Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have added their poc in your above post for clarity.   you need to address para 3.    bump point 3 forward down 1 number and add in:   3. Paragraph 3 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served in yyyy by either the claimant or the original creditor .    if mcol is still flaky ….   MCOL is only one way of responding to a claim.  . If you are having problems logging in, or would prefer not to use MCOL,  you can fax, email or post your response to the Court instead.  If you send your response by e mail  please send it to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk and ensure you quote “Claim defence response” and quote the claim number in the subject field.  . neither by email nor MCOL do you need to inc I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    • you should have done the pictures weeks ago not leave it till 1 min before you need to file a defence. you've been here +6yrs and have numerous court threads and numerous private parking ticket threads  but somehow always seem to screw up one way or anther..   if you look on google earth street view you can see the cameras and the entrance/exit layout which matches the photos from that link I gave you and your upload which I've now redacted properly now .   POC   1.Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a parking charge (reference 00000000) issued on 10/10/2019.   2.The signage clearly displayed throughout KFC (Walkden Manchester) states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including a max stay period, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract).    3.ParkingEye’s ANPR system captured vehicle 000000 entering and leaving the site on 07/10/2019, and overstaying the max stay period.   4.Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, notice has been given to the Parking Charge payable upon breach.   5.As no response was received, an alternative service address was obtained and further correspondence issued (CPR 6.9(3)).   defence:   1. i am the registered keeper of the car Reg No. xxxxxx mentioned in the claimants claim.   2. the defendant denies that any monies are due to the claimant because there was no breach of contract to create a cause for action.   3. The claimants Accredited Trade Association, the BPA has a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes to allow the necessary consideration of the offer of conditions to park and other actions before any contractual condition can be applied.   4.The defendant denies exceeding any free parking time in addition to said grace period as neither the land owner who may have employed the claimant to manage parking with a current paid for contract covering the date of the overstay nor the claimant have any legal authority to vary any free parking period granted by the relevant council upon issuing the original planning consent for the entire walkden retail park.    needs firming up people...   you can file by email if MCOL is playing up still though from research today 99'9% of all PPC claimforms are being postponed for many months by all courts now,      
    • OK, excellent, please take pix both of KFC signs and also the signs in the surrounding car park, as I reckon that KFC has unilaterally tied to change the permitted parking time in their bit of the whole car park.   Also park in the main car park, not KFC, as I've read reports of invoices being issued for motorists who have parked in the KPC bit even if it's closed at the moment!!!   Could you reply to what I asked in post 57 please?  If you don't reply, it's difficult to give appropriate advice.        
    • I’ll get a picture of the signs tomorrow and see where I get ringing the council about the planning. Also how long do I have to get the defence in? I know you said I will have leeway but I can’t have that much.    Thanks  Andrew 
    • now read the letter properly and carefully.... doesn't say WILL anything...   unless you are purposefully buying these in bulk and knowingly doing it their client will not be the least bit interested in you.
  • Our picks

Durkin

Default damages [PCWorld wrong laptop sold & HFC Finance]- Supreme Court

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2188 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Excellent news for you Durkin, it is about time that these low life companies took responsibility for the damage they cause to peoples lives with their actions.

 

 

I am a little way behind you with a similar case having proved in court that I had no debt with a company yet they are still updating defaults on the credit file.

 

 

Once again congratulations and best wishes to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very pleased for Mr Durkin, shame that the findings of facts of the First Division cannot be disturbed, I think all he gets it £8K, not much given the stress this must have caused over the past 15 or so years.

 

A win for consumers though.


If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to Richard for taking this on and winning, but so disappointed for him that the judges awarded only £8,000. :-(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congratulations to Richard for taking this on and winning, but so disappointed for him that the judges awarded only £8,000. :-(

 

If you read the Judgement it does seem fair to me that the damages were only £8000.

 

I note there are at least 3 threads on this, spose they could be merged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations Richard. I hope you can put this behind you now.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see that the court found a common sense way to rescind the credit agreement, personally I think that this aspect will be the greatest assistance to the consumer.

 

The section 75 argument failed and there was little mention of the general losses issue, except to say that they did not have the power to make a ruling on the issue. I cannot see how the situation regarding this has been changed.

 

Although I am sure that there will be a rash of CMCs which will argue otherwise.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you read the Judgement it does seem fair to me that the damages were only £8000.

 

I note there are at least 3 threads on this, spose they could be merged.

 

I can see why they put the damages where they did but it's still not very much considering the length of it all and the stress Richard has been through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is a great result for consumers and it is common sense. If you buy a product, then return the product, you don't need a credit agreement for that product. That is it in a nutshell and the whole thing could have been sorted out in five minutes if anyone had employed a modicum of common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD.. I agree, he had only paid £50, this could of all been sorted out 16 years and half a million pounds ago !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As my 84-year-old mum would say, "No-one has any common sense any more. They work from a script, and that is IT!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racking my brain for the main case on damages awarded for problems caused by reporting to CRA, am sure the award was £8,000 too.


Advice & opinions given by spartathisis are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well done paul I know we could wish for more damages but lets hope the interest owed will help some plus all costs hopefully again congrats


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oooops Richard Apologies lol


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support everyone.

 

I'm trying to push for a defamation claim now but it seems that it would cost too much.

 

British justice has failed, particularly in Scotland.

 

Rico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the so called supreme court are powerless to institute previous determinations etc then they again are a waste of time = Also the so called cost to get justice degrades the British Legal system, as they could at outset sit around a table and discuss issues there and then instead of this proceedure that proceedure etecetecetc, they obviously did not want to rock the boat of Banks etc having the upper hand and set precenence to further scandle claims.


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...