Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Write to the IPC complaining that UKPC have not observed the requirements of PoFA . IPC  Waterside House, Macclesfield SK10 9NR Dear IPC, I am writing to complain about a serious breach of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 by UKPCM. I feel that as it is more a breach of the Act rather than not just  complying with your Code of Practice which is why I am bypassing your operator. Should you decide to insist that I first complain to your operator, I will instead pass over my complaint to the ICO and the DVLA . My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA. You will be aware that this is not the first time that UKPC have fallen foul of the DVLA and presumably yourselves. I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPC to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would think that should be sufficient for the IPC to cancel your PCN though  you should await comments from the Site team before sending your complaint. Don't forget to include both PCNs.  
    • Hi DX, Sorry, fell asleep as I was up all night last night writing that statement. Yes, I attached the rest of the witness statement on post 50, bottom of webpage 2. That's the important part.  It looks like the lawyer who wrote Erudio's Witness statement does not work for them any more. So, I'll have another lawyer representing instead. Not sure if I can use Andy's hearsay argument verbally if that happens.... I did not put it in writing. Apart from not sending deferral forms, my main argument is that in 2014 Erudio fixed some arrears mistake that SLC made and then in 2018 they did the same mistake, sent me confusing letters. What is the legal defence when they send you confusing material?
    • Chinese firm MineOne Partners has been ordered to sell land it owns near a US nuclear missile site.View the full article
    • That isn’t actually what the Theft Act 1968 S1 actually says, BTW. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1 (1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it;   The difference between what you’ve said and the Act? a) intent to permanently deprive rather than  just depriving (which is why the offence of “taking without consent” was brought in for motor vehicles, as otherwise "joyriders" could say "but I intended to give it back at the end") b) dishonesty : If I honestly believed A's pen belonged to B, and took it and gave it to B - B might be found guilty of theft but I shouldn't be. 
  • 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

Capquest Stautory Demand


SL8R
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4589 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

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Long time with no updates, but Court Papers recieved today.

Hearing set for Sept for a duration of 1 hour..

Am i correct in thinking that Capquest have to supply me with everything they will be relying on in court, or would a LBA be better to get them to disclose everything they have ?

I need to get my defense written and expenses worked out.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make the relevant CPR request. Not sure which would be the correct one to use. 31.14, part 18 or other ?

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

  • 1 month later...

Well, just a quick update... all papers served and Schedule of Costs sent to Court and CQ today - hearing is on Friday. So far the Court has heard nothing from them.... i was hopeing to meet Barry in person :/

Anyway, the Schedule of Costs is in and i will be there for the case to be heard on Friday....

Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the Court has heard nothing from them.... i was hopeing to meet Barry in person :/

.

 

I bet neither Barry or anyone else from CQ turns up on Friday. So you will get the set aside and costs I suspect.

 

The reason is that they will not want to explain the process that they are using for debt collection.

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

Good luck for Friday, will have everything crossed for you, not that you will need it.

 

It would be very very interesting if Barry Davies turns up, but I wouldnt hold my breath. It could potentially be very dangerous for him to explain why the company he represents was abusing the insolvancy service. It could be a groundbreaking case setting a precedent that could see themselves and any other DCA's sending their SD confetti out in serious trouble!

Advice given is my opinion only, I am not a legal or financial expert (far from it).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the court is high enough to set any precedent, but word would certainly get around the judiciary very quickly. Then life would get much more difficult for Barry and CQ. The judge might also be tempted to pass on details to the OFT.

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

Will be interesting to learn what happened. Did Barry reveal himself?

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

Perhaps the judge is eager to speak to Barry/CQ, hence the adjournment and now discussions are taking place as to how much it would cost not to go back to court.

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

Sorry for the delay, I have been away.

Anyways, arrived in good time for hearing. There was no one else around, then 2 mins before hearing their Solicitors turns up. In the Court waiting room they approach me and say they have received no documents from the Court and as such will be asking for an adjournment.

They then asked me why I was disputing the debt etc.... I told them everything was in my affidavit. There solicitor said it was not unlawful to sell, act upon or take action against a dept if it was in dispute... “well that’s what we are here find out isn’t it" I said.

I was then asked for my address and phone number as they didn’t seem to have it, so I said that this just confirms my affidavit and that they have issued this SD without any information or proof (they don’t even have my address or phone number).

In the Court the Solicitor asked the judge for 35 days to complete a response and argument. The judge wasn’t too happy and asked me if I received mine. He then said that he thought it strange and asked why people cant communicate with CQ, he looked at me and said "I believe you also have had problems trying to contact this company" - yes I said "I have phoned several times with no effect and also written numerous times also with no effect"... judge raised their eyebrows and looked at Solicitor.

The solicitor then asked the court to pay their fees as the court didn’t send documents; the judge just said I will see you in 21 days.

The judge has allowed 21 days for them to sort their lives out.

So to me this means that they have indeed issued this SD with absolutely no proof of debt, no paperwork, no information about my address ect (which would obviously be on the original paperwork), and against all regulations, also saying they received the Courts summons, but not my affidavit... (course not).

To Be Continued ………………

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

I have come to the point where i am sick of these bullies, i will fight them all the way now.... there just bullies and self oppinionated egotistical morons - trying to prey on people, threatening allsorts, but in actual fact they can deliver very little...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...