Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • 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 then 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. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  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. 
    • 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.
  • 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

Hafilax 1/HBOS CC - no cca but we have an agreement and will produce evidence in court!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4661 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 folks,

 

Any comments about this letter from Hfax after my CCA request?

 

I got a letter from BOS with a reconstituted agreement and promising a copy of the original signed agreement.

 

The letter below stated that they cannot provide the copy of the original, "but are sure we had one and will abbduce evidence in court.

 

Halifx-one-letter-anon.jpg

 

 

What do you think?

 

Cheers,

Rocky

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rocky, the recon agreement is now acceptable,and I

would expect that they have evidence of the account

by way of statements showing usage of the account,

these are then introduced on the balance of probabilities

that it is your account and you did sign for it.

Unless the T's & C's are not the ones in existence

at the out set of the account and they haven't

provided any variations that occurred , there

is little to contest on.

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

Hi Brigadier, what's changed here? It seems that the Consumer Credit Act is no longer relevant.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is still relevant but case law moves

things on, English Civil Law is based on

the age old premise '' of what would the public consider reasonable'' and

the balance of probabilities,it is not like criminal law where

there is a clear cut guilty or not guilty decision,

if for instance a recon is produced with statements of

the account showing activity on the account linked

to the debtor then the balance of probabilities

is an agreement was signed and the debtor used the money.

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

Correct for the older agreements the original

signed agreement is needed if the creditor seeks to enforce.

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

Good, you had me worried there for a moment!

Before you criticise another man you should first walk a mile in his shoes. Then, when you criticise him, you'll be a mile away and he won't have any shoes on.

 

Don't get me confused with somebody knowledgeable by all those green blobs. I got most of them by making people laugh.

 

I am not European, I am English.

Link to post
Share on other sites

me too! Actually - and still me............

 

I've read most of the important stuff - Rick and all that..... but is it just me or does most of the feedback on here mention you have not much defence if they have a recon. with statements and no real obvious dispute...regardless of pre or post 2006?

 

Is it possible to clarify that the situation has not changed pre 2006 at all, a bit, it's basically the same as post 2006 with tweaks...

 

I'm mentioning it because from what I've read there is hardly on CAG of late there's no mention of two possibilities.......???

Link to post
Share on other sites

See post 7#

The original unamended CCA '74

applies to the pre 07 agreements.

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

I think there is some confusion here.

 

The recon satisfies s78

 

But to satisfy s61, proof of compliant execution, if they are the claimant, they would need to produce a copy of the original to meet strict proof, as per HHJ Wakesman in Carey para 108 and for clarity 234

Link to post
Share on other sites

whoooo whow Hippy lost here. So any agreement pre 2007 they would have to produce a signed original in court.. ?????

 

Post 2007 any reconstructed agreement can do...

 

As most of mine are the naughty nineties I always wondered why I was being offered 60% discount on my CC.....

 

Very interesting, though a quick question..

 

Say Me for instance had a 1994 CC and the DCA or OC went through bulk centre Northampton, they would not have to show they had the agreement True / False.... It would be up to me to contest the court case True / False

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Happyhippy1959

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to forgive me, I am not familiar with the Bulk Centre process etc... sorry!

 

I have looked at the findings of the Carey case though and it is crystal clear, from the COA, in court, to prove execution, a copy of the original is required.

 

So if they dont have they cant satisfy s61, and if they do have you would have a copy pre court and rip its compliance to bits via 'points of law'...

 

Unless its compliant.... :( then you just plead poverty and keep the fingers crossed lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

agh,, thinks me gets the jist of that Alloyz,,,, so if they go to court pre 2007 agreement, as part of the court protocol rules they would need an agreement signed etc etc... Have read recently that judges seem to be throwing out the rule book on this one... hmmmm

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]Happyhippy1959

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, '' The Balance of Probabilities'' is back

it was a much used principle in the past.

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

A lot depends on which Judge you get.... but Alloys1 is correct re. Waksman.

 

As such and IMO, the balance of probabilities argument from the Claimant would therefore only succeed if the Judge was biased in favour of the Claimant (bank/DCA) or, if the defence was weak, or the Defendant lacked the confidence to believe in/his own defence anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is PriorityOne that many faced with court are scared, intimidated and most definately not confident. Many don't have the time or wherewithall to prepare properly - even with the help of fellow CAGGERS. The aim of the game I think has to be to keep people out of court so we may need to adjust our thinking and advice perhaps??? Trying to quote case law to an unsympathetic (and ignorant)judge is not easy...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen a few 'failed' threads in the legal forum recently where the judge has accepted reconstituted with claimant using Carey and the balance of probabliltlities as the argument...

 

Carey has been used incorrectly here then....

 

The problem is PriorityOne that many faced with court are scared, intimidated and most definately not confident. Many don't have the time or wherewithall to prepare properly - even with the help of fellow CAGGERS. The aim of the game I think has to be to keep people out of court so we may need to adjust our thinking and advice perhaps??? Trying to quote case law to an unsympathetic (and ignorant)judge is not easy...

 

Totally agree.... I'm a pre-court person all the way and all of my threads reflect this. Many of the problems on here however are because a consumer hasn't responded fast enough to bank/DCA correspondence or, who've naively believed that a DCA can't do this and can't do that..... and then found themselves served with legal papers to defend. Once that's happened, it's a whole new ball game and there's no room to wimp out if/when it starts getting complex.

 

This is your life, your situation and utimately..... your outcome..... and people absolutely HAVE to prepare if it gets as far as court. If people really don't want to go to court (and most don't) then challenge, challenge and keep on challenging until the other side gets so pig sick of you, that they won't know what to put in writing without hanging themselves out to dry if it ever went to court.

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally P1

 

The Carey case is a good case to quote, but I think people seem to believe you go to court and say "Carey" and its a done deal....

 

There are some key areas I feel people need to get a grip of:

 

The actual parts of Carey that matter for example para 108 and 234...

 

The importance of being the defendant...

 

Argue the 'Points of Law' as opposed to 'Not acknowledging the debt'...

 

Asking them to prove s61 was complied with...

 

And if they do provide a copy of the original, you then start to show how it doesn't comply....

 

 

The 'No Acknowledgement' arguement is easily killed by the judge saying "you had the money and statements show you spent it so tough".....

 

But if the 'Points of Law' haven't been complied with, particularly if there has been a presidence set i.e. Carey, its easier to argue, easier to appeal and IMO a stronger stance.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally P1

 

The Carey case is a good case to quote, but I think people seem to believe you go to court and say "Carey" and its a done deal....

 

There are some key areas I feel people need to get a grip of:

 

The actual parts of Carey that matter for example para 108 and 234...

 

The importance of being the defendant...

 

Argue the 'Points of Law' as opposed to 'Not acknowledging the debt'...

 

Asking them to prove s61 was complied with...

 

And if they do provide a copy of the original, you then start to show how it doesn't comply....

 

 

The 'No Acknowledgement' arguement is easily killed by the judge saying "you had the money and statements show you spent it so tough".....

 

But if the 'Points of Law' haven't been complied with, particularly if there has been a presidence set i.e. Carey, its easier to argue, easier to appeal and IMO a stronger stance.

 

Brilliant summary.... :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...