Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX 2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.   Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

HSBC - Failed PPI claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4044 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

Got my letter today stating that HSBC will not be paying out because they have the original copy of my "tick" next to PPI.

 

I tried to cancel the PPI after 6 months and they told me I would have to apply for a new loan which I didn't want to do in case I failed the credit check. They told me in the letter that what I was told verbally didn't matter as this was not proceedure.

 

What can I do? (if anything?!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my letter today stating that HSBC will not be paying out because they have the original copy of my "tick" next to PPI.

 

I tried to cancel the PPI after 6 months and they told me I would have to apply for a new loan which I didn't want to do in case I failed the credit check. They told me in the letter that what I was told verbally didn't matter as this was not proceedure.

 

What can I do? (if anything?!)

 

Bit of a sticky wicket here, nothing in writing, trouble early days a PPI was added to loan at the outset of the loan as I remember, not a monthly add on, you requested it as per application form by ticking box, could be difficult to claim back, having said that can you think of a reason for PPI being issued i.e. self employment, not in work, or any other reason you may not of been covered?? sure others will advise you on this subject this is only my thought as I tried once?

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually doing it on behalf of my Mum. It was added to the loan as a lump sum at the start of the loan and taken out the same day. She said she was lead to believe her application would fail without PPI being selected which is why she ticked the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually doing it on behalf of my Mum. It was added to the loan as a lump sum at the start of the loan and taken out the same day. She said she was lead to believe her application would fail without PPI being selected which is why she ticked the box.

 

If she was told that part of the loan then she would I think have a good case, but difficult if she only thought herself it might be a condition of the loan, if she was actualy told it was a necessary add on well FOS time I would say, sure others may comment soon on this as well so see what is further suggested??

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. I had sort of the same problem, If it was me, I would pursue the claim as I am very sure although your mum ticked the box, I bet that it was not explained to her adequately and as she believes that she would not get the loan without it, that in itself is mis selling

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

There are many criteria for mis-selling....you have identified one..."you won't/may not get the loan without it". There are usually three or more that are relevant so check them out.

 

Did you send a fos questionnaire with the claim?

 

Was your Mum employed, self employed, suffering pre-existing medical conditions etc.

 

Matters not if the box was ticked....if it wasn't explained fully to her or she didin't understand it then it was mis-sold.

 

Did their letter say it was their final response?

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am collecting the letter from her on Sunday to have a better look.

 

The main issue here (or maybe not) is that she was employed by the HSBC at the time. I can't imagine all of their staff HAVE to be clued up on loan and ppi agreements though.

 

She tried to cancel the PPI 6 months later and was told a new loan would need to be applied for without PPI which got her a bit scared I think so she didn't do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am collecting the letter from her on Sunday to have a better look.

 

The main issue here (or maybe not) is that she was employed by the HSBC at the time. I can't imagine all of their staff HAVE to be clued up on loan and ppi agreements though.

 

She tried to cancel the PPI 6 months later and was told a new loan would need to be applied for without PPI which got her a bit scared I think so she didn't do it.

 

 

Actually happened to me told it would need a new loan to cancel PPI, but I left it as it was as the loan would start again at a higher level due to added on PPI.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Back to this a year later...

 

I took things further with the FOB and they agreed with us rather than HSBC and wrote to HSBC telling them to pay my Mum or respond by the 16th of October (2012) if they disagreed with the FOBs decision.

 

Well that deadline has now passed by nearly a month and still no response. I have called the FOB twice and they have heard nothing either.

 

What's the next step? Do I chase HSBC directly? Surely they are in breach by not responding in the time period set by the FOB?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If fos are handling this case I think you ought to be putting the pressure on them to get a resolution.

 

Remind them that the bank has to pay interest up to the date of settlement so each day costs them more and that you are also seeking compensation for the delay, stress and inconvenience that this is causing you.

 

Fos don't award vast sums of compo but of you get £100 or £200 it is better than a poke in the eye.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Yep plus 8% interest and the original interest. They deducted an amount which was a claim my mum used the ppi for for 6 weeks while she was off work ill.

 

any claim they do take off - fair enough!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...