Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Few tweaks as the run order was completely messed up and the main point of your defence (reconstituted agreement) pushed to the bottom of the statement.   I, XXXXXX, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim and further to my set aside application dated 1 November 2022. 1.The claimants witness statement confirms that it mostly relies on hearsay evidence as confirmed by the drafts in person in the opening paragraph. It is my understanding they must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. 2.  I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimants witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights.  This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information).  The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4.  I became aware of original Judgement following a routine credit check on or around 14th September 2020. 5. The alleged letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 was served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018, no effort was made to ascertain my correct address.  I have attached a copy of my tenancy agreement which is marked ‘Appendix 1’ and shows I was residing at a difference address as of 11 December 2018 and was therefore not at the service address at the time the proceedings were served.  I have also attached an email from my solicitors to the Claimants solicitors dated 14 July 2022 which was sent to them requesting that they disclose the trace of evidence they utilised prior to issuing the proceedings against me.  This is marked ‘Appendix 2’. The claimants solicitors did not provide me with these documents. 6. Under The Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims 2017 a Debt Buyer must undertake all reasonable enquiries to ensure the correct address of a debtor, this can be as simple as a credit file search. The Claimant failed to carry out such basic checks. Subsequently all letters prior to and including ,The Pre action Protocol letter of claim dated 7 January 2020 and the claim form dated 14th February 2020 were all served to a previous address which I moved out of in 2018. 7. Upon the discovery of the Judgement debt, I made immediate contact with the Court and the Claimant Solicitors, putting them on notice that I was making investigations in relation to the Judgement debt as it was not familiar to me.  I asked them to provide me with a copy of the original loan agreement but this was not provided to me.   The correspondence to the Claimant Solicitor's is attached and marked ‘Appendix 3’ 8. On (insert date) I successfully made application to set a side the judgment. The claim proceeded to allocation, 9. The claimant failed to comply with the additional directions ordered by District Judge Davis on the 2 February 2024 'The Claim shall be automatically struck out at 4pm on 3 April 2024 unless the Claimant delivers to the Court and to the Defendant the following documents.' None of these documents were received by the court nor the defendant by that date. (insert date you did receive the documents) I then sent a Data Subject Access Request to Barclays but no agreement was provided. Details the timeline of communication between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 4’and the copies of correspondence between myself and Barclays are attached and marked ‘Appendix 5’. Remove irrelevant 10.The claimant relies upon and has exhibited a reconstituted version of the alleged agreement. It is again denied that I have ever entered into an agreement with Barclaycard on or around 2000.  It is admitted that I did hold other credit agreements with other creditors and as such should this be a debt that was assigned to Barclaycard from another brand therefore the reconstituted agreement disclosed is invalid being pre April 2007 and not legally enforceable pursuant to HHJ Judge Waksman in Carey v HSBC 2009 EWHC3417.  Details of this are attached and marked ‘Appendix 6’. The original credit agreement must be provided along with any reconstituted version on a modified credit agreement and must contain the names and address of debtor and creditor, agreement number and cancelation clause. 11. Therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to disclose a true executed legible agreement on which its claim relies upon and not mislead the court. 12. It is denied I have ever received a default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.The claimant is put to strict proof to evidence from the original creditors internal document software the trigger of said notice.  13.   As per CPR 1.4(2)(a) the court encourages parties to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings in order to try and save time and costs for the parties and to also save the time and resources of the court however, despite vast attempts at mediation the claimants have been most unreasonable and have remained unwilling to mediate. 14. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the original assigned agreement they refer to within the particulars of this claim they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.  I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. Signed                 ………………………………………………….. Name                  XXXX Date                     30 April 2024   Run 3 copies Court /Claimants Sol/File
    • As one of you mentioned above I've been in a mess for nearly 20 years now and I'm ready to sort my credit report out now - the main reason I got into second round of debt is my kids being unwell and the state considering them not unwell enough for extra help so despite my son being in hospital for 3 months in one year we got extra zero help and I eventually lost my job and got into debt to just so I can be تا my sons hospital bed at his time of need - my life basically fell apart and all these debts got me again 
    • Gosh mate I've woke up this morning with half the worry I had last night when going to sleep!.  I can't believe how much this forum has helped me over the years and I don't  have the words to explain the gratitude I feel towards you guys -  Now that I've slept on it I feel ready to reject this company and my plan is to make them an offer to accept payments to date as full and final settlement - I will I think write them a letter once my review is completed or maybe just send it now whilst they are reviewing explaining my kids are unwell for which reason I'm struggling to survive and if I can politely request for them to accept payment to date as a full and final - I'll mention I don't have any cash or anyone to borrow from to offer a full or even part amount of the remaining balance of the iva and therfore am unable to make a offer of payment.   If they agree to at least even put my offer to the creditors then I feel it's better I hang in there and that way I won't have to deal with any possibilities of more defaults and ccjs    Right now the only adverse effects on my credit report are the iva that is now 3 years old and 2 Ccj one coming of this July and one thus October.    But I am worried new action will begin and new defaults and Ccj may start to appear because I've paying into an agreement im under the impression the 6 year rules starts again so yes I have lost of mixed feelings about this but I'm not going to lie you guys have put some life back into my breath this week as for the last 3 years I've felt caged like an animal and this morning I feel freer I can't explain how much but certainly my soul feel lighter today thanks to yin because I'm now viewing this review totally different to I do yesterday thanks to you guys 
    • Court name UNKNOWN Case number ********** Amount N/A Confirmed by Insolvency Service Date issued May 2021 Type Voluntary Arrangement Notes If you have questions about voluntary arrangements you should speak to the Insolvency Service.     I started this in 2021. So it's been about 3 years I've been paying. 
    • Thanks @lookinforinfo@Nicky Boyi sent across the agreement earlier in this thread. No mention of financial reward to the MA. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was done on the sly. As I said earlier, the owner of OPS is a convicted criminal, with a very shady reputation around these parts.
  • 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

Southwark council PCN appeal. Blue Badge.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4772 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

Except for the crucial fact that the blue badge scheme does not permit blue badges in permit bays so there is absoloutely no need to state on a sign they are not allowed.

 

Funny then that my LA go to the un-necessary expence of providing addiotional plates beneath the 'Resident Permit Holders Only' ones stating 'No exemption For Disabled Badge holders'. I would of thought that because the word 'Residents' is missing from the sign in the OPs case, would be a similar scenario to a loading sign; 'Goods Vehicles Only' with the word 'Only' missing from it which is not a permitted variant.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Southwark website, under "Where blue badge holders can park" it says:

  • on yellow lines where there are no loading restrictions for up to three hours, providing the clock card is displayed and you set the time of arrival and your vehicle is not causing an obstruction in the road
  • in pay and display or shared-use (permit holders and pay and display) bays for an unlimited time
  • in designated blue badge bays for an unlimited time (or limited to three or four hours where signed)

I guess greenandmean is right in relation to the Southwark blue badge parking rules and sailor sam is right in relation to the wording of the contravention "Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place"? Can it be argued from both?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thousands upon thousands of PCNs get issued in permit bays each year using the wording 'resident bay' and have been to the adjudicator. If you think you are going to get the PCN cancelled where hundreds of others have failed feel free to try. You have a solid appeal you didn't display an invalid permit if you water it down with other side issues you will get a long letter in return waffling along about all the issues they are correct on and side stepping the issue about the wrong contravention. If you got a 19 you case is water tight you didn't display an invalid anything so you have no charge to pay. You did park without displaying but the haven't accused you of that but its their tough luck not training staff properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PCN challenge submitted.

 

On the day in question I parked my vehicle in the 'permit holders' bay as alledged whilst taking the badge holder for a day out. In Wandsworth were I live as in most London boroughs blue badges are permitted to be used without a time limit. I therefore displayed the blue badge without clock which is only required were there is a time limit.

I returned to the vehicle to find a PCN had been issued for an invalid permit or pay and display ticket. I displayed neither a permit or pay and display ticket at any time therefore the contravention did not take place. The law clearly states that the PCN must state the grounds on which the PCN is issued, please could you either confirm details of the 'invalid permit or ticket' displayed or cancel the PCN.

 

I will let you know how it goes. Thanks for all your input.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not always the case. In my area BB holders can park in resident bays for as long as they wish. Whether blue badge holders can do so in Southwark all depends on whether the traffic order is drafted in a manner that make the resident bays subject to the disabled exemption regs.

 

Pfozz...see regs 7,8,9 to see if you think the bays may be subject.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2000/683/contents/made

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That is always the case the blue badge scheme does not allow them to park in permit bays unless you can point to the legislation or guidance that says they can? Locally the Council can decide to let them park in permit bays, car parks or anywhere else free but that has nothing to do with the running of the scheme itself and doesn't require any signage saying they are exempt or not exempt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I pointed to the legislation that says they can if certain conditions exist, whether those conditions exist in this case I can't say without access to the full traffic order. The Blue Badge Scheme booklet has no statutory authority and is not reliable. For example, it says BB holders can't park in Loading Bays but Stephen Sauvain Q.C. amongst others, reached the conclusion that they can lawfully do so since a Loading Bay falls under reg 8 linked above. This chap is supposed to be the country's leading traffic law barrister so I suppose his legal opinion carries more weight than yours or mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It can be.

 

A resident permit bay is a designated parking place created under the provisions of s.45 RTRA 1984. Section 46 RTRA 1984 then enables regulation of the bay and the prescribed charges. As the bay is created by order of s.45 and s.46 RTRA 1984 then regulation 7, 8, and 9 linked above can apply if the conditions for them to do so are met.

 

If those conditions are met then a council has a statutory duty to allow BB holder's to park accordingly.

 

This applies even where a bay is not a designated parking bay but regulated by order under s.35 RTRA 1984(or s.6 for London). Hence why Loading Only bays fall under the umbrella of the disabled regs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have not heard anything from Southward since I submitted my challenge on 18th Feb. I just checked the status of the PCN on the southwark website and it says 'case closed'. I am presuming this means they have dropped it?! If so, I think I've been lucky, but there again Southwark were careless. Many thanks to everyone for your advice. This is a great forum and I've certainly learned a lot from you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...pity we don't know why they dropped it. I wonder if they will now change the signage....

 

True. There is nothing on the web site. I will let you know if I get anything in writing. However, I did only challenge on the grounds of incorrect contravention (see above):

...I returned to the vehicle to find a PCN had been issued for an invalid permit or pay and display ticket. I displayed neither a permit or pay and display ticket at any time therefore the contravention did not take place. The law clearly states that the PCN must state the grounds on which the PCN is issued, please could you either confirm details of the 'invalid permit or ticket' displayed or cancel the PCN.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Recieved a letter confirming they are dropping the case. It doesn't go into any more detail as to why though. See attached scan.

 

untitled.jpg

 

Thanks everyone for all your help with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Southwark council PCN appeal. Blue Badge.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...