Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
    • Frankly I think you should go to a hearing unless you feel especially nervous . If you have any worries then you should follow our link to find out about a county court familiarisation visit     You shouldn't forget that county Court judgements are very helpful but they are not binding. They are only persuasive.  It is difficult to see you losing but it might be better to be there in order to counter any arguments from the other side
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4762 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

45T.jpg

 

1) Above time plate on a bay which is some 6-7 car lengths long. What are the restrictions for "others" and between 8AM to 6:30PM?? Note: this is the only time plate for whole bay.

 

2) Disabled bay is in middle of the residential bay. On one side (Right hand) there're time plates indicating restrictions and times while on other side of the disabled bay on residential, no time plates are present. The bay ends in SYL and continues to another residential.

 

---Residential Bay----SYL-----Bay no time plate---Disabled Bay------Residential Bay(time plates)-----DYL-------

 

So, the disabled bay do indicate end/start of next restrictions or form part of the bay??

Link to post
Share on other sites

google earth link please

 

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

Sorry for being not that very clear as posted with small netbook. Thanks G&M for info. Only seen that plate on 2nd day of parking and was confused. Only for future references as no any PCNs were issued (:sigh:). http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Leyton+Road,+Stratford&aq=4&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=21.613333,57.084961&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Leyton+Rd,+Stratford,+Greater+London+E15+1,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.550552,0.000086&spn=0.011061,0.027874&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.550469,0.000108&panoid=aRoQOb6pTewFOYOCmhCqKQ&cbp=12,350.91,,0,13.09

Note: Time plate is turned over to other side

Now on (2) :

rpLayout.jpg

 

Resident's and Disabled bays are marked and signed properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, cannot see any 'resident or disabled' bay in the street, only 2 long bays opposite each other with just ONE plate (as per you image). I note also that the yellow lines do not terminate anywhere in the street which makes them non-complient although that by itself may not be sufficent to appeal a PCN sucessfully. However, I would consider that there is an additional problem because ogf the lack of clear signage as the only plate refers to vehicles over 5 tons (although it dosn't stipulate it means GVW) and buses/coaches. 5 tons by the way, dosn't signify that it applies to HGV's as thses are considered to be in excess of 7.5 tons. Therefore IMO, the street is incorrectly restricted so the answer is yes, you could park there (although looking at the grafitti ect, I don't think I would!).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I would consider that there is an additional problem because ogf the lack of clear signage as the only plate refers to vehicles over 5 tons (although it dosn't stipulate it means GVW) and buses/coaches. 5 tons by the way, dosn't signify that it applies to HGV's as thses are considered to be in excess of 7.5 tons. Therefore IMO, the street is incorrectly restricted so the answer is yes, you could park there (although looking at the grafitti ect, I don't think I would!).

 

An HGV is a vehicle over 3.5 tonnes there are different licence classes relating to HGV depending on the weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, cannot see any 'resident or disabled' bay in the street, only 2 long bays opposite each other with just ONE plate (as per you image)

 

It's hard to see on actual photos so a layout is posted above and on different area. This is second in series of bays that I was confused or to be honest, despite the risks I was confident enough to challenge any PCN received.

 

This particular street has the bays as outlined on post above. This street is residential area and almost all the bays are reserved for permit holders. It's hard to find fault on signs and markings bar one. The problems is this has disabled bay in the middle which most likely was added recently (there's a notice on lamp post for permission to reserve one as disabled bay). Thanks to this addition, once a long residential bay is now into 3 "parts" and the third "part" do not have any kind of time plates/signs/markings within it's "bay markings" which start from one end of disabled bay to other where a SYL starts. So simple questions:

 

Do this "orphan" bay need it's own signs or time plates or technically it is still a part of residential bay ?

 

or in other way: Do the markings of disabled bay in the middle of any kind of restricted bays act as a start/end of next restrictions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

An HGV is a vehicle over 3.5 tonnes there are different licence classes relating to HGV depending on the weight.

 

If you are talking about the unladen weight then yes. But the sign dosn't state this?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to see on actual photos so a layout is posted above and on different area. This is second in series of bays that I was confused or to be honest, despite the risks I was confident enough to challenge any PCN received.

 

This particular street has the bays as outlined on post above. This street is residential area and almost all the bays are reserved for permit holders. It's hard to find fault on signs and markings bar one. The problems is this has disabled bay in the middle which most likely was added recently (there's a notice on lamp post for permission to reserve one as disabled bay). Thanks to this addition, once a long residential bay is now into 3 "parts" and the third "part" do not have any kind of time plates/signs/markings within it's "bay markings" which start from one end of disabled bay to other where a SYL starts. So simple questions:

 

Do this "orphan" bay need it's own signs or time plates or technically it is still a part of residential bay ?

 

or in other way: Do the markings of disabled bay in the middle of any kind of restricted bays act as a start/end of next restrictions?

 

Where?!! Am I looking at the wrong street? I can't see any disbaled/residential bay in your link and there appears to be just that one plate (as shown in your fist post)??

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah..it's for another area n different street. This is case no 2 :smile:

 

It does from the sound of it need its own plate but is it really worth parking there with the risk of getting a pcn and then going through all the fuss of appealling with no certainty of winning?

no it's not and never did. But am wondering now and the purpose of the thread. I asked one of the CEO and he's of opinion that the disabled bay in the middle do not mark end/start of new restrictions. I doubt his opinion but not certain on mine too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah..it's for another area n different street. This is case no 2 :smile:

 

 

no it's not and never did. But am wondering now and the purpose of the thread. I asked one of the CEO and he's of opinion that the disabled bay in the middle do not mark end/start of new restrictions. I doubt his opinion but not certain on mine too.

 

The disabled bay if in between two permit bays would make a row of three bays needing three time plates, its a common mistake usually down to sub contracted road marking not being checked properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking about the unladen weight then yes. But the sign dosn't state this?

 

ALL weights for HGV's on road signs are Maximum Gross Weight, unless otherwise stated.

jed

Link to post
Share on other sites

The disabled bay if in between two permit bays would make a row of three bays needing three time plates, its a common mistake usually down to sub contracted road marking not being checked properly.

 

That's what I thought but CEO was of different opinion. Now any definite answer? yes or no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought but CEO was of different opinion.

 

What would he know, lol? The answer is as stated above all bays need a timeplate unless there is a legend on the road and its in a CPZ in which case it would be CPZ hours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...