Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've read loads of old messages about what to do but feel my case is different, it's a bit of a back story so ill break it down. - Had a letter from an Italian province in July of 2020 for a speeding offence in 2019 for 575 euros, was in a hire car I used for work, no longer work for them and heard nothing from either. - Thought blimey, but went to pay it anyway, it had doubled to over 1100 euros, yeah I can't afford paying that, filled out the attached information sheet to say it was me driving but I have no money or job due to COVID (true story) and sent it back (durrrr) - Heard nothing until December of 2023, a letter from an appointed solicitor from Florence saying if I don't pay, we will chase you through the legal system with costs beared to you. - May of this year, I get a letter from CLI (Credit Limits International) basically saying they have been appointed to carry out the collection, £1475. - Stupidly, I started the 'three letter process' asking for proof etc, and they replied a few days ago with a copy of the fines I had received from Italy, they stated the debt has no terms and conditions as it relates to a fine in Italy and the debt is not subject to the Consumer Credit agreement. I translate that to "at the moment we don't own the debt and have been given authority from Italy to pursue the debt". That is where I am currently at, I would begrudge giving in and paying an obscene amount. As seen from similar threads, I know a threat of a visit is coming, followed by a threat of court action, but annoyingly it hasn't been mentioned how these cases were concluded and the threads are now locked. I've read to ignore them, but can't help but feel that because it's such a substantial amount that they will feel it's worthy of pursuing this no matter the hoops they have to jump through. Along with admitting it was me driving and opening the can of worms by contacting the DCA, it wouldn't look good for me should it ever get to a courtroom.  Has anyone with previous experience managed to 'get away with it'? Anyone know what they're capable of other than nagging me? I'm not after any moral judgment.
    • take the SD card out and put on a pc/laptop then run recuva on it in  select videos only option select specific location hit browse then select drive letter of the SD card. then next  then deep scan then go have a cup of tea..  when done dont recover the all files back to the card select a new folder on your pc/laptop        
    • hi all, i will list my curmcumstance first then list the details of the penalty charge - we are 2 diabled people being affected by the cost of living crisis and are skint etc. i am disabled with mobility issues(arthritis in knees and ankles and gout) and cant operate car pedals anymore so i let a friend up the road use my car in exchange for her driving me about. its a good arrangement as i get a 'chauffer' and she gets the use of car. the car is parked in her drive which is better as i was refused a disabled space (even on appeal) and too much congestion to park the car outside my house. my friend is vulnerable as she has suffered depression and suicidal thoughts since the loss of her mother a few years back, she is dyslexic, she is a carer for one of her sons that is disabled due to mental illness and mobility. she lives in a council house and cannot work. we went to iceland ..attracted by the 10items for £10 offer - we've never been there before. a large artic lorry was parked accross the car park blocking the view of one of the parking signs and blocking the disabled bays where the pay&display machine is. by the time she helped me out of the car and then went to see if it was pay&display then came back to me at the car she said she thinks it was pay even for disabled, so we looked for change in the car which we didnt have (she normally goes asda which dont need to pay for parking)so then we said we'd either go get change or go to asda...so then by the time it took her to help me back in and get out the car park took 15 minutes...5 minutes overstay past the 10minutes grace. the letter from excel parking came through and i sent it back giving her name as driver (before i saw on here that you shouldnt name the driver) then i appealed explaining what happened (lorry blocking etc) and even said we were being descriminated (advised by citizen advice)as we are disabled and 15minutes is not long enough for a crippled disabled man and a woman with dyslexia to read and understandd the sign and get out, then back in the car and look for change then get out the car park in 15minutes. i even explained she was a vulnerable person on anti-depressants and even sent a photo of medication and said if you need a doctors note then let me know....the appeal was rejected. i've emailed iceland over 50 times and they just wont tell excel to cancel this charge - they are ignorant and ive even asked them why they have a webpage saying 'iceland combatting the cost of living crisis' pretending to help their customers and they wont comment...they'd rather put more stress and anxiety on an already suicidal vulnerable person just to get money out of them..so their 'help' during this crisis is a lie as it wont even extend to disabled customers. she has now received 2 letters from DCBL saying she owes £170 for 5minutes of overstay. the last one is a final demand. as she cant read or write very well ive sent a recorded letter to DCBL (as advised by citizen advice) asking not to attend the property due to a vulnerable woman inside the property as it will only exasperate the situation, they have ignored it and basically said we dont care, you still owe. could anyone please advise - we are not very good with letters or these situations and are slow on the uptake.   1 The date of infringement? 28th dec 2023   2 Have you yet appealed to the parking company yet? [Y/N?] yes   If you have then please post up whatever you sent and how you sent it and the date you sent it, suitably redacted. [as a PDF- follow the upload guide]cant do that - will have to get my son to do it when he visits   Has there been a response? yes   Please AS A PDF FILE  ONLY ..post it up as well, suitably redacted. - follow the upload guide]cant do that - will have to get my son to do it when he visits   If you haven't appealed yet - .........DONT ! seek advice on your topic first.   Have you received a Notice To Keeper? (NTK) [must be received by you between 29-56 days] yes   What date is on it? 15th january 2024   Did the NTK provide photographic evidence? yes   [scan up BOTHSIDES to ONE PDF of the PCN and your NTK - follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'scant do that - will have to get my son to do it when he visits   3 Did the NTK mention Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) [Y/N?] not on the front - maybe on the back but cannot find the letter now   4 If you appealed after receiving the NTK, did the parking company give you any information regarding the further appeals process? [it is well known that parking companies will reject any appeal whatever the circumstances] yes   5 Who is the parking company? excel   6. Where exactly [Carpark name and town] did you park? gravesend in iceland    
    • Hi Dave, I had no updates on this PCN since my last post in July 2019.  I received no further communications from the parking company.  I changed my address in May 2022. Thanks, I will send a letter to Excel parking to inform about the change in the address. 
    • I have a BMW Advanced Car Eye 3 Pro - I think it's 50/50  In any case, none of the documents / photos sent in the SAR showed a ticket on the car. 
  • 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 4953 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

Oh, and so the SI is irrelevant?

 

I'm serious here, I've had CCP's misquote the SI and I was wondering what the borg on this thread thought?

 

If you ask a question that will allow me to know what you are asking, I might be able to help? ;)

 

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

LOL, the BBC reporter passed it to him and I've been asking him some questions so I don't mind that he has it.

 

I'm not offering any settlement, he has nothing on me for me to worry about. His gripe is with CAG and the posts that were here, but my recent post has been CAGBotted so I guess this is the CAG admin dealing with the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask a question that will allow me to know what you are asking, I might be able to help? ;)

 

Has anyone had any CCP or a DCA stating that current terms and conditions fulfill a s78 request (ignoring the signed SoA for a moment)?

 

I have, from Next and by others too.

 

This is, of course, a misquote from SI 1983/1553.

Link to post
Share on other sites

since the bank have a legal mortgage over me and have not responded to the dispute i had with them in 1993 would it be possible to have this charge removed from the land registry for failure to act and also limitations act also i need someone to check wether it is worded correctly (the legal mortgage)http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collectors-debt-collection/123193-patrickq1-hfo-morgan-stanley.html?highlight=patrick+v+morgan+stanley

would appreciate someone check the wording as to its status as being in conformity to the 1974 cca act thanks

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've discussed in detail the creditor recreating CCA Agreements on this thread, and also the legalities of it. There will be a piece on the subject in the Guardian on Tuesday.

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

Has anyone had any CCP or a DCA stating that current terms and conditions fulfill a s78 request (ignoring the signed SoA for a moment)?

 

I have, from Next and by others too.

 

This is, of course, a misquote from SI 1983/1553.

 

Yes we have seen it before, but they are wrong. They'd have to show that the original terms and conditions allowed for the variation at a future point in time, which they can only legitimately do by providing the originals, then showing the latest variations, to rely on them.

 

This is definately a misunderstanding of the regulations.

  • Haha 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes we have seen it before, but they are wrong. They'd have to show that the original terms and conditions allowed for the variation at a future point in time, which they can only legitimately do by providing the originals, then showing the latest variations, to rely on them.

 

This is definately a misunderstanding of the regulations.

 

 

A ....DELIBERATE misunderstanding of the regulations.........:o :o :o

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

A ....DELIBERATE misunderstanding of the regulations.........:o :o :o

 

 

 

 

173 Contracting-out forbidden

 

(1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective ( meaning unexecuted) regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

 

(2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances.

 

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the Director only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person’s consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability

 

========================

now we have two definitions

 

“unexecuted agreement” means a document embodying the terms of a prospective regulated agreement, or such of them as it is intended to reduce to writing;

 

“executed agreement” means a document, signed by or on behalf of the parties, embodying the terms of a regulated agreement, or such of them as have been reduced to writing;

 

it is suggested that so long as a statement such as ..... we may vary the terms and conditions from time to time ....... is not included in the “unexecuted agreement” [time=t0] then it cannot suddenly appear in the “executed agreement”.[time=t1]

 

consequently on the next renewal of the agreement [time=t2] then the terms and conditions must be the same as [time=t1]

 

meaning the terms and conditions cannot change as described in section 173

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another misquote of the regs is that- the creditor may omit the debtors address.

The Act or the regs does not allow the debtor's address to be omitted. Imo the logic behind this misstatement is that, if the debt goes back a number of years it would be fatal for the creditor to include the their address simply because they wouldn't be 100% sure of it, and that would give the game away. The copy then would not be recreated it would be conjectured.

 

I have argued this point with the OFT who are obviously siding with the finance industry. The OFTs position on this is: it would be up to a court to decide.

 

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

In the CCA regulations Schedule 7.1 it states how APR must be shown where the credit limit isn't known at the time the agreement is signed.

 

Does anyone know how this effects running account credit where the credit limit is known ?

 

I have my thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/118878-help-court-ccj-letter-5.html

 

And my defence is will be based on 127(3) but I am looking at other aspects and the signature copy they have sent shows a credit limit (I have blanked for confidentiality) but the prescribed terms in another document are the usual CC ones.....I am trying to build a case for the 2 documents not to be linked...

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

173 Contracting-out forbidden

 

(1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective ( meaning unexecuted) regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

 

(2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances.

 

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the Director only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person’s consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability

 

========================

now we have two definitions

 

“unexecuted agreement” means a document embodying the terms of a prospective regulated agreement, or such of them as it is intended to reduce to writing;

 

“executed agreement” means a document, signed by or on behalf of the parties, embodying the terms of a regulated agreement, or such of them as have been reduced to writing;

 

it is suggested that so long as a statement such as ..... we may vary the terms and conditions from time to time ....... is not included in the “unexecuted agreement” [time=t0] then it cannot suddenly appear in the “executed agreement”.[time=t1]

 

consequently on the next renewal of the agreement [time=t2] then the terms and conditions must be the same as [time=t1]

 

meaning the terms and conditions cannot change as described in section 173

 

as has earlier been highlighted

 

Hi

 

The creditor can provide current Tand c's but only in addition to the t and Cs that were orriginally contained in your agreement.

They may tell you otherwise but the act is quite clear that agreements must contain within them all terms and conditions required by the agrement regulations 1983/1553.and to be a true copy so must any copy.

 

A current copy will apart from anything else contain variations on the orriginal whether it be default charges or interest rates etc. the ability to vary an agreement has to be stated in the original agreement t and c's.

 

Best regards

Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this but it doesn't answer the question clearly.....the act allows for assumptions on the way the APR is quoted in the case of running account credit agreements where the credit limit is unknown.....I am just wondering where the credit limit be known as in my signature doc would this mean that the assumptive APR presecribed terms are not the right ones to use?

Live Life-Debt Free

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need for the interest rate, (which includes APR) to appear on the agreement, but to be properly executed it should state how that information will be disclosed to you.

 

For example, "we will vary the interest rate/APR on your agreement and give you notice of this information on your monthly statement", would suffice.

 

If there is no mention of interest/APR on the agreement, it's missing the prescribed term and is unenforceable under s.127(3).

 

It sounds like the assumptive APR is the one that is charged regardless of the balance, but the balance will decide how much you are actually charged. That's fine, as long as that (APR applicable and the credit limit) is shown on the agreement.

 

It would be worth checking what the actual APR you're being charged is. If they've given a APR figure on the agreement, not allowing for it to be varied at a future point in time on your statement, and are charging you a different rate, (or, more precisely, one outside the tolerances of a rate which exceed the APR by not more than one or a rate which falls short of the APR by not more than 0.1) that would give rise to an unenforceable agreement, IMHO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

The assumptions used in caculating APR on Running acount credit are the ones that the creditor must always use in caculating the APR wheather the credit limit is known or not.

Because the term sf the repayment would normally effect the APR as well as other factors that would influence the total charge for credit there would be no other way of giving a reliable figure to enable comparison with other products.

The formualas for thes are contained within the 1983/1553 regs and where updated inthe total charge for credit regulations Section4 and most lately within the ammended agreement regulations 2004/1482.

 

Best 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

Hi

The assumptions used in caculating APR on Running acount credit are the ones that the creditor must always use in caculating the APR wheather the credit limit is known or not.

Because the term sf the repayment would normally effect the APR as well as other factors that would influence the total charge for credit there would be no other way of giving a reliable figure to enable comparison with other products.

The formualas for thes are contained within the 1983/1553 regs and where updated inthe total charge for credit regulations Section4 and most lately within the ammended agreement regulations 2004/1482.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

Hi Peter - nice to see you back! Had us worried for a minute there! ;)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of creditors are insisting that the application forms they supply are agreements. That being the case then on renewal of credit cards they should have sent a copy of the application form. The debtor can then argue that since they did not provide the copy of the application form with a subsequent credit card, they are in default. If the debtor has saved the generic mailer it would be quite easy to prove this. Either way the creditor would be a loser.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi

 

The FSA has just fined the HFC bank over £1m for misseling PPI insurance HFC is part of HSBC.

The criterea for correctly selling insurance is on the FSA website and is well worth a look at. If you feel that you are a candidate for a refund, I think that now would be the time to put in your complaint, as i am sure they will be much more willing to settle rather than risk further noteriety.

 

Best 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

hi

 

The FSA has just fined the HFC bank over £1m for misseling PPI insurance HFC is part of HSBC.

The criterea for correctly selling insurance is on the FSA website and is well worth a look at. If you feel that you are a candidate for a refund, I think that now would be the time to put in your complaint, as i am sure they will be much more willing to settle rather than risk further noteriety.

 

Best regards

Peter

 

You're great Peter - thanks!

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

A lot of creditors are insisting that the application forms they supply are agreements. That being the case then on renewal of credit cards they should have sent a copy of the application form. The debtor can then argue that since they did not provide the copy of the application form with a subsequent credit card, they are in default. If the debtor has saved the generic mailer it would be quite easy to prove this. Either way the creditor would be a loser.

 

Spot on mate.

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

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paul

 

I think this could be the next big thing after bank charges

 

I agree, i've had a payout under sec 85. Barclaycard bottled it.

 

 

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4953 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...