Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They didn't turn up because they knew they would lose so they saved the cost of sending a brief saving them a couple of hundred pounds at least. But still a big relief for you now that it's all over . So congratulations plus you can enjoy your trip that much more. 
    • I will try again...................... Even at my age there is quite clearly a PCN envelope by the windscreen wipers on your car on some of the photos.  But as I said in the IPC letter, that is not the dispute. The dispute is that CPM sent you the second PCN on the 28 th day of the issue date of the first PCN. It should not have been sent until the day AFTER the original PCN was issued. Therefore they broke the Act, they breached the IPC Code of Conduct and their agreement with the DVLA. It is something that the IPC cannot ignore since to do so will bring the ICO down on them and the DVLA should ban CPM from getting data from them once they know if the ICO do nothing. The minimum I expect is that your PCN will be cancelled. But it is up to you. I have given you the details, you have copies of both PCNs sent to you on the sar  with all  the relevant dates. 
    • Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card   An HM Armed Forces Veteran Card is a way to prove that you served in the UK armed forces. The card can make it quicker and easier to apply for support as a veteran. It’s free to apply. You can currently only apply for a Veteran Card if you have a UK address. Veterans who do not have a UK address will be able to apply later this year. READ MORE HERE: Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Apply for an armed forces veteran card to prove that you served in the UK armed forces.
    • The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms  when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice  [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next  post. Pofa  asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii)  (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; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.  
    • it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period. you ain't paying anyway..... if this ever gets before a judge. then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play. until then i go get on with your life. you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme  its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.    
  • 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 4954 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

ULTRA SHORT APPLICATION CERTIFICATE.

 

 

 

 

 

this is a consumer credit agreement.

 

Could this be the clanger?.

 

 

NO THIS IS ULTRA !!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/125619-cap-1-valid-agreement.html?highlight=ULTRA+SHORT

 

 

img002.jpg

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

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

Hi FC

 

wow thats twice the size of mine........:)

 

and its got the creditors name and a sig (squigle).......why thats almost massive :) very nearly enforceable...if it had all the prescribed terms on it and a load of other stuff :D

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even thats huge........:)

 

I'm not being sizeist here (if thats a word)..but I'm proud that Ive got a small one....(if you know what I mean)

 

I'm quite happy in ALL other departments thank you :)

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, its not the size, its knowing what to do with it that counts...:D

 

There speaks a man (or woman) that obviously knows what they are talking about......:)

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am delighted to say that I haven't got one at all:eek:.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is something fawlty in the logic of charging 20%:D

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

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

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

The allocation notice will give 7 days for the order to be queried, but there will have to be a formal application notice submitted with the reasons why.

 

Wasn't there an AQ submitted with a Draft Order for Directions, that agreed to allocation to the small claims track?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hang on a mo........£52k ??? I thought the limit for CCA was £25k

 

WHAT sort of charges have been put on this ???

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

 

Where is this happening? (which court?)

 

Surely this should be small claims track cause it's under £1k

But maybe it's because the costs by the lenders are likely to be hefty and over small claims ceilings?

 

Would be interesting to see the actual claim and the lenders defence reasoning for this claim - there must be something that can be done about this surely.

 

I am watching time and time again these companies usimg "costs" as their axe to grind claimants down - it's high time some of these Judges saw through the tactics of these lenders and began dealing with their antics - seems the cases get passed over because people don't want to make decisions about these ruthless lenders?

 

Maybe I been in CAG too long and just cynical about what goes on with these lenders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

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

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

 

Did your friend attend the application hearing and argue against multi- allocation?

 

Regardless of the claim amount, the court can allocate to any track and (even if it's in small claim) can award any amount in Judgment despite what the claim is for - the Judge must agree with the Bank that the whole agreement needs to be considered, so what is it that he is claiming for? Sounds to me like the creditor is going to try to counterclaim for the balance of the agreement, so continuing would be ill-advised, unless the claim is sound and watertight, IMHO. If they have admitted there's no agreement, they are bound by this by s.172 CCA 1974, however.

 

All Civil cases have an evidential burden of on the balance of probabilites - only Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, as there's a risk of imprisonment.

 

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, but I do think this is best off in it's own thread, un1, as it needs some specific advice as to how to move it on - doing this here isn't going to work as it will get lost.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

According to their website, its something to do with upper case letters being used where lower case is necessary!

 

Eh?

 

 

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law. ( Now don't shoot me I'm only the messenger) there is another company doing this on my thread EDIT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below are details of the company they use as their regisrered address. ( Assuming it is not them, although I think it is)

 

Accounting Reference Date: 31/07

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/07/2006 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 31/05/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 18/07/2007

Next Return Due: 15/08/2008

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law.

 

Where has this come from and do you have more info on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this is what I have found out.

After you have signed the credit agreement, you get a copy. After you have left, the bank stamps the back of this and writes:

Pay £xxx to the order of ( the bank). This is sent to the BofE and held on deposit against the account in CAPS. This changes the credit agreement into a promissory note which can then be treated as cash by the bank.

This makes the agreement unenforceable because they have changed a financial instrument into another one for the sole purpose of benefitting the bank. I understand that this is also fraud.

As the bank then treats this as cash, if you borrowed £5K, the bank use this promissory note as cash and so, using fractional reserve banking, they can then multiply this £5K and 'lend' out £45K to others. ( of course they don't actually lend the money, it's just book keeping entries) So the bank has lent you NOTHING, but demands you repay the capital they never lent you PLUS interest.

As far as I amn aware, the bakn /CC company cannot prove they actually lent you MONEY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4954 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...