Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (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; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Claimform/ Link/GE capital/woodchester


elrib
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4532 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

Application on an N244 with a WS stating why the claim should be struck out. Your argument could be that you require finality, and they have failed to comply with CPR properly, for example – but beware that if they have failed so far to produce the proper paperwork, they may simply take their time locating it and then request the stay be lifted. The advantage of going for strike out is that they put up or shut up.

 

But it really depends on the strength of your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi All

 

Have a default notice can this be used in a defence.

 

Date served, 4th july 2008

Remedy by, 18 july 2008.

 

Notice of termination 19 july 2008.

 

Thanks for any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will need a lot more info, are they demanding the arrears or the full amount, what is it, how old is it, how was it obtained?

 

Default notices can be rectified, so if you tell them it is wrong, for whatever reason, then they will simply issue you with an enforceable DN.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

Its for a Loan taken out in late 2005.

The default Notice is for arrears. Dated the 4th july remedy by the 18th july, and then letter dated the 19th.

Headed, Notice Of Termination.

You have disregarded our previous notice of default and as a consequence we give you notice that we hereby

terminate the hiring and the agreement forthwith.

This has been around the block abit with other DCA.

E

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK so when did you receive the DN? Dated and date received are two separate things.

 

It is highly unlikely that you will have received it on the same day it is printed so that goes in your favour for a start.

 

Don't inform of this, as all they will do is send you a correct DN, wait until they sell it to a DCA first before contacting them again. (IMO)

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking through the paperwork this has been sold to Asset Link.

Not sure of the date received but would have been 1 or 2 days after the date on Notice.

E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then GE still own this, they are simply using the fools Asset, as their gopher.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a creditor sells a debt on before the time allowed to rectify it, on the DN how can they possibly issue another one when they don't own the debt? Or can't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually, the OC will issue a DN, which will either have the incorrect dates, ie it doesn't allow you the correct time period in which to rectify the account, or they demand the full balance instead if just the arrears, or there will be some other fault with it.

 

So if you say and do nothing after they have issued you with a faulty DN, then they terminate the account, and then sell it on to a DCA, you will be able to claim that the account was unlawfully rescinded and you accept their unlawful repudiation and will pay them the arrears, only.

 

The trouble with faulty DN's is that they can be rectified, so as soon as you let the OC know of it's failings, they rectify it and reissue you another one. Once it has been terminated and sold on the back of a faulty DN, there is no going back.

Edited by Bazooka Boo

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once it has been terminated and sold on the back of a faulty DN, there is no going back.

 

Evening Boo,

I received a faulty DN from Barclaycard October 2009. I was then contacted by various DCA's demanding the full outstanding balance. I have not notified BC or the DCA's as I do not wish to alert them. BC have never actually terminated the agreement in writing, although DCA's demanding the full balance might be considered termination. Basically, I consider it to be just another piece of ammunition in case they take it to court. I assume the termination will kick in if they sell the debt on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Boo

 

The debt was sold to Asset link in 2009 well after the default notice. it had been with a few DCA in the mean time.

I have had letter from Link to inform me that they bought the debt.

E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking through the paperwork this has been sold to Asset Link.

Not sure of the date received but would have been 1 or 2 days after the date on Notice.

E.

 

Elrib, they seem to send out a lot of DN's by second class post, mine was dated 15 Feb and received on 19 Feb making it a 12 day DN. Worth rechecking your dates and storing as ammo in case of further action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rockwell

 

The DN sent only gives me about 10 days to fix and then I have a letter terminating the agrement, after that, debt was sold. Not going to let them know this but not sure how to use it against them if it gets that far.

E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am of the same opinion, that if they demand the full amount, then that can be taken as the account is then terminated.

 

As you say, it is more ammo to throw at them if the need arises.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

is there a act or case study that one could use as an example of a faulty default, I am sure I read somthing on this site but not sure where to fine it.

E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subbing also. Been AWOL for mothns and now catching up on many things which either have changed or may have changed and different information on the net. I've read that accepting the repudiation thing seems to mess up things but I don't understand how or why?? has anybody more information on this as it could change some of my 'defence' if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, UR is pretty much RIP, however!!!!!

 

If the OC issues a faulty DN (for whatever reason) and they then sell it to a DCA, (without being informed the DN is faulty) then the new owner can ONLY ever recover the arrears!

 

If the OC issues a DN which is faulty, and they are made aware of this, then all they need do it to issue you with a NEW DN which is enforceable so they can then enforce...

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And when would be a good time to inform new owners of this fact? When threatened with court action? Or would they go back to OC and get them to issue new one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the OC sold the debt on, is there a Act or case which could be produce in court to show that they can only claim the arrears, As I sure a judge would not just take my word.

E.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...