Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HP Mum
      Private Land parking issue

      By HP Mum · Posted

      So I just found a couple abandoned traffic cones locally by some bins.   A bit squished but free!  So have placed them on the land.  Will wait to see if the cones get moved and signs ignored again this week before I consider rocks/ boulders.
    • lookinforinfo
      MET ANPR PCN - NtK - BP Blue Boys Tonbridge - Burger King Car Park NOT BP car park.

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • FTMDave
      MET ANPR PCN - NtK - BP Blue Boys Tonbridge - Burger King Car Park NOT BP car park.

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • FTMDave
      VCS SpyCar PCN now Claim Form - No Stopping - Bristol Airport

      By FTMDave · Posted

      New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Sach45
      Asda - caught shoplifting

      By Sach45 · Posted

      Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Restriction K's

Ellison50

By Ellison50
in General Legal Issues

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4682 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

eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Ganymede

 

I never mind anybody correcting me if I'm wrong but on this I'm not.

 

If you read what shazzyball has put regarding the loan from Blackhorse (on which the Equitable Charge has been made in 2008) she states it was only taken out in her Husbands name. Therefore an Equitable Charge wouldn't have been able to have been registered.

 

However, an Equitable Charge can also be registered for secured loans see here SECTION 3 "Equitable Charges"

http://www.diyconveyance.co.uk/mortgages-other-charges-registered-against-land.html

 

So something is definitely amiss here and that is why I have suggested shazzyball needs to find out "Exactly" why this has happened?

Edited by eggboxy1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ganymede

Ganymede

Posted
Posted
Hi Ganymede

 

I never mind anybody correcting me if I'm wrong but on this I'm not.

 

If you read what shazzyball has put regarding the loan from Blackhorse (on which the Equitable Charge has been made in 2008) she states it was only taken out in her Husbands name. Therefore an Equitable Charge wouldn't have been able to have been registered.

 

However, an Equitable Charge can also be registered for secured loans see here SECTION 3 "Equitable Charges"

http://www.diyconveyance.co.uk/mortgages-other-charges-registered-against-land.html

 

So something is definitely amiss here and that is why I have suggested shazzyball needs to find out "Exactly" why this has happened?

 

 

Thanks for the link.

 

That is true regarding a secured loan but doesn't apply in the context of registering a Charging Order.

 

In the scenario on that link there is no CCJ and the borrower agrees to the secured loan and the security and it was always the intention to secure it. That site explains what would happen if the mortgagor objects to the placing of a 2nd charge etc, but technically it can happen.

 

I do agree with you though that if the Charging Order is in one name it cannot be registered as an Equitable Charge, the OP should do some digging.

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hi Ganymede

 

But the point is we don't know if it is regarding a Charging Order as shazzyball has said there is also a Restriction placed, too?

 

The point I was making is you shouldn't automatically assume that an Equitable Charge is only for a Charging Order (or a Secured Loan for that matter) and it's certainly wrong to state it has nothing to do with a secured loan if you aren't certain of the circumstances of why it's there? That's why clarification is required.

 

This is certainly NOT directed at shazzyball but, sadly, there are instances where people don't know that their other half has taken out a loan and added their name to it with a false signature. And there are also instances where people don't know they are signing for a secured loan either. I know, personally, people who have suffered both of the above instances.

 

I'm sure shazzyball will be able to get to the bottom of why the Equitable Charge is showing (wrongly or rightly) and put it right as she is sure on the circumstances of the loan. But she needs to be aware of all possibilities for it's existence and not just some of them.

Edited by eggboxy1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ganymede

Ganymede

Posted
Posted
Hi Ganymede

 

But the point is we don't know if it is regarding a Charging Order as shazzyball has said there is also a Restriction placed, too?

 

The point I was making is you shouldn't automatically assume that an Equitable Charge is only for a Charging Order (or a Secured Loan for that matter) and it's certainly wrong to state it has nothing to do with a secured loan if you aren't certain of the circumstances of why it's there? That's why clarification is required.

 

This is certainly NOT directed at shazzyball but, sadly, there are instances where people don't know that their other half has taken out a loan and added their name to it with a false signature. And there are also instances where people don't know they are signing for a secured loan either. I know, personally, people who have suffered both of the above instances.

 

I'm sure shazzyball will be able to get to the bottom of why the Equitable Charge is showing (wrongly or rightly) and put it right as she is sure on the circumstances of the loan. But she needs to be aware of all possibilities for it's existence and not just some of them.

 

 

Very true and good point. I was looking at it only from a CO point of view. Was trying to help distinguish between the two methods of registering a restriction, it didn't cross my mind that there might have been a fraud involved.

 

You're right in that there may have been some fraud committed to sign up for a secured loan as the OP says she never signed for one.

 

Shazzy, what does the wording of the charge say? That would clear things up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
the charging order amount is a fraction of the value of the property you can try robinson v bailey 1942 also.

 

but note in the Packman Lucas (HC) case 2010 it was said that the size of the debt in comparison factor considered in Robinson did not appear to have been a 'critical issue'? and so 'size' was not relied on.

Edited by Ford
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
shazzyball

shazzyball

Posted
Posted

hi all

 

The wording from the land registry says "equitable caharge", this is all i know at the moment. My hubby took out a loan UNSECURED with black horse, he defaulted for 9k and then we get to find out that a charge, EQUITABLE CHARGE has been put on. I have searched for papers and found that aplins were involved then it went to hillesdens, this was back in 2007,

 

The entry for the charge at land registry is 2008 but the loan was taken out 2006 so i know it was not a secured loan.100% he would not of signed anything on my behalf, 100% this was not a secured loan.

 

Hope this helps you guys because i am brain dead with it all. my hubby suffered a complete breakdown as his business failed and it is my turn to be strong so he can get well, pick himself up and start again, I need him, his kids need him and his grndchildren need him, so i appreciate all your efforts and help.

 

Thanks Guys and Gals

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ganymede

Ganymede

Posted
Posted
hi all

 

The wording from the land registry says "equitable caharge", this is all i know at the moment. My hubby took out a loan UNSECURED with black horse, he defaulted for 9k and then we get to find out that a charge, EQUITABLE CHARGE has been put on. I have searched for papers and found that aplins were involved then it went to hillesdens, this was back in 2007,

 

The entry for the charge at land registry is 2008 but the loan was taken out 2006 so i know it was not a secured loan.100% he would not of signed anything on my behalf, 100% this was not a secured loan.

 

Hope this helps you guys because i am brain dead with it all. my hubby suffered a complete breakdown as his business failed and it is my turn to be strong so he can get well, pick himself up and start again, I need him, his kids need him and his grndchildren need him, so i appreciate all your efforts and help.

 

Thanks Guys and Gals

 

 

Thanks for the info.

 

Are you sure that there were no joint loans etc taken out by you both? Otherwise the Land Registry have made a mistake in allowing the Equitable Charge to be registered.

 

This may seem like a daft question as well but are you registered as an owner of the property along with your husband?

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted

shazzyball

 

Nobody is accusing your other half of anything, but you do need to request copies of ALL loan documents from Black Horse to verify 1) there wasn't a secured loan and b) they didn't carry your signature. They will then provide you with the required proof you need to remove the "Equitable Charge" from the Land Registry.

 

Can I just ask when your OH defaulted on the Black horse Loan and also who your second mortgage was with?

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted

shazzyball

 

Then you do need to sort out what has happened because as Ganymede says, after 2003 it isn't possible to register an Equitable Charge for a CO for a sole debt on joint property. And as you also weren't a signatory on the loan in 2006 (or any other time) then an error has been made somewhere?

 

It's fishy, too, that the Equitable Charge was placed in 2008 when the loan was taken out in 2006? However, I note you say Hillsdens became involved in 2007?

 

I'd have a closer look at this involvement if I were you as the "practices" of Debt Collection companies weren't as closely monitored by people pre recession and it may, possibly, shed some light on the matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites
shazzyball

shazzyball

Posted
Posted

my hubby had a reply from hillesdens, they say a ccj was obtained and subsequently a restriction placed on the property, the judgement was oct 2007, the restriction went on after that date 2008, I have requested all the paperwork, along with this i have asked for a settlement of 5-10% but they have dismissed this, they do know we have near negative equity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadbury1879

Cadbury1879

Posted
Posted

Hi Shazzyball,

It seems that there is something seriously amiss with this Equitable Charge, more than likely The DCA have done this Illegally.

Perhaps, best to concentrate on one issue at a time though, to save confusion, and focus the mind.

I would sort the C/O, then move to the Equitable Charge.

All the Best

Cad

Link to post
Share on other sites
eggboxy1

eggboxy1

Posted
Posted

shazzyball

 

Cadbury1879 is bang on the money as a Restriction cannot be placed without a Final Charging Order hearing of which you, personally, have to be notified of by law as a joint owner to state any objections or unfairness etc a CO may have. Did you, personally, receive anything from the Court regarding this at this time?

 

A simple phone call to the Land Registry asking how an "Equitable Charge" can have been placed (given your circumstances) may save you an awful lot of time. They will have to investigate the details passed on to them from the Court given you have proof everything was solely in your OH's name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadbury1879

Cadbury1879

Posted
Posted
Hi cad,

 

Yes i agree, he will go on thurday,( if the courts are open due to the strike) and deal with the questioning and then move on to the other matter.

 

Perhaps you should defend, as per Cyms defence, and attend the hearing! If not try to get the best result

possible within your means. A hearing is there for all parties to state there case. If you don't! The creditor controls the scenario, which exactly what they want.

Cad

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cadbury1879

Cadbury1879

Posted
Posted
Perhaps you should defend, as per Cyms defence, and attend the hearing! If not try to get the best result

possible within your means. A hearing is there for all parties to state there case. If you don't! The creditor controls the scenario, which exactly what they want.

Cad

Should have said definitely shazza ,that you should attend!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
shazzyball

shazzyball

Posted
Posted

Hearing went ahead despite strike action. asked questions in front of DJ, The District Judge advised that the creditor may try for a order for sale and to get some advise. They know we have a disabled son and that we have near negative equity, no order for installments made only an order to supply details of a suspended possession order on our second mortgage. They have all the other paperwork.

 

Previously my hubby made an offer of £100 per month but was rejected by the solicitors. They asked if this was still available and he told them not now as they have a restriction charge, but the dj said they would want some kind of offer.No order for installments.

 

to be honest i dont know how they are going to play this out, perhaps they will go for an order for sale. what is our next move?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ganymede

Ganymede

Posted
Posted
Hearing went ahead despite strike action. asked questions in front of DJ, The District Judge advised that the creditor may try for a order for sale and to get some advise. They know we have a disabled son and that we have near negative equity, no order for installments made only an order to supply details of a suspended possession order on our second mortgage. They have all the other paperwork.

 

Previously my hubby made an offer of £100 per month but was rejected by the solicitors. They asked if this was still available and he told them not now as they have a restriction charge, but the dj said they would want some kind of offer.No order for installments.

 

to be honest i dont know how they are going to play this out, perhaps they will go for an order for sale. what is our next move?

 

 

 

They won't get an OFS with negative equity in the house and a disabled son.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sequenci

sequenci

Posted
Posted

You have protection under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 which should stop a sale order in its tracks notwithstanding the negative equity aspect. If the property is jointly owned the interests in children should far outway that of charge holders.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...