Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • 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.  
  • 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

Chantry collections contacting employer/ its war


postggj
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4691 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

a)for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings),

 

THIS IS THE PART THAT NEED CLARIFICATION

 

(including prospective legal proceedings),

 

 

MANY THANKS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Postie

 

That is very threatening and I think that you need to inform HR that you are not aware of any 'legal proceedings' and issue a complaint to OFT.

 

Do you know where this has come from? Have Chantry contacted you directly?

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like a back door attempt to 'serve' papers on you via work - which is strictly against guidelines, or an attempt to find out if the HR people are gullible enough to swallow that the 'papers' are an Attachment of Earnings and MUST be acted upon immediately - this tactic is known to be used by some payday loan companies, I even think our friends HFO have tried doing this with no success..... "we will contact your employer with an immediate request for sequestration of your salary to pay our debt...."

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are certainly part of the 'sub prime' lending market and pray on the fact that sub prime borrowers are idiots, which they are not, in the slightest.

Please support CAG and they will support you.

donate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Postie

 

That is very threatening and I think that you need to inform HR that you are not aware of any 'legal proceedings' and issue a complaint to OFT.

 

Do you know where this has come from? Have Chantry contacted you directly?

 

 

chantry have not contacted me directly

 

first i new of it was my employer (HR) sent me a form to give them authorisation to release my data to chantry

 

I CAN CONFIRM NO COURT CLAIM OR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE STARTED SO CALLING ME DEFENDANT HAS ME HOPPING MAD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post, don’t let the b*ggers get to you! That’s exactly what they want! Your one of the best at keeping others calm, so try and step back a bit yourself.

 

Have you any idea what it might be about? Could this be ID theft?

 

I think a letter before action to Chantry might well be in order. They haven’t even ‘alleged’ anything – straight in with defamation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks donkey

 

ime not distressed at all, to long n the tooth at this game

 

it just annoys me that they stoop this low and most of the time they get away with it

 

WELL NOT THIS TIME CHANTRY

 

DEFAMATION HERE I COME

Link to post
Share on other sites

JUST A QUICK UPDATE

 

STAGE 1 GRIEVANCE SUBMITTED TO HR AT WORK FOR THERE CONDUCT IN RELEASING MY PERSONAL DATA WITHOUT AUTHORISATION (DONE)

 

RECEIVED THIS FROM CHANTRY

 

I SENT THEM AN EMAIL AND THREW THE BOOK AT THEM, I HELD NOTHING BACK, THEY PICKED ON THE WRONG PERSON WITH ME.

 

LETS SEE HOW THEY TRY AND JUSTIFY THAT LETTER SENT TO MY EMPLOYER:-)

 

 

Scan_Doc0001-2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a thought.

As far as I am able to work out, english law allows actions for libel to be brought for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them (good old wikipedia!!!).

Was the statement actually published? Has anyone else apart from your HR department seen the letter? And have you suffered any quantifiable damage or loss? If no, then defamation may be a bit difficult to prove.

Link to post
Share on other sites

INTERESTING COMMENTS FROM A NEW POSTER

 

I USE ENGLISH LAW, NOT WIKIPEDIA

 

THIS IS DEFAMATION, NOT LIBEL

 

What is defamation?

 

Defamation is a false statement made by one individual about another. This statement attempts to discredit that person's character, reputation or credit worthiness. In order to be defamatory, such a statement must be communicated to at least one other person.

 

IN THIS CASE H.R

 

IVE HAD THIS CHECKED OUT BY MY UNION SOLICITORS

 

4 MORE WEEKS TO GO TO GIVE A RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT CHANTRY

2 MORE WEEKS FOR MY LETTER BEFORE ACTION

 

IME USING FULL CIVIL PROCEEDURE RULES/ PRE ACTION PROTOCOL

 

BY THE BOOK

 

TICK TOCK TICK TOCK

Edited by postggj
Link to post
Share on other sites

post

 

re defamation - 'liability for defamation is divided into the two categories of libel and slander'. libel for eg is re anything written etc. slander for eg is re anything spoken/gestured etc. re damages, the law presumes at least 'some' general damages re libel eg 'injury to reputation'. a 'quantifiable (ie monetary) loss' (that ND refers to) (ie 'special' damages) is distinct from 'general' damages. an action re libel would not require there to be proof of special damages (unless special damages are being claimed in addition to general damages, but then if the special damages claim fails it would not prevent the claim for general damages). whereas, in certain cases an action re slander would require there to be proof of special damage. hope this helps.

imo

Edited by Ford
typ
Link to post
Share on other sites

post

 

re defamation - 'liability for defamation is divided into the two categories of libel and slander'. libel for eg is re anything written etc. slander for eg is re anything spoken/gestured etc. re damages, the law presumes at least 'some' general damages re libel eg 'injury to reputation'. a 'quantifiable (ie monetary) loss' (that ND refers to) (ie 'special' damages) is distinct from 'general' damages. an action re libel would not require there to be proof of special damages (unless special damages are being claimed in addition to general damages, but then if the special damages claim fails it would not prevent the claim for general damages). whereas, in certain cases an action re slander would require there to be proof of special damage. hope this helps.

imo

So thinking aloud... as this is regarding written matter, it would be libel rather than slander? And if a quantifiable, monetary loss can be demonstrated the award of damages would be general damages for loss of reputation PLUS special damages for monetary loss. Two bites at the cherry then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did your HR department actually give them information ? that's well out of order !

Help us to keep on helping

Please consider making a donation, however small, if you have benefited from advice on the forums

 

 

This site is run solely on donations

 

My advice is based on my opinion and experience only. It is not to be taken as legal advice - if you are unsure you should seek professional help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So thinking aloud... as this is regarding written matter, it would be libel rather than slander? And if a quantifiable, monetary loss can be demonstrated the award of damages would be general damages for loss of reputation PLUS special damages for monetary loss. Two bites at the cherry then!

 

yes, 'any writing' is libel (ie defamation). no, no 'quantifiable' (ie monetary) loss is required re libel re general damages. general damages are 'presumed'. 'special' damages could be claimed in addition if applicable, but it would not affect any claim re general damages. an important distinction is re whether or not it is 'actionable' without evidence of damages. re libel and general damages, yes it would be as it is presumed. there's no 'two bites....' - if there is libel then it is defamation, and the aggrieved is entitled to full redress/compensation.

as post says, 'communicated to at least one other person'.

imo

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

sorry to butt into your post but I am wondering if there was any update on this post as Chantry did exactly the same to me. However my HR dept were quite good they contacted me and advised that I did not have to agree to release the information just send them written confimration that I don't agree. Not sure what Chantry's tactic is as I had already been in contact with them for several months (and they have responded to me at my home address) repaying £25.00 per month but as they are adding £99.00 monthly payments this makes no difference as they were unable to get the information they have taken to contacting me again advising that they want my income and expenditure and cannot accept the £25.00. I did not contact them about their contact to my employer (February) and do not know if it is now too late to do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best to complain to the authorities about this kind of contact

Link to post
Share on other sites

just a quick update

 

postal ping pong still ongoing

 

waiting for my SAR then its a letter before action

 

little do they realize Ive been in full contact with my union barrister who is just waiting for the green light

 

just following full practice directions and pre-action protocols

Link to post
Share on other sites

well well

 

chantry, you still cant get it right

 

i sent an SAR to chantry AND HAVE GOT BACK SOME ONES DETAILS WITH THE SAME NAME AS ME BUT AN ADDRESS IVE NEVER LIVED AT.

 

that lot is going up to the ico on Monday morning.

 

chantry, you just keep digging a bigger hole for your self.

 

NOW GOING THROUGH THIS SAR

 

ITS A SPEEDLOAN AGREEMENT (NEVER HAD ONE MYSELF AS STATED)

 

THEIR IS NO DEFAULT OR TERMINATION NOTICE, OR NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT CHANTRY ARE SPEEDLOANS IN HOUSE DCA

 

SO MY QUESTION IS

EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN HOUSE, DOES A DEFAULT AND TERMINATION NOTICE WITH ANY NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT NEED TO BE PRODUCED IN THE SAR DIRECT TO CHANTRY.

 

AND

 

ON THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IT LISTS

 

DATE AND PAYMENT DUE BUT UNDERNEATH ACCRUED LPI

 

ANY TAKERS ON WHAT LPI IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unbelievable... at least there is tacit admission that they fecked up. But it’s still a misguided response. They have no right to contact your employer if there is no legal action (and what they can do is limited anyway), which they admit there is not. It’s a serious and deliberate threat to you.

 

Get that straight off to the ICO and the OFT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for dropping in

i have them by the nether regions and they know it

 

what i can tell you that this defamation will end up in court

 

that i can asure you on

 

slowly slowly, catchy monkey

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...