Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • a) Debit transfer into his personal account  b) i - yes     ii - yes   iii - initially quoted £25,000 - £30,000 for the whole job.  This escalated to nearly £44,000.  Would ask for money in stages for materials and labour. c) Runs a Ltd company with his wife d) Assets include van, own digger, dumper and cement mixer but kept in unknown location    Solicitor advised not to throw good money after bad as he could just shut down company.  
    • I've had another look at their WS and as it definitely states that they are pursuing you as the keeper in point 19 they must lose their case because their PCN is not compliant with PoFA on two counts.  First is the fact that they must have a parking period and it is quite clear that entering and leaving the car park does not constitute a parking period since some of the time the motorist is either driving around looking for a parking spot then leaving the spot and driving to the exit. All that takes time so that is one fail. The other fail is in their wording when they are trying to transfer the liability of the alleged debt from the driver to the keeper. They are supposed to include at Schedule 4 s9 [2][f] this "(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)". That in itself makes it non compliant but the fact that they haven't got a parking period means they haven't met the applicable conditions.   Looking at their contract, the names of the signatories and their positions in their respective  companys have been redacted. You do need strict proof of who actually signed. There is no specific authorisation from the Client to allow Court action in pursuit of non payers. In section 11 which is like an addendum it states" the Company shall provide parking control" but doesn't state if that includes legal pursuit as well and it does not appear to be signed.   The entrance sign does not include the T&Cs so it is only an offer to treat  not  an offer of a contract. Their only appears to be one type of sign inside the car park which is unusual and a lot of the signage is in too small a print to be acceptable in Law as capable of forming a contract. The signage also includes unlawful demands for extra charges which makes the whole contract invalid.  PoFA 2012 made it quite clear that the maximum  amount claimed was the amount on the sign. This has been reinforced by the Private Parking Code of Practice which states that no extra charges can be made over the signage figure. Indeed a Government Minister is quoted as saying that the extra charges demanded by parking companies are "a rip off" yet they still include them. They are an abuse of process and should be subject to adding exemplary costs payable to the motorist to act as a deterrent to rogue car parking companies.   They have no planning permission for their signs and ANPR cameras which means that in addition to them being unlawful because of the extra charges they are also illegal because they have not been given permission to be there under  the Town and Country [Advertisements} Regulations  1969. They are supposed to comply with the Law and the IPC code of Conduct and they have done neither. The new Private Parking Code of Practice  draws attention to it as well  s14.1 [g]  "g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs."   So it is not as if this is a secret-since it has been out since February 7th 2022 . You would have thought that as this Code was designed to root out the rogues in the industry that the parking industry would already have made adjustments to their activities in order to align themselves with the will of Parliament as proposed by Minister Neil O'Brien  who said   "The publication of this Code therefore marks the start of an adjustment period in which parking companies will be expected to follow as many of these new rules as possible."   Ignorance of the Law is no excuse but even Gladstones are surely aware that the extra charges are unlawful  it beggars belief that they can aver that they have told the truth on their WS.
    • Evening all,   I am looking for a little bit of advice, any would be appreciated. I am a bit hesitant in giving all the in's and out's as I am not sure of the forums procedures and I do not want to compromise my situation.   Basically as a result of a few issues in my life inflicted/self inflicted I ended up in a bad situation financially. A company brought a debt off a lender I had used and took me to court, I really mis-managed this and although I attended court with a case the verdict went against me. I accepted this but never heard anything back from them and admittedly as I was struggling didn't pro actively seek them out to make payment. So, on my Credit report I had a CCJ due to expire Sept. 2022, which I associated to that particular incident. Anyhow, I have recently received a Notice of Application for Attachment of earnings order, however, this is regarding a completely different debt/Court procedure to the one I participated in. The creditor, to my knowledge has never contacted me and until this week I have never received any correspondence to this case from the creditor or county court.    Basically, I was just after a bit of advice, on how to go about this. I am worried that if my employer is advised of the CCJ, it makes my position uncomfortable, maybe untenable which will only be negative to my situation.    So can I still contest this and possibly get it removed via the courts, can I delay it for 3 months to get it statue barred, do I pay the whole amount (to a company whom brought it at a pittance) or do pay it off and if so, can the figure be negotiated and how long would it affect me credit score?   I apologise for the number of questions, and appreciate any advice. My concern is the application ruining a very good job for me.   Thanks in advance
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

BBC One - Don't get done, Get Dom - Claim about the law and Debt Collectors.....??


UnitedFront
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4042 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

Ok, have got BBC One's "Don't Get Done, Get Dom" on in the background as I bash out some coursework....

 

He's dealing with a consumer credit debt on behalf of an elderly woman. Dom has just said, on national TV, that under UK Law it is illegal for a creditor to instruct debt collectors once there is a dispute on an account, until that dispute is resolved.

 

Now, whilst I must say that I would be ecstatic if the above were true. In fact, I wish it were.

 

However, I'm in somewhat of a mucking fuddle.... in that I'm not aware of anything in law that would prevent them from doing so. We are aware of all sorts of legal technicalities that can prevent these companies from getting a judgment - but I'm not aware of many at all that actually prevent them from instructing debt collectors.

 

I'd absolutely love to be digging around trying to find the source of the law as alleged by Dom on telly, but I have far far too much uni work to do and nowhere near enough time to use on this, at the moment.

 

However, if anyone else is aware of anything, I'd be most interested. Unfortunately I think this is another typical case of Aunty Beeb allowing things to be aired by people who are not in possession of all the facts. Yet the beeb broadcast things as fact.

 

Unfortunately if people just take what they hear on the telly and believe it's truth without knowing where it is actually said, in law, that is actually the case. We end up looking stupid and many many people assume that they won't be chased by collection agencies when, in reality, they will.

 

What Dom said may be true. But as a law student it ABSOLUTELY DOES MY NUT IN, when people go out and say "under the law.... XYZ" or, as Dom did, "under UK Law, XYZ" but don't actually say WHAT LAW!!!!! It makes people look stupid and unprepared when they try and say what the law is - but not where and what law!!

 

At the end of the day, I could say "It's illegal under UK Law to eat sausages with eggs for breakfast on Tuesdays" but unless I can say WHERE that information is contained, it serves absolutely no purpose!!!

 

Cheers

UF

 

P.S. Rant over, for the day :)

I am rarely around these parts any more. I only stop by when something has come to my attention that has sufficiently annoyed me so as to persuade me to awake from my nap and put in my two pence.

 

I am a final year law student; I am NOT an expert in law. All of my posts are just my opinion. I cannot be held responsible for any outcome whatsoever resulting from any person following the opinions or information contained within my posts. Always seek professional legal advice from a qualified lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no thats not a statute

but hey

these programs do a lot of good

 

nd i'd rather a mistake be made in the CONSUMERS favour

rather than some of the rubbish the DCA try and claim is LAW

when they fleece people over the phone!!

 

well done dom i say!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they have to go over the same thing again and again, 15 min programme stretched for an hour !!!

 
 

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...