don't pay the £100 that you will be liable for debt collection charges up to £60. this contradicts section 4 of PoFA where it covers the right of the parking crooks to pursue motorists [5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).   So their NTK is non compliant in two places.    In any event Ambreen is wrong to declare that if they cannot pursue the keeper than they can assume that the keeper was the driver. The court will not entertain that idea -VCS need to provide strict proof that the keeper is the driver. So despite Ambreen claiming that they can proceed against the keeper she is wrong. [17,18 and !9 of her WS]. They quote Parking Eye v Beavis   [22] which is irrelevant since that was a free car park and yours is a residential parking space covered by a lease which VCS cannot overturn.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Anyone else tried NC-RTS with DCA's?


OMOH
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4234 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

At the moment I am being 'chased' by Capquest for a debt I do not recognise.

 

Now I know its them, every letter I get in future I will I mark up :

No contract - return to sender. NC - RTS

 

See how many letters I can send back!

 

I do not have a contract with them! They have bought the debt : so if they have bought it - it is paid isn't it!?;)

We know no mercy and do not ask for any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no

 

dx

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

They are third party interlopers who I have NO CONTRACT with!:D

 

You are trying to be clever without backing your self up. This could return to bite you in the backside unless you handle it properly.

 

I'm assuming you've opened the letter to know what it's about... so to return an opened letter will tell them the same. The worst scenario is that they'll just push forward with an undefended CCJ, so my advice to you would be to tell us a bit more about the debt they're chasing and deal with it properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I opened the FIRST letter from them - I did not send that one back.

 

Now I know their address which is on the back of the envelope I will send ALL subsequent letters back unopened with NC - RTS.

 

They have no contract with me.

Edited by OMOH

We know no mercy and do not ask for any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are trying to be clever without backing your self up. This could return to bite you in the backside unless you handle it properly.

 

I'm assuming you've opened the letter to know what it's about... so to return an opened letter will tell them the same. The worst scenario is that they'll just push forward with an undefended CCJ, so my advice to you would be to tell us a bit more about the debt they're chasing and deal with it properly.

 

 

He who leaves the battlefield first - surrenders.

We know no mercy and do not ask for any.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OMOH you'd be wise to listen, exactly why did you bother to post? Nobody is impressed or even finding your actions humourous. It is against the law to avoid debt the way you are.

Why not just go down the CCA route and see what they have got, are there unfair charges or unwanted PPI.

Just be careful

I have no legal training, any knowledge I have has come from this forum, and my own experiences. Always balance up any advice you get with your own common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it works for you, that's great.... but in my opinion, you could be leaving yourself wide open for trouble. You've opened the first letter and sent the rest back. I'm sure Capquest (et al) are used to this kind of thing and will now try and establish that you do in fact live where you say you don't through the electoral register and DVLA records as 2 of their primary sources.

 

This is a very different scenario from the postcard "we need to speak to you urgently about a personal matter" trick... which can/should be ignored.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since April this year Rich joined me in using the process of NCRTS against the police, the courts (including the high court), credit card companies, the DVLA, councils and many others, in fact anyone who sends us ‘paper’ through the post we do not wish to receive. The objective is very clear; we do not want to or have to contract with anyone we wish not to contract with. After serving our affidavits on the queen we instructed Elizabeth that we no longer wish to play their game and this is all we needed to do. The NCRTS process is the action needed to show that we mean what we say, i.e. walking the walk rather that just talking the talk. We said ‘NO’ and we mean ‘NO’.

 

What a load of twaddle

I have no legal training, any knowledge I have has come from this forum, and my own experiences. Always balance up any advice you get with your own common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Get a Life' comes to mind :confused:

Every journey begins with a single step :):)

 

Please note: I have no qualifications in this area - my advice is learned from the wonderful members of this Forum. Thanks to you all for your help.

 

If you have found my post helpful please leave a short message by clicking the star to the left of my profile - Thank You

 

The only person entitled to your Personal Finance details is a Judge not a DCA

 

Move all banking activity to another banking group if you have a dispute - your funds can be used to offset debts within the same group.

Be careful with Banking details (card/account numbers) as these can be used to take unauthorised payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"We instructed Elizabeth?!!" OMG, give me strength!... :rolleyes:

 

:D

 

The idea is they are using the Magna Carta 1215, section 61. What they are doing is referred to now as Lawful Rebellion, although MC1215 does not use that specific phrase. MC1215 sec 61 allows for a petition to the Queen for redress of grievances concerning her government; she is allowed 40 days to sort the problems out. After 40 days, if the grievances remain, people can withdraw allegience from the Queen and all those acting on her behalf, which means we can lawful refuse to co-operate with all those claiming authority, including courts, police, tax people etc.

 

Sec 61 speaks of 5 barons petitioning the queen, but sec 1 says all rights in MC are extended to all freemen. "freeman" means those who are not "villeins" or serfs.

 

In "The Rule of Law" (p10) Judge Tom Bingham says the Magna Carta was annulled (repealed) by the pope after a few months. But then the pope's authority to do this could be questioned. There is a lot of room for argument on this, but IMO it's really off-topic for CAG, it's better leave that discussion on TPUC.:)

 

Just thought a very short background on this might be of interest to some.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

priority one,

 

I'm sure Capquest (et al) are used to this kind of thing and will now try and establish that you do in fact live where you say you don't through the electoral register and DVLA records as 2 of their primary sources.

 

I'd like to clarify one thing, not to endorse this as it often does lead to trouble, just to explain.

 

OMOH is not saying "I don't live here" or "Moved away" etc.

 

NC-RTS is "NO CONTRACT" return to sender. It's more like saying "Get lost I'm not having anything to do with you." It is based on the idea that the DCA has no contract with you and you won't contract with them by talking to them, writing to them, or otherwise. Make of that what you will. Threads like this usually result in arguments even on tpuc, and I'm not going be drawn in. I just didn't want to see the topic misunderstood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment I am being 'chased' by Capquest for a debt I do not recognise.

 

Now I know its them, every letter I get in future I will I mark up :

No contract - return to sender. NC - RTS

 

See how many letters I can send back!

 

I do not have a contract with them! They have bought the debt : so if they have bought it - it is paid isn't it!?;)

 

Have they really bought it?

 

If so, they will have a "deed of assignment." If they have this and it has been done properly, then they do own the debt and they can sue you on it. The "It's been paid" argument won't stand in court.

 

Personally I would suggest you start a new thread and post up some details. If you scan the CCA and deed of assignment etc, as well as any default notices you might find you can win quite easily if they've made mistakes.

 

People on CAG are very helpful and they know a hell of a lot. If you want a new idea to gain respect on here, you will have to back it up with sound legal reasoning.

 

P.S. I would recommend a basic contract law book such as nutshells.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...