Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So, why do DVLA (via that leaflet) say that S.88 MAY allow a driver to be treated as if they have a valid licence (after an application that discloses a medical condition) ?
    • Thanks for that, Bazza. It sheds some more light on things but I’m still by no means sure of the OP’s father’s likelihood of successfully defending the charge. This in particular from the guidance stands out me: He does not meet all the s88 criteria. S88 is clear and unambiguous: It makes no provision for either the driver or a medical professional to make a judgement on his fitness to drive under s88. S92(4) and the June 2013 guidance you mention defines in what circumstances the SoS must issue a licence. It does no modify s88 in any way. However, delving further I have noticed that the DVLA provides a service where the driver can enter a relevant medical condition to obtain the correct documentation to apply for a licence: https://www.gov.uk/health-conditions-and-driving/find-condition-online I haven’t followed this through because I don’ have the answers that the OP’s father would give to the questions they will ask and in any case it requires the input of personal information and I don’t want to cause complications with my driving licence. It is possible, however, that the end result (apart from providing the necessary forms) is a “Yes/No” answer to whether the driver can continue to drive (courtesy of s88). With that in mind, I should think at  the very least the OP’s father should have completed that process but there is no mention that he has. The Sleep Apnoea Trust gives some useful guidance on driving and SA: https://sleep-apnoea-trust.org/driving-and-sleep-apnoea/detailed-guidance-to-uk-drivers-with-sleep-apnoea/ I know nothing about SA at all and found It interesting to learn that there are various “grades” of the condition. But the significant thing which struck me is that it is only the least trivial version that does not require a driver to report his condition to the DVLA. But more significant than that is that the SA Trust makes no mention of continuing to drive once the condition has been reported. The danger here is that the court will simply deconstruct s88 and reach the same conclusion that I have. I accept, having looked at the DVLA guidance, that there may be (as far as they are concerned) scope for s88 to apply contrary to the conditions stated in the legislation. Firstly, we don’ know whether there is and secondly we don’t know whether the OP’s father would qualify to take advantage of it. Of course he could argue that he need no have reported his condition. The SA trust certainly emphasises that the condition should not be reported until a formal detailed diagnosis is obtained. But the fact is he did report it. As soon as he does that, as far as I can see,  s88 is no longer available to him. Certainly as it stands I maintain my opinion that he was not allowed to continue driving under s88. The only way I would change this is to see the end result of the DVLA exercise I mentioned above. If that said he could continue driving he would have a defence to the charge. Without it I am not confident.  
    • Americans are already keen on UK-made coins, and the Mint said it has seen a 118 per cent increase in sales to the US since 2022.View the full article
    • Right, my friend has just called me. He has indeed had to cancel bookings in the past from his end. There is a specific number for Booking.com that he calls.   After that Booking.com jump into action and contact you re refund and/or alternative accommodation. I suppose it's all logical - the party cancelling the booking has to inform Booking.com. So the gite owner needs to contact Booking.com on the cancellation number.
  • 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

Scary letter from Capquest


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5172 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

 

Received a scary letter from Capquest last Thursday. Dont have a scanner so I'll type it up cos I'm running out of time.

 

Debt Purchased From: Capital One Bank Limited

Balance: £9573.39

 

 

Despite our numerous atempts to assist you to find an amicable solution to settle this account, the balance remains unpaid.

 

Our investigations into your current financial position, based on the information we currently hold, are now complete and it is unfortunate that we find ourselves preparing as Statutory Demand under section 268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 which will be completed on or around the 9th April 2010 which will be served upon you.

 

If you do not apply to set aside the Statutory Demand within 18 days or otherwise deal with the demand as set out in the appropriate notes within the demand, you could be made Bankrupt and your property and goods taken away from you.

 

Any application to set aside the demand(form 6.4 in Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Rules 1986) should be made within 18 days from the date of service upon you and be supported by an affidavit(Form 6.5 in Schedule 4 to those rules) stating the grounds on which the demand should be set aside. The forms may be obtained from the appropriate court when you attend to make the application.

 

Remember: From the date of service of the Statutory Demand

(a) You only have 18 days to apply to the court to have the demand set aside, and

(b) You only have 21 days before we may present a bankruptcy petition.

 

You can stop this by contacting us now on 0871 527 0327 calls charged at 10p per minute from a landline quoting ref: 27F536.

 

As one last conciliatory gesture, we are offering you the opportunity to clear this account and for all by pating a settlement of £5744.03. This is subject to you accepting the offer by 09 April 2010. This settlement can be over a time period that can be negotiated around your current circumstances. Alternative proposals will also be considered.

 

 

 

I've already requested the agreement and received one from 2003 seemingly identical to this one

 

102_0140.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

102_0152.jpg

 

 

I received SAR from Capital One in October 2009 and ther may be charges that I can go after. There was no letter of assignment in the information I received either.

 

I have requested a notice of assignment in writing along with details of all payments made to Capquest in writing twice now and heard nothing from them uintil i received this letter.

 

Any advice would be appreciated as I'm a little worried

 

Thanks

 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the so called agreement dated 1999? It's a little hard to read.

If it's before 2007, then it's likely they have sent you one page of the application form, and then added terms and conditions containing the pescribed terms to try and make it look valid. Problem is, there is nothing to link the two pages together as one document.

 

I would write to them and ask, is what they sent a reconstructed agreement, or a true copy of the actual document.

 

I have still yet to see a valid agreement from Crap One that was dated before 2007.

 

Also the difference in the shading of the two documents gives it away. One is much darker than the other, and that is usually a sign each page was produced on different equipment.

 

If they had sent me those. I'd be telling them to go take a hike. :-D

Edited by fuzzybobble

These are video links to show how I deal with Debt Collectors.

 

Fly fishing for C.A.R.S

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtzK8FqE6k&feature=related

 

Frederickson International don't accept my card type

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZBULlWW6Q&feature=related

Link to post
Share on other sites

reputation_pos.gif

 

icon1.gif Scary letter from Capquest

Hi

 

Received a scary letter from Capquest last Thursday. Dont have a scanner so I'll type it up cos I'm running out of time.

 

Debt Purchased From: Capital One Bank Limited

Balance: £9573.39

 

 

Despite our numerous atempts to assist you to find an amicable solution to settle this account, the balance remains unpaid.

 

Our investigations into your current financial position, based on the information we currently hold, are now complete and it is unfortunate that we find ourselves preparing as Statutory Demand under section 268(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1986 which will be completed on or around the 9th April 2010 which will be served upon you.

 

If you do not apply to set asidelink3.gif the Statutory Demand within 18 days or otherwise deal with the demand as set out in the appropriate notes within the demand, you could be made Bankrupt and your property and goods taken away from you.

 

Any application to set asidelink3.gif the demand(form 6.4 in Schedule 4 to the Insolvency Rules 1986) should be made within 18 days from the date of service upon you and be supported by an affidavit(Form 6.5 in Schedule 4 to those rules) stating the grounds on which the demand should be set asidelink3.gif. The forms may be obtained from the appropriate court when you attend to make the application.

 

Remember: From the date of service of the Statutory Demand

(a) You only have 18 days to apply to the court to have the demand set asidelink3.gif, and

(b) You only have 21 days before we may present a bankruptcy petition.

 

You can stop this by contacting us now on 0871 527 0327 calls charged at 10p per minute from a landline quoting ref: 27F536.

 

As one last conciliatory gesture, we are offering you the opportunity to clear this account and for all by pating a settlement of £5744.03. This is subject to you accepting the offer by 09 April 2010. This settlement can be over a time period that can be negotiated around your current circumstances. Alternative proposals will also be considered.

 

 

 

I've already requested the agreement and received one from 2003 seemingly identical to this one

 

102_0140.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

102_0152.jpg

 

 

"I received Subject access requestlink3.gif from Capital One in October 2009 and ther may be charges that I can go after."

 

 

Have you not worked them out yet ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unknown for Capquest to go for a SD though. So it's best to send them the account in dispute letter outlining the problems with their so called agreement. I have a gut feeling their letter is just added scare tactics as they are probably aware the CCA is as dodgy as a house of cards on a windy day.

 

(I'm sure a few others will pick a few other things wrong with the so called CCA over the next day or so.)

 

 

Noticed there is a few guests reading this so late at night. :p

 

 

For any DCA peeps spying. Read my signature and weep, as I'm about to do a lot more of the same very soon, and it may well be you who gets it. :D

These are video links to show how I deal with Debt Collectors.

 

Fly fishing for C.A.R.S

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zPtzK8FqE6k&feature=related

 

Frederickson International don't accept my card type

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eiZBULlWW6Q&feature=related

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is no more an agreement than fly in the air - they don't have any. Goodness knows where they dug these T&Cs up from - the Ark I presume. I got 2 separate sets, both completely different. If Capquest go for an SD without an agreement, report them to the OFT. 1st Credit got hauled over the coals for it. Hello, guests. If you are from the DCAs, read this and other threads and weep.:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...