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

Cap1 & CCA return


tamadus
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4978 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

OK Let's step this ORIGINAL v TRUE COPY up a gear

 

I've just had another thought ................ (I know ... I know LOL)

 

Question ............ is an ORIGINAL MANDATORY to enforce the agreement?

 

Debate ... Some say it is, others say a true certified copy is OK (but what constitutes a 'certified' copy ... MY understanding is that for it to be 'certified' as a true copy, then the ORIGINAL must be available for comparison and most official documents that have to be certified must be done so by an 'official' person, eg solicitor, doctor, police, etc) ... but I could be wrong. We also come back to what the DJ decides on the day and what he's happy with and that's where we seem to be batting on a sticky wicket.

 

So ... This has just occurred to me and do please correct me if I'm wrong, but would welcome your thoughts .............. (I believe the following 2 points are correct and am basing my thoughts that they are) ............

 

* The agreement must be signed by BOTH parties. If one is missing then one of the prescribed terms is missing and therefore agreement is not properly executed and therefore unenforceable ....... however

* This can be put right at a court hearing when the creditor can make amends and sign it making it now enforceable

 

I have 2 schools of thought here .........

 

1. Surely they can't sign a copy (true, certified or otherwise) and enforce the agreement ... I really would have thought BOTH signatures would HAVE to be on the ORIGINAL document otherwise the document that is original would no longer be the same as the copy which has just been signed by the creditor. You could then argue that the 'copy' is no longer a 'true' copy of the original.

 

2. If the (unsigned) original is available and brought to court, when the creditor signs it, surely it only becomes valid/executed from the date of creditor's signature thereby making any debt prior to that date unenforceable. Or in this case can it be retrospective??

 

Any thoughts on this guys?

 

I raise these points as I do have a few 'agreements' where the creditor signature box is blank.

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Guest dvdriley

following your thread with great interest. Can I just ask you to clarify one point. Does an agreement have to be signed by both parties. My credit card agreement from 2003 is not signed by the bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI

 

JUst to hopefully rectify some points

 

The signatures on an agreement are not a prescribed term.

The absense of the creditors signature does not breach section 127 so can not be used to render the agreement automatically unenforceable.

 

Many people have tried to question the proper execution of the agrement under section 65 and 60 when there is no creditors signature,without success. It is unfortunately upto the court to decide in these cases.

 

If the creditor presents a signed (by the lender) document to the court,whether it be a copy or an orriginal you still have the right to challenge its validity. The question is would the judge on waying the ballance of probabilities believe you.

 

Civil procedure rules are not laws the are guidlines to behaviour in civil cases.

The only action the court may consider if a breach of these is made would be of contempt of court. In practice if documentation is not produced on the date of the hearing the judge usuall allows further time for it to be presented.This is where the creditor usually throws the towel in if he doesn't have one.

 

Regards

Peter

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you peter that's very helpful

 

Just to clear up your last paragraph

 

Civil procedure rules are not laws the are guidlines to behaviour in civil cases.

The only action the court may consider if a breach of these is made would be of contempt of court. In practice if documentation is not produced on the date of the hearing the judge usuall allows further time for it to be presented.This is where the creditor usually throws the towel in if he doesn't have one.

 

Are you saying here that it would have to be ORIGINAL documentation that would need to be presented?

 

If so, isn't this where un1boy lost his case as the DJ didn't consider the original to be necessary.

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you peter that's very helpful

 

Just to clear up your last paragraph

 

 

 

Are you saying here that it would have to be ORIGINAL documentation that would need to be presented?

 

If so, isn't this where un1boy lost his case as the DJ didn't consider the original to be necessary.

 

jax

:cool:

 

In Un1boy's case the 'copy' was also just an application form, without any of the prescribed terms, and the claimant was unable to provided the relevant t&c's, so that is a bit different. If they provided a document that did have the prescribed terms or refered to the t&c's overleaf for example (and they could provide those t&c's) then that would be a different case, as the agreement would be enforceable. It would, it seems, then be up to the judge whether he agreed that it was necessary to provide the original or not. Like all of you, I think the original should be required, but it seems that may not be the case, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most 'agreements' do double up as 'application' forms anyway Magda.

 

But I see what you are saying, that Uni's didn't have the T&Cs anyway and that the judge didn't feel it necessary to provide them (??) even though the application form/agreement did not have any of the prescribed terms. In fact, thinking about it, most agreement/application forms don't have any prescribed terms in them (the ones that matter anyway, ie pre May 2005)

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, if the claimant does have what appears to be an enforceable agreement, and they are taking you to court anyway, then you have nothing to lose by asking to see the original, as you never know, the judge may actually agree. I wouldn't rely on it though if they have sent what appears to be an enforceable agreement, you are probably better off coming to some kind of arrangement, before court action is started. In my case, when they took me to court, they hadn't provided any agreement and were in default of my request (by 9 months), so it was a bit different, because as far as I was concerned they didn't have one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most 'agreements' do double up as 'application' forms anyway Magda.

 

But I see what you are saying, that Uni's didn't have the T&Cs anyway and that the judge didn't feel it necessary to provide them (??) even though the application form/agreement did not have any of the prescribed terms. In fact, thinking about it, most agreement/application forms don't have any prescribed terms in them (the ones that matter anyway, ie pre May 2005)

 

jax

:cool:

 

Hi Jax, yes, agreements and applications can be the same thing, but some of them have the prescribed terms or mention them (overleaf for example) and they are therefore enforceable. Uni's application didn't have any prescribed terms at all, which is why he can appeal. You do get some applications (unfortunately) that do have the prescribed terms - i've had a few, but as you say, a lot of them don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

need to be quick though as its only got 4 hours left and its only £1.07 at the mo

 

For some strange reason, I dont appear to be able to place a bid. I have emailed ebay to see what the problem is ?.

 

At the moment though it looks as though who ever buys it is going to get a bargain.

 

Hah.. it has ended, I wonder how much it went for ?

Edited by citizenB

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you actually get to court? If so what was the outcome?

 

jax

:cool:

 

Not yet, only one of the four claims seems to be moving at the moment, as it's the only one they've responded to and i've just submitted my amended defence. I have asked the court to strike the other three claims out and waiting to hear their decision as apparently the requests have gone before the judge. So I will be going to court for at least one of them it seems, but probably not for another month or so yet. Then I will find out the reality of the original agreement argumenticon7.gif

 

Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the repeal of section 127 (3)-(5) - Would a creditor still have to provide a signed agreement in court (if challenged) or would it suffice to show proof that the borrower had recieved the funds?

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks uni

 

What I am thinking is to find out whether or not they have the original agreement. If they do, then I won't pursue it on the basis that the copy I have received is a scanned one.

 

If they ADMIT to NOT having the ORIGINAL, I will take a view when the time comes.

 

Thanks for your advice. It gives you food for thought.

 

jax

:cool:

 

Sounds like a plan!! :)

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to interrupt but could people please have a look at Manc's thread and share their opinion on the docs he has posted up, please?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/141116-mbna-link-financial.html#post1690199

I'm midway through the tunnel, but getting closer to the light.

 

 

 

Please be aware that i am not an expert in anything!

I may offer an opinion, but the final decision is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not yet, only one of the four claims seems to be moving at the moment, as it's the only one they've responded to and i've just submitted my amended defence. I have asked the court to strike the other three claims out and waiting to hear their decision as apparently the requests have gone before the judge. So I will be going to court for at least one of them it seems, but probably not for another month or so yet. Then I will find out the reality of the original agreement argumenticon7.gif

 

Magda

 

What's the basis of your claims then Magda? Do you have suspect CCAs or unenforceable ones? Have I asked this before?:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, they would still need to provide it if challenged

 

But isn't this the debate we've been having over the last zillion posts :confused:

 

Isn't it down to the discretion of the DJ and his interpretation or decision to enforce the CPR 16.7.3?

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't this the debate we've been having over the last zillion posts :confused:

 

Isn't it down to the discretion of the DJ and his interpretation or decision to enforce the CPR 16.7.3?

 

jax

:cool:

Erm, okay, that was a direct reply to Paul's post regarding the repeal of S127(3-5) and nowt to do with the CPR 16??????? :confused::confused:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw Gawd ... I'm completely confused now :confused::confused::confused:

 

CPR 16.7.3 says in a nutshell that an original agreement should be taken to a court hearing but people have lost their case on this point because DJ either ignored it or said he accepted copy (I think)

 

Just realized S127(3-5) is the Consumer Credit Act ... what does this say now then?

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw Gawd ... I'm completely confused now :confused::confused::confused:

 

CPR 16.7.3 says in a nutshell that an original agreement should be taken to a court hearing but people have lost their case on this point because DJ either ignored it or said he accepted copy (I think)

 

Just realized S127(3-5) is the Consumer Credit Act ... what does this say now then?

 

jax

:cool:

yes but CPR 16 PD 7.3 does not apply to all cases, a claim launched in the CCBC does not need the contract to be attached

 

plus the CPR are not cast in stone per se, the judge has discretion in applying them

 

i think the best angle to look at, is what legislation requires the original documents for a company to be retained? work from there and you will find the answers

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but CPR 16 PD 7.3 does not apply to all cases, a claim launched in the CCBC does not need the contract to be attached

 

plus the CPR are not cast in stone per se, the judge has discretion in applying them

 

i think the best angle to look at, is what legislation requires the original documents for a company to be retained? work from there and you will find the answers

 

Sorry pt but what's CCBC? And where do I find the legislation you mention?

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

CCBC County Court Bulk Centre, if you go to this link

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRODUCTION CENTRE - This Practice Direction supplements CPR Rule type="start" timestamp="1039695080626" 7.10type="end" timestamp="1039695080626"

 

goto Para 1.4(4) and that will show you that PD 16, 7.3 does not apply for starters

 

with regards to the legislation, i think there is something in the Companies Act, Money Laundering Regs etc but i cant be sure and would need to look at Halsburys Laws and Lexisnexis,Lawtel and Westlaw to properly research this

Link to post
Share on other sites

(4)Paragraph 7.3 of the practice direction supplementing CPR Part 16 (statements of case), which requires documentation to be attached to the particulars of contract claims, does not apply to claims to be issued by the Centre.

 

 

I guess this is what you are referring to. But does it not mean that the documentation does not have to be attached to the particulars of claim? I don't see where it says the original doesn't have to be available for the hearing. Or am I reading this wrong?

 

And what does it mean by claims issued by the Centre??

 

jax

:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

(4)Paragraph 7.3 of the practice direction supplementing CPR Part 16 (statements of case), which requires documentation to be attached to the particulars of contract claims, does not apply to claims to be issued by the Centre.

 

 

I guess this is what you are referring to. But does it not mean that the documentation does not have to be attached to the particulars of claim? I don't see where it says the original doesn't have to be available for the hearing. Or am I reading this wrong?

 

And what does it mean by claims issued by the Centre??

 

jax

:cool:

 

Yes? you are correct, i outlined exactly what i was referring to, in reply to your comment relating to CPR 16 and PD 16 (7.3) which relates directly to statements of case and service of documents with the statement of case

 

if you are referring to bringing the original to court then your off the mark on the CPR 16

 

you would need to look at common law rules of evidence and also the Civil Evidence Act 1995

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4978 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...