Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • look at the pix on the NTK that show his car going in/out look at the drain covers .   now look at the picture in the PDF. same car park.     purley way carpark.pdf
    • https://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/2418                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I do think he is right about the car park.   This is the Purley Way Retail Park and the photos of the vehicle were taken in the other park.                           
    • That WS is appalling.   I got lost with all the "I", "he", there is only one person being sued.   You, personally, have been great at supporting your dad's mate, but as the mate is presumably retired I don't understand why he/she hasn't used the time to look up WSs that were successful on the forum.    
    • worthy to note on google earth that is the purley way carpark in their NTK pictures and if thats his car , the defence and that WS is not going to work.   he is looking at the WRONG carpark, in his statement, the caravan one with the bailff notice is not purley way !!
    • Having received a claim for a parking infringement in February 2020 my friend went to discover where the Purley Way Retail Park was.   He told me what the 6 shops within this complex were and I then knew that I had never been inside these shops or the car park that is situated in front of these stores.  Apparently, he had also spoken to a member of staff within one of the shops who confirmed that there was no time limit for parking in this car park.   I then replied to this with a defence claim stating the following.    "I have just received notification of a parking infringement which occurred 25/5/19." "Obviously, I can't remember where I was on that day but I have now visited the Purley Way Retail Park where the offence is alleged to have occurred and I can confirm that I have never shopped in any of these six shops in that retail park. also there doesn't appear to be any parking restrictions apart from caravans"     Perhaps I should have said that I had not parked there on that day in question 25/5/19 but that is what I meant.   I received a reply to this defence claim dated 5/3/20 rejecting my defence.   Mr then said he would help me in this matter and he returned to Purley Way Retail Park and took photographs of the entrance and the signs available at the entrance. He then emailed them to BW on the 20/4/20 as shown above after a phone conversation with them.   As requested, the 3 photos (numbered 1,2 and 3) of Purley Way Retail Park. The drive-in entrance is the only way into the units and although the 2 car parks either side of this unit only allow parking up to 3 hours, this car park has no parking restrictions which was confirmed to me by a member of staff about 2 months ago.   I suppose it's possible that a year ago parking restrictions were different and if so, can you please let me know when they changed. He received confirmation that they had been passed on to their client and would get back with a reply.   As he had not had a reply, he phoned on two more occasions but no reply had been received from TPS. Eventually he phoned on the 3/8/20 to be told that they now had a reply, after over 100 days and they would forward it on. On receiving that email, he immediately knew they were not photos of the Purley Way Retail Park (photo 4) as it was a much larger car park and he told that to BW.    On the following day further photographs were sent of my vehicle in the same car park as the previous days offering which is not the Purley Way Retail Park.   He was not completely sure what the car park was but on his return to this county he discovered they were photographs taken in the Lombard Retail Park (photo 5) which is situated over 3/4 mile (1.2km) from the Purley Way Retail Park. I have also enclosed photos of the same car park (numbered 6 and 7) in which you can clearly see the Matalan store and also the Range which replaced Homebase when it shut down.   Bearing in mind that you have shown a photo of my vehicle in this car park it could not be in the Purley Way Retail Park at the same time and I confirm it was not ever left in the Purley Way Retail Park.   I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3586 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

Hi there! 1st time posting and although i am dealing with my own debt in my own fashion, i now have the job of dealing with my late mother in laws debt. Not a problem as she had no life policy and no assests so all of it has been written off, BUT since her death 3 months ago, my father in law has been recieving mail re debt in HIS name! Now here is where it gets bad and confusing. I knew of some of mother in laws debt before she died, i knew who with etc, but knew nothing of loans in father in laws name. So to start, PROVIDENT! London Scottish and Moorcroft (formally barclaycard).

 

Provident... following advice on here i sent them a CCA request, recorded delivery with PO for £.00 (3 accounts). Now father in law DID sign for ONE loan for £500 with £320 charges @ £15pw repayments, 23/02/08 (date on statement) but date on credit agreement is 16/02/08. From the statements they've sent after 6wks the rpmts dropped to £4pw then £3pw then £2pw, this loan was over a 56wks period and has a bal now of £269 over 3 yrs on. This IS the loan he signed for.

There were previous loans to this late 90's but when when his wife asked him to sign, he did. Now this is where I am confused and father in law is ready to pull his own head off. There is another 2 agreements with Prov, which he knows he did not sign for.

 

1st unknown is a £1200 loan taken on 21/11/07(date on original CA) @ £28.20pw for 80wks. £30pw was paid for 3 wks then missed two full payments and again full payments for 12 wks then £4-5 pw up to May this year (mother in law died 1stmay).

 

2nd unknown is a £300 loan taken on 17/12/07 (date in original CA) @ £9pw for 56wks, which on 1st collection full £9 was not paid up until wk 3 then repyaments being paid were £2pw! Ridiculous borrowing from provident for a damn start. My father in law knows nothing of these 2 unknown debts.

 

When his wife died his step daughter told him that there was debt and he'd have to pay it, thats when he asked me for help. I asked him what he had and he siad he had took out a loan with Prov when wife had asked but he has no other debt but it was only small loan and was only over a year!

His wife had numerous loans with them but were wiped when i sent death cert.

 

As soon as she died letters started coming through for father in Law (lets call him O) and he didn't know what the hell had gone on, he asked what we could do, and with me being in debt, i knew of CCA requests, statute barred etc, so i sent a CCA request along with £3 to Prov 14/06/11, gave them the 12+2 and heard nothing, so i sent another ltr re they had failed to repond to my legal request for the CCA's, NOW this is where i dunno what the hell to do.... letter dated 20 July 2011, they wrote a letter stating this....

Dear Mr XXX, Thank you for your letter requesting copies of your agreements We would normally request a fee of £1.00 per agreement. On this occasion however, as a gesture of goodwill I have enclosed copies of all 3 agreements for your information. I hope the information is useful and if we can help with anything else please do not hesitate to contact is; alternatively you can contact your agent or local office. Letter came from head office is W Yorks.

So here is me and him last night staring at these agreements with his signature on! My head was busted. Now with everything i have from Prov nothing links up. But may i take this opportunity to state that the dates on the credit agreements he knows he didn't sign for are weekdays, O has worked away and lived away for as long as i have knownn him (12years ago), he only came home on long weekends (works in construction) £300 loan taken on 17/12/07 was a Monday and £1200 loan taken 21/11/07 was a Wednesday! Following? Hope so. Now i know the agent for prov who gave O's wife loans and they were more like friends than a money lender/debtor relationship.

Also letter recieved yesterday dated 18/07/11 from Wiseman DC (inhouse DC fro Prov). Ignoring it.

Now what i have said to father in law is his signature is on the agreements and he has said he'd rather go to court than pay something that he ain't signed for. I totally agree with him, why should he. In my opinion the 2 unknown loans were signed for Fraudulently or these signatures have been copied from earlier loans or something. O is a very honest hardworking man and knew nothing of his wifes debts never mind any in his name. I knew mother in law has debt but it wasn't my place to say anything when she was alive. There is so much to it all its unreal and its battered my head. I know i've prob blattered on but nothing is adding up with any of prov loans. Can anyone explain why for eg, loan for £1200 on original CA with signature is dated 21/11/07, but on statements of this account loan amount was taken 01/12/07 and charges were dated 01/12/07 (1056) and also they sent another statement stating the agreement date is 24/11/07! 3 different dates! How?!

Thats Prov!

Now london scottish, (lets call mother in law M). When M died 2 payments for LS were coming out of their joint account for £5pw for 2 accounts, when i was writing to creditors to advise of M's death, i could not find an address( in administartion), so I told O to just wait after cancelling the payments as they'd soon write, and they did, i called them and they said send death cert, so i did. These agreements were solely M's. Now again thsi weekend O recieves a letter dated 16/07/11 which in their wors is a statemnets which relates to 16/07/10 to 16/07/11. Fair do's. BUT he has not signed for this either. He is not mentally retarted or had a bang on the head. He is quiote old fashioned, no money? don't buy! want it? Save for it. Wish i thought his way, but back to this statement.... duration of agreement 36months (taken out July 2004!!!!!!) Fixed rate of interest 30.05% rate for loan and 30.04% rate for life and disability. Amount of credit £3100.00 Life and disability £579.23. Total charge for credit Loan 2794.28 and life and disability 522.01. Balance outstanding JULY 2011.... £3423.66. It does not show any payments but in my way of thinking for the loan plus charges etc = £6995.52, 7 years on bal is still oustanding and has a bal of 3423 which means 3571 has been paid off in 7 years! @ a rate of 510per year! OMG. O DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS NOR DID HE SIGN FOR IT. Will be sending a CCA request and for full statements too. ANy help or info would be greatly appreciated.

Now, Moorcroft.... after M died he found a ltr in his name from moorcroft thanking him for his direct debit instruction of £20 pm until the £900 odd was paid. When i called them they spoke to O then me, they told me that the agreement was made over the phone (O has never spoken to anyone about debt cos he didn;'t know he had any, 2 he was away working and three did not agree anything and 4 did not even know he had a barclaycard in the first place which is what the account is for. Now we did this telephone call approx 10 days after M died and we knew of none of the forementioned debt above, so he said leave it, and even phoned them himself (bless) and aid he wanted to pay it off sooner and is now paying £80 pm. I am thinking with all skeltons out the cupboard he should not pay anything more off this and we should do a CCA request. Would i send it to barclaycard or Moorcroft as they've bought the debt although are they insiders or is that Mercers?

Apologies if your gasping for air and a coffee, but i feel i am out of my depth with prov as they've provided the original signed CA's. I honestly expected them to write back stating they did not have them.

In simple terms there is 5 agreements, 4 unknown of. Fraud? don't know? Who? Don't know? The man who spoke to Moorcroft on the phone, don't know,- but not my husband. What steps should i take with regards to all above? DO i have a leg to stand on if i say take it to court? When i say me and mean O but me helping? He works away still and so we don't know of any mail until weekends, but any help as little as it may be would greatly be appreciated. Thanks guys. Go get a cuppa and i look forward to any replies i may recieve (when i find out how :oops:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, sorry to hear about ''m''.

Immediately 3 scenarios come to mind ( being of a suspicious nature and training)

 

1. ''M'' has been forging ''o's'' signature for some considerable time, robbing Peter to

pay Paul maybe .

 

2. Provident Agent has been filling out fraudulent credit applications.

 

3. ''M'' and Agent have colluded to obtain credit in ''O's'' name.

 

The best way I think is to request all data held by all the creditors,

by way of Subject Access Requests under The Data Protection ACT 1998,

 

These should be sent to the head office of the original creditors,

the cost is £10.00 per request and the have 40 days to comply.

 

In this situation I don't believe it's worth going through all the process

of getting CCA's as it will cloud the underlying issues.

 

I would suggest notifying all the creditors that ''O'' has doubts or no

knowledge of the possibility of fraudulent activity on the accounts as soon as possible.

 

This is going to be hard on ''O'' I realise but it must be investigated quickly.

 

Provident must certainly be advised of ''O'' doubts on a FORMAL basis.

for his own benefit.

 

Moorcroft need to be put to proof of the debt by CCA request asap,

and again a SAR to the original creditor.

 

All the accounts ''O'' disputes should be kept separate from the others

and placed in dispute immediately.

 

It's a hell of a lot of work and incurs expense but is absolutely

necessary to dispel any suspicion of fraud.

 

Brig.

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

Thank you Brig for your reply, all 3 of your scenerios is what i have in my head, my worry is how can we prove its frauded? I know O is right now at home going through old wage slips so hopefully we can prove the signed date 'date' is when he was at work! Feel like the FBI! Cheers though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your welcome, please ensure you keep accurate records written and verbal

of all communications on this as said you need to protect ''O'', ''M''

can no longer answer.

Provident must be told of the situation at the earliest opportunity

to mitigate ''O''s'' liability.

 

Brig.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...