Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Here's a suggested modified version for consideration by the team. (Not sure whether it still gives too much away?)   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you added. Shall we raise the related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding parking periods. Especially with no consideration of section 13 in your own trade association's code of practice and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked, unmanaged over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the above issues and more, with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture a couple of useless ANPR photos. If you insist on continuing this stupid, money grabbing quest, after having all of the above pointed out, we will of course show this letter to the Judge and request “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Signed, "Spot". (Vehicle Keeper's pet Dalmation).
    • Paying DCA's one penny, never mind £50 per month is a mugs game, they have really been milking him as a cash cow   See where received a claim form is underlined in your post, you need to click, on that and read carefully, then answer the questions, then copy and paste into a post on this thread Forget the CAB ,  their advice is sometimes weird. Is it worth defending? Lowell brought these debts for 10 p in the pound , years ago, because they are flawed. Think about it! if it was such an easy win, Capital one could have taken it to court and crushed him.  It could be an invalid agreement, default notice, or many other things. In a nutshell , yes, and we can help you.
    • Origin moved to EA App... I know this all too well.  Reach out to Customer Services I would to see what they can do. 
    • Welcome - One of the team will take a look shortly
    • You cant really oppose an application to lift the stay only be stayed for 11 months....claim is proceeding. Complete the following.  
  • 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

lloyds tsb debt - every dca has had this alleged debt - when will it stop! - help


tc5712
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2842 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

The existence of a debt did not give a lender the right to bombard the debtor with calls. It was for the debtor to decide whether they wanted to discuss the matter with the creditor.

 

In respect of the harassment appeal, the claimant had made it perfectly clear that she had not wanted to speak to the bank, and she had been perfectly entitled to do so. Once the bank had phoned a few times, it had been clear that no progress was to be made. Further calls had been futile and should have been stopped. The judge had been right to characterise the calls as intimidation and they had been wholly unjustified. In respect of quantum, there was no possible ground for interfering with the judge’s assessment of damages.

 

Note:- it was said that over 500 calls to defendant were made in the space of 12 months.

 

quote the case to them?.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes it is and will be very useful, and has already been quoted in other cases.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here we have it, arrived today a letter that blatantly contradicts my wish (and right) to communicate only in writing.

 

I'm not going to get into a bout of letter tennis with these buffoons. Can someone please remind me the section of which act refers to harassment & I'll fire off a tracked email also quoting Roberts v Bank of Scotland.

 

TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Crapquest,

 

I WILL NOT discuss any financial matters by telephone ALL contact MUST be in writing only, this is my wish and my right.

 

I refer Crapquest to the recent Appeal Court Case Roberts -v Bank of Scotland June 2013 and the findings of their Lordships regarding telephone harassment.

 

Perhaps Crapquests Compliance Department should read, mark and LEARN!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks Brig, sent the below. (Tracked).

 

Dear Collections Dept,

 

Your Ref XXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter of 29/08/13 (attached), the contents of which have been noted.

 

I WILL NOT discuss any financial matters by telephone ALL contact MUST be in writing only, this is my wish and my right.

 

I refer Capquest to the recent Appeal Court Case Roberts v Bank of Scotland June 2013 and the findings of their Lordships regarding telephone harassment. (For your benefit this can be found at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html)

 

Perhaps Capquest's Compliance Department should read, mark and LEARN!!

 

Yours, in writing only,

 

TC5712

Edited by tc5712
Forgot a closed bracket!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, it would be wise to check one of the main agencies as well Noddlle and its parent Call Credit are not always used by all creditors.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

seems like crapest have purchased a whole phishing list of them

 

and are sending out this letter

is a speculative manner to all of those on this list

 

to see if they can spoof you into contacting them.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...-Viewing)-nbsp

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

seems like crapest have purchased a whole phishing list of them

 

and are sending out this letter

is a speculative manner to all of those on this list

 

to see if they can spoof you into contacting them.

 

Not fishing I'm afraid dx, that scan is from a credit report I received today. As you can see it's on there :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think dx is referring to the fact crapquest has bought a shed load of bad debts with no paperwork and are just phishing for gullible people to fleece. As you are on CAG I would not worry about this development.

 

Thought as much, thanks for confirming guys! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

if itssold then it goes to you.

 

its not unknown for OC's to buy back debts mind

 

but not lloyds so far

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...
Many thanks Brig, sent the below. (Tracked).

 

Dear Collections Dept,

 

Your Ref XXXXX

 

Thank you for your letter of 29/08/13 (attached), the contents of which have been noted.

 

I WILL NOT discuss any financial matters by telephone ALL contact MUST be in writing only, this is my wish and my right.

 

I refer Capquest to the recent Appeal Court Case Roberts v Bank of Scotland June 2013 and the findings of their Lordships regarding telephone harassment. (For your benefit this can be found at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/882.html)

 

Perhaps Capquest's Compliance Department should read, mark and LEARN!!

 

Yours, in writing only,

 

TC5712

 

Finally a response, no more calls and I don't intend to write so we'll see how long it takes them to get bored...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go, another letter. Looks full of 'we will consider', 'may', 'random threats' etc.

 

Am I right to sit tight? (I have yet to CCA them. When I did with Moorcrap back in 2010 their reply was 'due to the age of this account our client is unable to provide'. Alas is it not statute barred yet.

 

Would welcome your thoughts?

 

TIA

 

TC

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's another of their std computer generate threat-o-grams

 

I've had three of those on the mrs debts this year alone

 

if you look at other threads where crapest are involved

you'll see they've had them too

nothing ever went anywhere.

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

oh no snotcrawl!!

 

this debt is getting tiresome!

 

if they could do court they

or

the other many dca's you've

or

the OC

 

willy waving me thinks

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...