Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This must be part of the new tactic from Evri.  They know they are going to lose. They take it to the wire and then don't bother to turn up in order to save themselves costs and of course they don't give a damn about the cost to the British taxpayer and the extra court delays they cause. This is a nasty dishonest company – but rather in line with all of the parcel delivery industry which knows that their insurance requirements are unlawful. They know that their prohibited items are for the most part unfair terms. They know for the most part that a "safe place" is exactly what it means – are not left on somebody's doorstep in full view. They know that obtaining a signature means that they have to show the signature not simply claim that they received a signature. They are making huge profits especially from their unlawful and unenforceable insurance requirement. Although this is less valuable than the PPI scandal, in terms of the number of people who are affected nationwide, PPI pales into insignificance. I hope the paralegals working for Evri are proud of themselves and they tell their families what they have done during the day when they go home.
    • Your PCN does not comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9[2][a] (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The only time on the PCN is 17.14. That is only  a time for there to be a period there would have to be a start and and end time mentioned. of course they do show the ANPR arrival and departures  times but that is not the parking period and their times are on the photographs not on the PCN. They also failed to comply with S.9[2][f] as they omitted to say that they could only pursue the keeper if they complied with the Act. That means that they can only pursue the driver as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. As they do not know who was driving and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will struggle to win. Especially as so many people are able to legally drive your car and you haven't appealed giving them no indication therefore of who was driving. Small nitpicking point-the date of Infringement was 22/04/2024. They appear to be saying that they can charge an extra amount [up to £70 ] if they have to use a debt collector. You do not have a contract with a debt collector so they cannot add that cost. You paid for four hours so it can only be the 15 minutes they are complaining about. You are entitled to a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of the parking period which would be easier to explain if the car park had been bigger. However if you allow for two minutes to park and two minutes to leave that gives you one minute to account for. Things like being held on the way out by cars in front waiting to get on to Northgate or even your own car being held up trying to get on to Northgate at a busy time. then other considerations like having to stop to allow pedestrians to walk in front of you or being held up by another car doing a u turn in front of your car. you would have to check with the driver and see if they could account for an extra one minute things like a disabled passenger or having to strap in a child . I am not advocating lying since that could lead to serious problems [like jail time] but there can be an awful lot of minor things that can cause a hold up of a minute even the engine not starting straight away or another car being badly parked as examples. Sadly you cannot include the 5 minute Consideration period as both IPC and BPA fail to comply with the convention that you can include that time with the Grace period.  
    • Defence struck out not case struck out...you have judgment  Well done topic title updated Regard's Please consider making a donation if not already to support us to help others.   Andy.   .
    • Hi all, I wanted to update you and thank you all for your help. I am delighted announce that after the case was struck out due to no response from Evri, judgement was issued after I submitted the forms and I was just about to take it to warrant.  today I received an email from the claims department requesting my bank details to make payment for my full award. The process has been long since the initial proceedings  in January i must say your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated.  
    • Quote of the century "Farage pops up when the country’s at a low ebb; like a kind of political herpes" - Frankie Boyle Updates
  • 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

Link Finacial County Court papers from a debt not registered on CRF and could be Satute barred


Gixxer UK
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4532 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

Normally the DN would be issued after the 3rd missed so lets assume it was issued July 04 - Sept 04 If at all ever issued.

They may be manipulating the DN date to fit the claim and get around the SB problem.They may never have recorded it until a later date

but irrespective of that you can prove the last payment date so it runs from then and is in-fact SB.

 

Wait for non disclosure now and then strike them out.

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought a random payment was actually made by Gixxer by credit card on 16/09/05 which stopped the clock, but as it was already in breach no need to add a month for next payment, so clock started ticking again on 17th September 2005 by my reckoning. So unfortunately looks to me like they just got their claim in in time to prevent the SB defence. :-(

 

However, they ain't found the docs yet so the fat lady isn't even on stage....so fingers crossed for non disclosure and a strike out as Andy says.

Edited by Undercover-Elsa
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A WS in relation to what? an application for SJ?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant decipher it Gix only half the width.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes WS in response to your application to disclose.Which they have but hang on, is this a current account and a credit (card/loan)?

Still no default notice and no mention of SB?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting confused now.

 

If it’s credit card debt, you have the protection of s 87 and they MUST issue a default notice to take action.

 

However, their letters and WS indicate they are not simply claiming arrears. Therefore a DN would be a prerequisite to litigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware its for a flexi-loan account and according to Abbey its a "unsecured personal loan account" I have that on there letter from the SAR. its not for the Credit Card account as thats SB and doesnt exist in Abbey/santanders files any longer. The bank account they refer to is a completely different account number to what they have bought from abbey back in Oct 07. The account number Abbey has on file to which this claim matches is the flexi-loan account or as they say "unsecure personal loan". Hope this helps to clarify, because Link are slowly confusing me now!:!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah Ok. So where does this leave me now, in relation to any form of defence? If they are above board on everything and have complied with the Order etc? Thanks for your responses on this one as I know its very confusing as I am tyring to sort out whats what myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I have found a template for a Part 18 request just need some help with what to put, or should I say how to word the requested info from them as I would also like to know what the bank account and credit card account have to do with this claim? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok could you please read through this to see if I am on the right track as I don't want to mess now at this stage, else I may as well wave the white flag! lol Thanks

 

Please answer the following questions:

1. Please clarify to which account agreement this claim relates.

2. Please provide account numbers of both to help with clarification.

3. Please clarify if the Default Notice exists with relation to said account.

4. If a Default Notice exists to what level.

5. Please clarify at what date the Default was registered with reference agencies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gixxer,

I would have thought something more on the lines of:

 

1. Please clarify the type of account to which your claim relates, and the relevant account number,

as the description in your Particulars of Claim differ from the definition of the account by Santander.

 

2. Please clarify whether the account is an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

3. Please clarify whether a formal Default Notice was issued under section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974,

upon what date, for what amount and whether issuance was noted in the communications log.

 

4. Please state the date of the last payment on this account.

 

 

See what the others think, then get it sent by Special Delivery to the address on the POC for Link, giving them 7 days from receipt to respond.

 

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got it - CPR 18 allows you to ask questions for clarification. Anything mentioned in their answers can then be demanded. The key questions should be about whether the account was regulated under CCA, and if so, was s 87 complied with to allow recovery action. If they say yes, demand all the docs. Elsa knows her stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why thankyou DonkeyB...When I know as much as you I'll be happy, LOL.

 

Just rereading the POC, note the clever wording, meant to deceive " a default was recorded " where normally it should say "a default notice was issued".

 

How slimy they are.

 

Otherwise known as an evasive Statement of case:wink:

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...