Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • Our picks

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

Bong v HSBC *Contractual Interest & 13yr claim**WON!!!**


Guest bong
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6150 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

Hiya lattie,

 

Well then there is this thread here which is a successful claim for interest on the manged loan : http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/16862-husband-hsbc-paid.html#post131690

 

What I said to pete, in a PM, was that I understand this to mean the following:

 

Say for instance the managed loan consisted of old overdraft of £2000, bit of spending money £500, and credit card balance £1500. Total £4,000. Managed loan taken out on say 25 June 2005. What I would do is using the spreadsheet you made to reclaim your bank charges, find out what the unlawful charges and overdraft interest on the unlawful charges totalled at 25 June 2005. Say it totalled £2,000. That means half of the managed loan was taken out to pay unlawful bank charges and interest, and it follows that half of the interest on the managed loan is reclaimable.

So you will need to find out what percentage of the managed loan related to unlawful charges and interest and apply that percentage to the ML interest.

 

I would also then apply contractual interest to the monies being reclaimed, or statutory interest when it goes to court.

 

At the moment I'm still thinking about what would happen with future interest on the ML. These are my thoughts - if they have refunded the offending penalty charges, and you could technically use this money to pay off that part of the ML, then you are in a poisition to mitigate your loss as it were and reduce the interest that is accruing. I think therefore that if you don't use the money in this way, maybe you would not be entitled to future interest rebates. Perhaps, looking at it this way, the claim for interest on the ML would only relate to interest charges in the period from when the ML was taken out to the date your current account charges were refunded? However your claim for interest on top would carry on until the claim was settled.

 

I hope this helps and hasn't confused you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 482
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

guess what! i actually understood that. you are a star! and i will tip my hat (and the scales). i don't know what he will say when i talk to him about it - he used 2k of the 2280 he got refunded on the current acct. to reduce the m.l. so i know it is bugging him (but also embarrassed to be there in the first place, no matter how much i've told him he is a little fish in a very big sea), so, thankx for that. i will munch on it and see what he wants to do. if he decides to go with it - i look forward to another challenge and will let you know if we do.

thankx again, ms bong!

Link to post
Share on other sites

just one more thought - before i get too excited. here's the quote from the acceptance letter he signed on the current account.

"I accept the sum of £xxx.xx in full and final settlement of my claim against HSBC. I agree to keep the fact of my claim and HSBC's ex gratia payment stricly confidential."

you'll see where i'm going with this - would this preclude us claiming for the interest on the ml as it's covering those charges - should this have been done all together (like husband's thread) or can it be done now? i would think it's ok but want your thoughts. thankx

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that his acceptance was only in relation to what was included in that claim document. This is a new claim in respect of previously undisputed interest charges.

 

If they try to fight it you can use the fact that they've already settled a similar claim (husband's) against them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

now that can only mean one thing Bill - com'on where you been? who with?;) have you been offering free bananas around again?

 

Thank you both for blobbing me:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

now that can only mean one thing Bill - com'on where you been? who with?;) have you been offering free bananas around again?

 

Thank you both for blobbing me:D

A gentleman never discloses...

A gorilla just gets on with the job...someone has to do it.

Too much information again - giving myself away willy-nilly, or should I say bananarama ?

 

Aaaw, heck !!! :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

and now she has four i see! well deserved in my book - you still get my vote for site helper or mod! have a good friday, bong. if passed fridays are anything to go by - there just may be some happy offers in the post today for our little impatient fledglings!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that right, Lateralus - has she just been blobbed up to four ?

 

Well, congrats Bong - you not only became a black belt in origami this week, but a four-blob bank-basher, now, too !!! :D I'm damn glad you're a mate - not an enemy.

 

Hope it's as good a Friday for you, too, Lattie !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Bong

 

Just wondered if you had heard anything else as we are both running similar time lines - natwest filed acknowledgement on the last possible day grrr and now there defence is due this Friday and not heard a thing - just wondered if your defence had come through yet, will be interesting to compare defences as same POC's used on N1's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:( Nothing to report :(

 

they've got until 20th (a week tomorrow) for their defence and HSBC solicitors are slowing up now with the responses. yes it will be very interesting to compare defences won't it:D I'm subscribed to your thread so I'll pop along there when you update with any news.

 

everything crossed for us both

Link to post
Share on other sites

DEFENCE RECEIVED THIS MORNING FROM THE LOVELY DEBS :D

 

All standard stuff which makes it interesting seeing as my claim wasn't standard stuff :D .

 

1. the claiman'ts account is governed by the defendant's personal and/or business banking terms and conditions. (don't they know which?)

 

2. pursuant to the defendants terms and conditions the defendant is entitled to make a charge for its services as set out in the defendants price list, including an overdraft review fee for considering whether to provide and providing an overdraft.

 

3. the defendant denies that the charges applied to the claimants account amount to penalties at common law and/or unfair contract terms for the purposes of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCRs).

 

4. the charges applied to the claimants account are reasonable and are properly and fully disclosed in the defendants terms and conditions and published price list. the charges represent the contractually agreed price for the services provided and the UTCCRs are not applicable to them (but DG I haven't used them!); alternatively, they are not unfair contrary to the UTCCRs. Further, the charges are not default charges and accordingly cannot amount to a penalty.

 

5. save as set out above, each and every allegation made by the claimant is denied. for the reasons set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. (looks like I'll be crossing me legs then:D )

 

statement of truth...

 

 

 

AQs to be in by 29 December.

 

 

oh what fun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow I expected something much different than that lol hehehehe with all the amount of cases they have in at the moment maybe they didnt notice the dates LOL :p well here is hoping - nothing in the post for me this morning only 2 more posty runs to go ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh what fun

...it is to be on a one-horse open sleigh !!

 

Sure looks to me like they're sending out defences as templates, like sod-offs. They know they've lost, and are just knee-jerking, it seems to me, Bong.

 

Oh, thanks for the clickie - you're most kind. I won't ask where you've been though! Oh - special thanks in fact - it "blobbed" me up, too !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you know what I've discovered?

 

this isn't their standard defence. I've just looked at all the hsbc defences that've been posted up in the forum and they've really excelled themselves with this one. i've got an extra 2 paras that no-one else has got! na-na- na-na-na! shame they haven't made the usual boo-boo of saying "...price for a service provided by the claimant.":p

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ Bong! We always knew you were special!

Prelim sent to HSBC 10/10/2006 for £5035

no response :x

LBA sent 24/10/2006

no response :x

MCOL filed 10/11/2006 :eek:

MCOL issued 13/10/2006

HSBC acknowledged MCOL 17/11/2006

HSBC entered defence + case transferred 12/12/06 :mad:

FULL OFFER! Received today 14/12/06 :D

 

If I have been of assistance, please tip my scales but don't forget, this is only my personal opinion, I'm no legal eagle!

 

Please sign this petition:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/PAYUSBACK/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bong - or anybody here, I'm trying to get someone to look at Tanz'z thread here. I can't help much there as it's not my field (so far), Claiming charges + Default removal. Can anyone take a peek - it's a simple query, I think :-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/51318-tanzarelli-capital-one.html?nojs=1#goto_threadtools

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Bill - I've had a look but defaults aren't my field either. There is a sub-forum in the legalities forum for default issues, thats all I can suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again!

 

wow, nice particulars!! (damn, foot in it again!)

 

I take it sections 9+10 are there just because your claim goes beyond 6yrs?

 

may i pillage a few bits of wording and arrangement please?! will add to my existing draft

 

wil.

BANK: Halifax

CHARGES: 2994

CONTRACTUAL INTEREST: (29.8%)

PRELIM SENT: 4/10/06

ACKNOWLEDGED: 18/10/06

PULTERY OFFER RECEIVED: 26/10/06

NEW & IMPROVED PRELIM SENT: 7/11/06

FINAL LBA : 17/11/06

N1 SUBMITTED: 18/12/06 (deemed served 20/12)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again!

 

wow, nice particulars!! (damn, foot in it again!)

 

well thank you:p

 

 

I take it sections 9+10 are there just because your claim goes beyond 6yrs?

 

you're right there

 

may i pillage a few bits of wording and arrangement please?! will add to my existing draft

 

wil.

 

you may

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bong!

 

Finally got my RBoS big contractual interest & 6+ year claim underway today - see here. Your PoC were most useful, thanks - think I already clicked you for them though, cos it won't let me do it again :D

 

Cheers

 

Michael

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law.

 

Please see the following copyright statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...