Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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

Another Thread re help regarding Link Financial


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4717 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

it would probably help if you sent off a subject access request to fnb/ge money and to link as well.you will find a template for this in the library section,which you can access at the top of the page.i meant to ask have you got the original particulars of claim.

is that correct? that you took the loan out in 1977

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry

 

Should have typed 1997 not 1977.

 

Yes, I do have the original particulars of the claim:

The Defendents are indebted to the Claimant under the the terms of an original agreement dated 19/06/97 regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The agreement provided that interest would be payable before and after Judgement. The right to proceed for subsequent interest is reserved. Default occurred in payment and the loan was called in under S.87 of the said Act.

 

Husband of Christena

Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as i understand, the sentence were it says "the right to proceed for subsequent interest is reserved" means that they would have to go back to court to get a judgement for interest.the amount you owe at the moment is the original judgement amount less any payments. the statements you get are the figures they use for their accounting

do you understand about sending off a sar

regards stoney47

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Stoney

 

Your help is much appreciated

 

I have visited the library and have adapted 2 SAR templates to send to Link & FNB, will take them to the post office in the morning.

 

I must say that I am very apprehensive about testing the water so to speak, but better to be on the offensive than just waiting for something to happen.

 

Some 10 to 15 years ago we just caved in, and as this is the last of our unpaid debts from this era, and with the Internet and the help on this site I find inspiration to fight on.

 

Husband of Christena

Link to post
Share on other sites

husband of christena

i am glad to be of assistance ,please do not worry about sending off your sar requests, it should not stir things up for you with either company.

i am currently having fun and games with ge and link and joining cag and doing a lot of reading has helped with me dealing with these people.

the way i see it,if you can reclaim missold ppi,you would possibly have a reasonable amount to help you clear your debt.

regards Stoney47

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah Stoney

 

When I read details of the SAR I noticed the part about PPI and, if they still are holding details (after all this time ?) I may get a copy, and although it may be a bit late in the day, if our loan account had not been credited during this time then why had I paid for insurance in the first place.

 

Guess I'll find out in 40 days.

 

Husband of Christena

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stoney

 

Was a bit knackered last night, takes it out of you a bit this form filling thing !

 

Well, the last time i made a payment to FNB was back in April 2005, after that to Link - can't find the NOA but am sure I received It.

 

Funny enough I can still remember my thoughts when reading the CCJ. "You must pay the claimant a total of £XXXX.XX by instalments of £1.00 per month" Wow I thought I'll only be 500 odd years old when i've paid it off !!

 

TBH it was a relief, considering I had the following to pay off:

Natwest loan & overdraft £15,000

Natwest credit cards £3,000

C L Finance CCJ £500

Tax Man £3,000 plus.

 

Today I am left with this 1 debt only - Link

 

Surely these banks would realise that a creditor can only pay what they can, and do.

 

The majority of people are finacially aware of what they spend & borrow and don't take it lightly when their income is reduced by forces outside of their control.

 

Hence the use of DCA's IMO is utterly immoral.

 

Husband of Christena

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst on the computer I also would like to add the following comments regarding our banks:

 

In 2002 I was advised to set up a limited company bank account for tax purposes. I tried a lot of the high street banks - to no avail - credit rating shot. I was left with 1 bank, you guessed it, Natwest.

 

I could not believe it - they said YES.

 

In 2007 I looked for a mortgage as we had been living in rented property for 8 years.

 

I could not believe it - FNB/GE said YES.

 

Funny old world.

 

Husband of Christena

Link to post
Share on other sites

husband of christena

i fully agree with your comments,most people do not get into debt for the fun of it.a bit more understanding from dca,s would go a long way

In my case i,ll be debt free in 910 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! better keep taking the vitamins!!!!!!!!!!!

there are lots of good people on here and just by reading their experiences has dramatically increased my faith in my own abilities to deal with these organisations,even if it is not the right result at the end of it

regards Stoney47

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stoney

 

Well, we are all supposed to be living longer these days !

 

Reading on another thread I gather all debts sold to Link from FNB/GE have a clause saying they can charge interest even after a CCJ/IVA/debt payment plan has been put in place. But Link say if you phone them they may be able to reduce the interest - fat chance me phoning them - had enough with Triton acting for Natwest.

 

Husband of Christena

 

PS SAR letters now in post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update to this thread.

 

SAR's from GE (90 pages) and Link (18 pages) received.

 

Also, wrote to my MP - he has replied saying he has written to the Office of Fair Trading and will contact me when he receives a reply.

 

Link have charged me a "admin fee" of £5.00 for the SAR on top of the £10.00 payment I have made, is this not classed as vexatious ! SAR shows monthly interest being added on top of over £4,000.00 interest added for the period up to 01/08/2004 from the court date. Wow, wish I could create money like this ! They didn't even own the debt until 2005. In fact, they only registered the ownership of the debt with the court in January this year.

 

GE say they sold the debt to Link in August 2005, but I was paying to Link in May 2005 - Admin error ??

 

I have drafted a letter to send to GE asking to refund the PPI plus contractual interest.

 

Also, I have drafted a letter for Link headed "Formal Letter of Complaint" due to mis-sold PPI on the original loan.

 

What I would like to add but would welcome comments, is that if GE do not refund the PPI I will claim of Link the sum of the PPI plus contractual interest which when calculated from the original loan date up to present would equate to the sum of some £13,000.00

 

I know that the chances of Link off-setting this against the debt would be slim but it would make me feel a lot better ! or am I loosing my common sense?

 

Since the SAR from Link says the next review date is February 2012 I don't want to start a letter tennis war with them.

 

Husband of Christena

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...