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

Well, I am EVEN MORE confused now!

 

AC has stated that TS are relying on section 7 to show that MS have not complied, but you are now saying that MS are relying on section 7 to show that they have!! :???: :???:

 

Regards, Pam

 

Your are confused, I am confused...perhaps we are all confused!

 

I have been pressing TS to prosecute.

 

At first, TS stated that they were unable to prosecute re enforcement, due to a lack of established case law, TS then made an about turn by informing me that MS based their argument upon the 1983 Regs. regualtion 3. However, because TS has a different opinion which is reliant upon the 1983 Regs regulation 7, that they cannot enforce due to the differences of opinion/argument between TS & MS!

 

Basically, I am piggy in the middle here as I have nothing in writing from TS and nothing in writing from MS about their differnces of opinion regarding compliance. Both TS & I are waiting for the promised letter from MS, which if and when it comes may prove illuminating for us all. Don't hold your breath though Guy's, as any letter from MS will be written in such an ingenious manner in order that MS will avoid incrimination. Only time will tell and...I await the postperson with 'Crained Neck'.

 

Love AC

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

The situation described above with Nat West would seem to present a perfect opportunity to keep up the pressure with a Section 85 default notice. After all, if they admit they can't find the original agreement, then how did they find it when S85 required them to send a copy of it with any re-issued card?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your are confused, I am confused...perhaps we are all confused!

 

I have been pressing TS to prosecute.

 

At first, TS stated that they were unable to prosecute re enforcement, due to a lack of established case law, TS then made an about turn by informing me that MS based their argument upon the 1983 Regs. regualtion 3. However, because TS has a different opinion which is reliant upon the 1983 Regs regulation 7, that they cannot enforce due to the differences of opinion/argument between TS & MS!

 

Basically, I am piggy in the middle here as I have nothing in writing from TS and nothing in writing from MS about their differnces of opinion regarding compliance. Both TS & I are waiting for the promised letter from MS, which if and when it comes may prove illuminating for us all. Don't hold your breath though Guy's, as any letter from MS will be written in such an ingenious manner in order that MS will avoid incrimination. Only time will tell and...I await the postperson with 'Crained Neck'.

 

Love AC

 

The only action that is really open to you is to issue an N1 for non compliance under CCA. TS really should do this but they seem so useless when the consumer asks for help in these cases. There is nothing to stop you starting a civil action and that might concentrate MS's mind somewhat as they would have to comply or explain to the court.

It is about time TS stopped just looking at illegal car clocking and underweight bananas and took on some of the most appalling crimnal activity which is going on all the time across the UK and no-one is doing anything much to stop it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only action that is really open to you is to issue an N1 for non compliance under CCA. TS really should do this but they seem so useless when the consumer asks for help in these cases. There is nothing to stop you starting a civil action and that might concentrate MS's mind somewhat as they would have to comply or explain to the court.

It is about time TS stopped just looking at illegal car clocking and underweight bananas and took on some of the most appalling crimnal activity which is going on all the time across the UK and no-one is doing anything much to stop it.

 

ermm ye we all know what is right but try telling ts that.

 

But can't agree with you more it is about time they started doing something about it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Rhia and davefirewalker for your replies I quote..."It is not that I am refusing to send you a copy of the original agreement, the reason I am not able to send this to you is because I have not been able to locate it. After a number of extensive searches, it has not been possible to find the original agreement for this account" ... and this was signed by a senior customer advisor.

 

Hi ripoffstopper,

 

I believe that the above statement may well assist you!

 

Because, in my case MS included the following in their Defence 1 July 2006, of my County Court Claim against them for penalty charges:-

 

"As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant. A copy of the current Morgan Stanley Gold Card Terms & Conditions is attached for reference purposes only. The Defendant intends to amend this Defence by attaching a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant once such document is located by the Defendant".

 

(***PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE "ONCE SUCH DOCUMENT IS LOCATED")

 

Of course MS never amended their Defence, because they settled out of Court.

 

MS did not have a copy of the agreement last July 06, they could not supply it last August 06 at the end of the timescale allowed under the CCA 1974.

However all of a sudden after reporting them to TS, they came up with the 'knocked up' generic mailer in February '07...think about it!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only action that is really open to you is to issue an N1 for non compliance under CCA. TS really should do this but they seem so useless when the consumer asks for help in these cases. There is nothing to stop you starting a civil action and that might concentrate MS's mind somewhat as they would have to comply or explain to the court.

It is about time TS stopped just looking at illegal car clocking and underweight bananas and took on some of the most appalling crimnal activity which is going on all the time across the UK and no-one is doing anything much to stop it.

 

Any idea on what to put in POCs?

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

Thank you Rhia and davefirewalker for your replies I quote..."It is not that I am refusing to send you a copy of the original agreement, the reason I am not able to send this to you is because I have not been able to locate it. After a number of extensive searches, it has not been possible to find the original agreement for this account" ... and this was signed by a senior customer advisor.

 

Hi ripoffstopper,

 

I believe that the above statement may well assist you!

 

Because, in my case MS included the following in their Defence 1 July 2006, of my County Court Claim against them for penalty charges:-

 

"As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant. A copy of the current Morgan Stanley Gold Card Terms & Conditions is attached for reference purposes only. The Defendant intends to amend this Defence by attaching a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant once such document is located by the Defendant".

 

(***PLEASE NOTE THE ABOVE "ONCE SUCH DOCUMENT IS LOCATED")

 

Of course MS never amended their Defence, because they settled out of Court.

 

MS did not have a copy of the agreement last July 06, they could not supply it last August 06 at the end of the timescale allowed under the CCA 1974.

However all of a sudden after reporting them to TS, they came up with the 'knocked up' generic mailer in February '07...think about it!

 

AC

 

 

T'is fraud me dear and also an apparant attempt to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception through production of a fraudulent instrument...................maybe a visit to the local rozzers would be in order??

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

T'is fraud me dear and also an apparant attempt to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception through production of a fraudulent instrument...................maybe a visit to the local rozzers would be in order??

 

 

I couldn't agree more!! Seems to be the pattern with many documents that are being issued !!

 

We'd be in big trouble if we did this as individuals - makes me wonder how these comapnies are getting away with it on such a large scale? It is fraud and meddling with Docs isn't what these companies ought to be doing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I couldn't agree more!! Seems to be the pattern with many documents that are being issued !!

 

We'd be in big trouble if we did this as individuals - makes me wonder how these comapnies are getting away with it on such a large scale? It is fraud and meddling with Docs isn't what these companies ought to be doing?

 

Highly relevant at the mo.

 

Paul

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland/11427-walton-rbos-13.html

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you know what they say...

"You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people, all of the time!"

 

paul, I note that your issue started around the same time as mine, last July '06.

 

Something must be done about these white collar Bandits, who are blatantly breaking the law, as well as deceiving the vulnerable consumer.

 

If TS are more interested in prosecuting the guy down the market who is selling bent runner beans/asparagus that do not conform with EU regs., (meaning they must be straight with no irregularities) or the other vendor who is selling his bananas by the pound and opposed to the kilo, then something is very clearly wrong!!!

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you know what they say...

"You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people, all of the time!"

 

paul, I note that your issue started around the same time as mine, last July '06.

 

Something must be done about these white collar Bandits, who are blatantly breaking the law, as well as deceiving the vulnerable consumer.

 

If TS are more interested in prosecuting the guy down the market who is selling bent runner beans/asparagus that do not conform with EU regs., (meaning they must be straight with no irregularities) or the other vendor who is selling his bananas by the pound and opposed to the kilo, then something is very clearly wrong!!!

 

AC

 

I think most who have contributed to this thread would agree that mischief is widespread throughout the finance industry and it appears the more repuatable lenders are involved too.

 

Paul

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If TS are more interested in prosecuting the guy down the market who is selling bent runner beans/asparagus that do not conform with EU regs., (meaning they must be straight with no irregularities) or the other vendor who is selling his bananas by the pound and opposed to the kilo, then something is very clearly wrong!!!

 

AC

 

TS will not take on the BIG BOYS! :mad:

VITAL - IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT THE INCREASED BAILIFFS' POWERS TO BREAK INTO YOUR HOME AND USE FORCE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR GOODS THEN JOIN THE PETITION HERE:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o....l#post53879 9

 

Anyone seeing this who wants to help by copying it to their signature please do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

TS will not take on the BIG BOYS! :mad:

 

 

Nor will the CPS!!! :(

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

Well they all need jobs when they leave!

 

Also...the Information Commissioners Office appears indifferent!

 

I was absolutely astonished by what the Information Commissioners Office said to me last week:(

 

I rang the Information Commissioners Office to complain about MS, who have re-registered the Unlawful Default against me with Equifax (MS removed all payment history data after they settled my penalty charges claim)

 

I explained that MS should not be processing my data to third parties as they are unable to provide me the true executed agreement and that MS have committed a Criminal Offence under S78 CCA 1974. I went on to state that the Offence has been reported to TS who are still investigating.

 

Now to the crux of what Information Commissioners Office said to me-

"Surely MS must be able to send to a template copy of what the agreement would have looked like"...my mouth dropped open with amazement as the full meaning of what they were saying hit me!!!!

The conversation went on and all that the Information Commissioners Office could suggest was that I should submit a complaint form to them re: the processing. However, please be aware that it will take us at least 3 months before we even look at your complaint, as we are very busy. I bet they are.

 

I personally am not prepared to be fobbed off by these quaisi/qwango gov. departments, there must be justice obtainable somewhere.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be a pain guys!

but I'm having a bit of a barny with Egg as well!

 

Could you please check out the three following items that were sent to me in response to my Egg CCA Request, do they have all the prescribed terms and note on page 2 they signed 2 days prior to me

No1

EGGAGRMNT001.jpg

 

 

Page 2

 

EGGAGRMNT004.jpg

 

Note the first 2 pages are copies for a Boots advantage card and the doc has been overlaid onto egg paper. Egg signed 2 days prior 9 July 2001

 

Last page DD instructions

 

 

All that I have been sent are the three pages.

 

Are they coorect have egg complies? I have a nagging feeling that something is wrong.

 

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be a pain guys!

but I'm having a bit of a barny with Egg as well!

 

Could you please check out the three following items that were sent to me in response to my Egg CCA Request, do they have all the prescribed terms and note on page 2 they signed 2 days prior to me

No1

EGGAGRMNT001.jpg

 

 

Page 2

 

EGGAGRMNT004.jpg

 

Note the first 2 pages are copies for a Boots advantage card and the doc has been overlaid onto egg paper. Egg signed 2 days prior 9 July 2001

 

Last page DD instructions

 

 

All that I have been sent are the three pages.

 

Are they coorect have egg complies? I have a nagging feeling that something is wrong.

 

 

AC

 

Don't fprget they are meant to have sent you a copy of the T&C's at the time AND a statement of account!!

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

Don't fprget they are meant to have sent you a copy of the T&C's at the time AND a statement of account!!

 

There are also no default details.

 

I would reject this as NOT meeting the requirements of the CCA and ask them to fully comply without detailing what is wrong. In particular, I suspect that this like mine and others are reconstructed agreements - in particular I would hold the date differences as a particular pointer to that and in my book makes this agreement at best improperly executed and at worst likely to be fraudulent. But I would hold that ace back.

 

Remind them also that they are out of time, in default etc and all the consequences of that...

 

Z

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are also no default details.

 

I would reject this as NOT meeting the requirements of the CCA and ask them to fully comply without detailing what is wrong. In particular, I suspect that this like mine and others are reconstructed agreements - in particular I would hold the date differences as a particular pointer to that and in my book makes this agreement at best improperly executed and at worst likely to be fraudulent. But I would hold that ace back.

 

Remind them also that they are out of time, in default etc and all the consequences of that...

 

Z

 

 

Thanks zubo,

I already have done just that.

 

However, the egg complaince dept., ignored my letter! and now they have set DLC plus APLINS solicitors upon me, GROAN.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/egg/4267-angry-cat-egg-egg-9.html#post784900

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write to Aplins Solicitors & tell them their clients are in default & they better back off as their conduct can now be construed as criminal harassment

 

Absolutely, they have no rights to enforce the agreement whilst in default - they have committed an offence in doing so.

 

Harrassment is another offence they will be committing.

 

Z

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

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...