Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Court claim from Link Financial. Please help.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4778 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 all.

I've just received a court claim form from Link Financial. This lot hold 3 accounts in my name, all with MBNA.

On the advice of members of this forum I sent requests for credit agreements for all 3 accounts a couple of years ago & received copies of application forms for 2 & nothing for the other so I stopped paying them.

I get regular updates from them regarding my "current balance" & I began to ignore them completely.

On receiving the claim form I checked some old mail which I was keeping for recycling & found 3 unopened letters from Link & to my horror they were all headed Letter Before Action so now I'm expecting 2 more court claim forms.

I've had a CCJ from a previous debt for the last 5 1/2 years which has held me back & was so much looking forward to having it removed from my file so that I could do the things I've been wanting to do for so long & now to be faced with the prospect of being in limbo for another 6 years is just so upsetting. I'm not normally emotional but I feel like bursting into tears right now.

I can't think straight at the moment & can't see me getting much sleep in the next few days, I'm a real mess. I'm sorry for going on a bit but I feel like my world is coming apart.

Please help if you can.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

We’ll do all the thinking for you. Do as rebel says, and get a thread going on this first claim.

 

Pull together all the info you can – type of account, who with, when taken out, amount outstanding, when and whether defaulted, etc. Your first step will be a CPR request.

 

We’ll also need to know what it says on the claim form, exactly.

 

Make sure you remove anything personal or which identifies the account or claim from the documents you scan.

 

Personally I would suggest the Legal forum rather than MBNA – I really believe you’ll get more help – but put a thread in MBNA pointing here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks loads for taking the time to help out.

I've posted a link to this thread in the MBNA section as suggested.

I'll just deal with the account which has gone to court for now.

My dealings with Link go way back & my record keeping could be better but here goes...

As I mentioned, I have a total of 3 accounts with Link & sent CCA requests for all a couple of years ago & got copies of application forms for the other accounts but nothing for this one.

I believe it was for a credit card but I'm not 100% sure (sorry).

I did receive a Default Notice though

http://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee338/The_Janitor69/Link4.jpg

 

I've scanned the front of the court claim form, removing the details I thought needed removing

http://i533.photobucket.com/albums/ee338/The_Janitor69/Image0001.jpg

 

Apologies if I've missed something. I'm all over the place at the moment.

 

Thanks again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta fly out, but first thoughts:

 

I’d noticed the PoC did not state that a DN had been issued, only that a default had been registered. I see why now.

 

That DN/NoA combined looks distinctly odd. I don’t see how it can be issued by Link who were assigned the account AND by MBNA who remain a creditor? That is absolute rubbish. Unless they are saying the assignment is NOT absolute, and they have only bought the BENEFITS of the account – which it appears to say – in which case I don’t think that Link can take you to court without MBNA joining the action. If MBNA is a creditor, then MBNA must take action; if Link are claiming not to be the creditor, they cannot enjoy the benefits of S87.

 

Also, as a DN it fails because it claims the WHOLE balance, not arrears. It is almost certainly not in the correct format, and does not give sufficient time for remedy.

 

Under CPR – and as they are mentioned in the PoC – you must include a demand to see the Deed of Assignment, as well as the usual bits. This true nature of this assignment could be the key to your defence.

 

Look forward to hearing what the heavy artillery think!

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have letters from Link in reply to my CCA requests in which they state that they "Purchased the debt from MBNA Europe Bank LTD" so they can't be acting on behalf of MBNA, not that I know much about these things.

Cheers for the input. I too look forward to other comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Donkey for this link on this thread which im subbing to and will fully read once got little one up and breakfasted and sorted, i have my own suspicions too, but of course i am willing to learn from others as ive been out of the learning loop from cag for a while i want to be sure of what im doing but hey thanks for looking in for me hope to catch up later have afun sunday cheers angel x

Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)

 

my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"

 

This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Janitor,

From reading tons on this site, it seems that this claim is a crock of crap.

1. MBNA should be joint claimant with Link as they would still seem to be the creditor.

2. default notice deficient inasmuch as claiming full balance, not arrears.

3. The DN does not allow sufficient time to remedy the default.

4. S69 arrears not allowed to be claimed on a CCA debt.

I am sure that others will soon come in with their input, but you need to acknowledge the claim and say that you intend defending, else they will get judgement by default.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did send a CCA request for this account along with the other 2 Link are pressing me for but they only sent what looked like copies of application forms for the other 2 accounts & nothing for this one.

They did send the usual confirmation that they were contacting MBNA for the info but that was a couple of years ago.

Should I ask them again?

I'll take a look at acknowledging the claim tonight. I think I can do it online.

Is there anything else I need to know when opting to defend or is that all I do for now?

Thanks again for helping out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

application forms when accepted can be a regulated agreement for the purposes of the CCA 1974. So, try not to get hung on that point

 

Were the documents presented to you easily legible?

 

if there were words that simply could not be read, then please let us know

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Janitor,

 

It is best if you deal with one account (the one that requires urgent attention). This will cause confusion.

 

I agree.

To repeat, I've not received a CCA for this account. I have only the Default Notice which I posted earlier in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for that.

I'm a little pushed for time as I'm off to work so I'll read those when I get home. I just wanted to know if I should get something posted before leaving for work.

I've responded to the claim online, stating my intention to defend.

It's getting very real now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be best for you to have an outline understanding of the legal issues and processes, so definitely get reading on those. I think pt2537 believes CPR18 to be the most powerful of the CPR tools (used correctly), so have a good look at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links DonkeyB.

It appears to me that CPR 18 is a request for information only whereas CPR 31.14 is a request for documents the claimant has mentioned & therefore will be relying on in court.

I think in my case the CPR 31.14 will be required but then I am relying on other members to point me in the right direction if possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Finally a reply from Link :

 

"All the relevant documents have been requested from the original finance provider, unfortunately, we have no control over the length of time taken to provide us with this information, we have therefore extended the time allowed for you to reply to the summons issued, until you are in possession of the requested information."

 

Now, as I already sent in my intention to defend does this mean I have more time in which to sort out my defence?

According to the claim form I'm to send in my defence no later than 28 days from the date of service which is deemed to be 5 days after the issue date which was 25th oct.

I dont suppose I can begin to construct a defence without these documents can I?

I'm more than a little confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Link should have had all of the required documents before starting legal proceedings.

Would it not be in order for The Janitor to apply to have the claim struck out as Link have had their time to supply info further to the CPR 31.14 request?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As pt2537 argues, strike outs are often dangerous territory, because if you fail, you bear their costs. Judges seem to be very generous to claimants against LiPs. Perhaps better to give them a bit more rope. If they fail after an extra 28 days, then their goose is cooked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...