Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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

DCA set aside & later questionable solicitor action


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4790 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

original claim - 5 figure sum, had account since '98 (ish), paid on time for years (till mid 08) marriage fell apart, maintenence etc to pay, accomodation for me to find etc etc.

 

paid small amounts direct to mbna, then their dca. restons got involved without my knowledge and got the ccj by default.

 

Have been paying £5 per month to Restons as am on benefits and a carer to my partner who receives DLA and ESA. (Restons know this)

 

The original claim appears to be the same as the new one, but there is some interest added on to the claim. will have to check through my records to see if the claim no. is the same.

 

The new claim came in a normal hand written envelope (with the courts franking stamp on it however) and not one of those official looking brown ones

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

That means it probably wasn’t issued through Northampton, I’m guessing? If it did not come through bulk, then they should be attaching documents they intend to rely on. What’s the PoC exactly? Where was the claim issued?

Link to post
Share on other sites

claim issued Norwich county court.

 

the claimant claims the overdue balance due from the defendant under a contract dated on or about ##/#/98

the sum of £#####.## inclusive of interest to the date of this summons at 8% per annum from #/#/10 to #/#/10 (these dates i have no idea what they refer to!)

 

+£190 court fee

+£100 solicitors costs

 

the docs I received are: the claim form, admission form, defence and counter claim form, and the response pack. Nowt else

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they have mentioned the contract, so it should have been attached.

 

They are claiming an overdue balance. This implies that the account has not been terminated. Odd.

 

Can you dig out the first PoC asap – that will really help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a credit card account. Defaulted about 2 1/2 years ago due to divorce etc etc. never had notice of assignment to say that restons had it. They are acting on behalf of mbna. the first letter I ever received from Restons was the interim charging order! Had all the usual nasty calls from mbna telling me to borrow money to pay them etc, they wouldn't accept lowered payments so I didn't pay them anything.

 

I did receive a default notice from mbna but can't find it! (sorry)

 

So far have not sent cca (I know, I know!) but didn't want to wake them whilst all was quiet (5 months ish until today)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do a CCA, but the CPR should bring out the agreement.

 

MBNA agreements pre-2000 are generally rubbish. Doesn’t look like it has been assigned anyway, so still with MBNA. Is MBNA the claimant? It should be.

 

The default notice is an important step in this. We need to establish what actions MBNA have taken, and when the account was terminated, and how (they are taking court action, so it is terminated; I’m wondering if they are trying the Cabot ‘arrears’ trick – that’s why we need to see the original PoC).

 

As the claim number is the same, it looks like it’s back to square one. If I were you, I would contact the court and get hold of the original claim form to see if the PoC was the same – it should be. They appear not to have applied to alter it.

 

I am also wondering if there are procedural issues on the amount of time – five months – they have taken to reissue what is essentially the same claim with the same number? Can anyone help on this procedural issue? Was the claim effectively stayed, and should Restons have applied to the court to continue? Are there time limits?

 

Have a look through these threads – great primers which will really help you understand what your’re about to do!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?241827-Legal-Action-how-to-start-off.-IMPORTANT-IF-YOURE-BEING-SUED

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?255329-CPR-part-18-vs-CPR-31.14-Confused-well-read-here

 

From these threads, you’ll see that you may be able to get up to 56 days to deal with this, so an SAR to MBNA will be a useful belt-and-braces approach to back up CPR, as it should be completed within 40 days if you hit any walls with CPR. Do this asap. A CCA request to MBNA might also be useful, as it will start flushing things out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have just received a letter from Restons ...... re the CCA request, and I quote blah blah "your request is returned to you because we are not the creditor, we are a firm of solicitors"

 

It continues "in any event, it may be useful to explain that there is no longer an "agreement" as this was terminated when you failed to comply with the terms of the default notice issued to you by the bank. We refer you to the judgement of his honour Judge Simon Brown QC in Rankine v American Express Europe ltd"

 

well that wasn't what I was expecting at all!

 

any comments most welcome (I have responded to the court to get my 28 days)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Restons if they have been writing to you, should have to deal with a CPR 31.14 request for the documents. If they don't supply in time for the defence to be submitted you will have to enter an embarassed defence.

 

When you have to get in your defence by ?

 

You could speak to community legal to see if you can get help.

 

http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/

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

The PoC was:

 

the claimant claims the overdue balance due from the defendant under a contract dated on or about ##/#/98

the sum of £#####.## inclusive of interest to the date of this summons at 8% per annum from #/#/10 to #/#/10 (these dates i have no idea what they refer to!)

 

+£190 court fee

+£100 solicitors costs

 

They have mentioned a contract, so they are obliged to provide it. Rankine is completely irrelevant – who the hell are they to decide what a judge may decide is evidence or not?

 

The fact is that the contract is what they are relying on in their PoC, so it should have been attached to the claim form.

 

I would not suggest a simple embarrassed defence, but to follow pt2537’s advice and issue an N244 for them to comply with your CPR request, and to request more time to prepare your defence. Include their nonsensical and downright idiotic response as evidence of failure to cooperate. And as uncleb says, they are the solicitor prosecuting – the fact that they are not the creditor is irrelevant. They are obliged to act on your request.

 

See these threads:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?283443-Embarrased-Defences-and-the-problems-with-them.

 

and this

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?255329-CPR-part-18-vs-CPR-31.14-Confused-well-read-here(2-Viewing)-nbsp

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks uncle and donkey, i'll have a read up on those threads and decide what to do next.

 

just to reiterate, I have never received a notice of assignment, letter of intention or notice before action from these clowns.

 

Also, (and obviously!) the CCA contract or copy was not attached to the POC. My letter informed the court of these ommisions so am wondering about ringing the court in a day or so when they have read it.

 

Am only on about day 2 of my 28

Link to post
Share on other sites

good plan. I will do that and report back. The most irritating thing about all this is that i'm paying them what I can afford each month, and they wont get any more at court (possibly less!) it's just that they are such a--e holes I want to get the judge to rip them a new one. Hence my letter to the court, and my forthcoming complaint to the SRA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

sorry to start this thread up again, not been on the site for months due to wife's illness and other stuff. Just to say that Restons did eventually get a CCJ against me (the judge seemed to be totally on their side) but it's for £5 per month ;-)

 

It's been a long slog and very stressful but given that the judge disregarded virtually every piece of evidence I put forward, not a terrible outcome under the circumstances.

 

It's the amount I offered to pay 2 years ago, and it was nice to stick it up them regarding the charging order!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...