Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi I received a Parking Charge letter to keeper on Monday 15/04/24, the 17th day after the alleged incident. My understanding is that this is outside the window for notifying. The issue date was 08/04/2024 which should have been in good time for it to have arrived within the notice period but in fact it actually arrived at lunchtime on the 15th. Do I have to prove when it arrived  (and if so how can I do that?) or is the onus on them to prove it was delivered in time? All I can find is that delivery is assumed to be on the second working day after issue which would have been Weds 10//04/24 but it was actually delivered 5 days later than that (thank you Royal Mail!). My husband was present when it arrived - is a family member witness considered sufficient proof? 1 Date of the infringement  arr 28/03/24 21:00, dep 29/03/24 01.27 2 Date on the NTK  08/04/2024 (Date of Issue) 3 Date received Monday 15/04/24 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012?  Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No    Have you had a response?  n/a 7 Who is the parking company? GroupNexus 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Petrol Station Roadchef Tibshelf South DE55 5T 'operating in accordance with the BPA's Code of Practice'  
    • lookinforinfo - many thanks for your reply. It would be very interesting to get the letter of discontinuance. The court receptionist said that the county court was in Gloucester 'today' so that makes me think that some days it is in Gloucester and some days its in Cheltenham, it was maybe changed by the courts and i was never informed, who knows if DCBL were or not. My costs were a gallon of petrol and £3.40 for parking. I certainly don't want to end up in court again that's for sure but never say never lol. Its utterly disgusting the way these crooks can legally treat motorists but that's the uk for you. I'm originally from Scotland so it's good that they are not enforceable there but they certainly still try to get money out of you. I have to admit i have lost count of the pcn's i have received in the last 2 yr and 4 months since coming to England for work, most of them stop bothering you on their own eventually, it was just this one that they took it all the way. Like i mentioned in my WS the the likes of Aldi and other companies can get them cancelled but Mcdonalds refused to help me despite me being a very good customer.   brassednecked - many thanks   honeybee - many thanks   nicky boy - many thanks    
    • Huh? This is nothing about paying just for what I use - I currently prefer the averaged monthly payment - else i wouldn't be in credit month after month - which I am comfortable with - else I wold simply request a part refund - which I  would have done if they hadn't reduced my monthly dd after the complaint I raised (handled slowly and rather badly) highlighted the errors in their systems (one of which they do seem to have fixed) Are you not aware DD is always potentially variable? ah well, look it up - but my deal is a supposed to average the payments over a year, and i dont expect them to change payments (up or down) without my informed agreement ESPECIALLY when I'm in credit over winter.   You are happy with your smart meter - jolly for you I dont want one, dont have to have one  - so wont   I have a box that tells me my electricity usage - was free donkeys years ago and shows me everything I need to know just like a smart meter but doesnt need a smart meter,  and i can manually set my charges - so as a side effect - would show me if the charges from the supplier were mismatched. Doesn't tell me if the meters actually calibrated correctly - but neither does your smart meter. That all relies on a label and the competence of the testers - and the competence of any remote fiddling with the settings. You seem happy with that - thats fine. I'm not.    
    • Evening all,   So today, I was sent an updated offer that includes the £12.60 I spent on letters, but they have declined to add the interest at £7.40. They have stating 'We acknowledge your request to claim interest to date, however, this would be at the discretion of a trial judge if the claim did proceed to a trial hearing.' I think I am content with this outcome, and pushing this to a trial for a total interest of £15.30 throughout the claim does not make sense to me.   What are people's thoughts? I am sure our courts have better things to concentrate on?
    • FFRSG3424ListofEvidencepdf-V1 2-merged.pdfFFRSG3424ListofEvidencepdf-V1 2-merged.pdf 2pages T&C,s UCM
  • 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 4927 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

An HL Legal threatogram costs as little as 75p including postage, according to their website (which makes enlightening reading).

 

Obviously you get what you pay for then:D

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

Their About Use page comes pretty close to admitting that they are carrying on unlicensed consumer credit activity. The solicitors' group license only covers activities in the course of practice as a solicitor, not a business that "blends" the service of a solicitor with those of a debt collection agency.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their About Use page comes pretty close to admitting that they are carrying on unlicensed consumer credit activity. The solicitors' group license only covers activities in the course of practice as a solicitor, not a business that "blends" the service of a solicitor with those of a debt collection agency.

 

they aught to get lesson from HFO then huh lol

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

An HL Legal threatogram costs as little as 75p including postage, according to their website (which makes enlightening reading).

 

Stamp c35p - envelope and paper c5p - crayon - c2p - banana for the monkey c5p - still a profit there then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi, don't know if anyone can help on this. I have an ex FN account which is subject to court proceedings and just been going through all of the paperwork. Asset Link claim they acquired the account on 23rd March 2005 when the balance was £4483.00. On 3rd July 2006 they applied interest of £895.37 bringing the balance (which as of 30th May'06 was £4425) to £5320.00. I have tried to check if this is ok, using the contractual rate of interest which was APR 12.9 (1.016 monthly rate) but don't get a figure of £895, more like £739.00. Just wondering if someone could tell me if Link's figures are correct or not. Many thanks, magda

 

Just to add, prior to this no interest was being charged, as I was making payments (token) and following the sudden interest charge, Link then applied interest again on 1st August at £26.84 on a balance of £5316.00, which they have then continued to do, having a nice effect on the o/s balance.

Edited by MAGDA
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis of the figures you give, I make the interest £724.68. So I don't think they have got it right. Are they entitled to add interest at all?

 

Hi, thanks Steven, in the original agreement it states that "interest on the amount payable will be payable at the rate stated at letter D on the front of this agreement (rate of interest 1.016% pm) and shall be payable before any court judgement and after any court judgement." So I guess this means that Link can also continue to charge interest? The difference in the amounts is quite a bit considering that they then continued to charge interest based on their calculation.

 

This is one of those ex First National Agreements. The OFT took FN to court on this issue, but OFT lost.

 

If the interest is wrong, they have been charging interest for a number of years on the incorrect amount, so the figure they are now suing for will be incorrect also.

 

Many thanks, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Viscount, my DN was supposedly served around 2004/05, but they haven't managed to come up with it yet, still saying they are waiting for the OC to find it:rolleyes:, and this claim has dragged on for more than a year now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Magda.

I think its up to the court to decide if interest can be charged or not. Was that bit in the original contract?

 

Hi, yes, unfortunately it said in the agreement that they can charge interest before judgement and after, so I suppose that is enough. I know that OFT did take FN to court re: post judgement interest, but they (OFT) lost. I imagine as Link now own the debt they can also continue to charge interest in the same way. Many thanks, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magda I think you are missing a very important point made by Steven.

 

Indeed Link purchased the right to receive the debt as at sale date, however, did they also purchase the right to receive interest in line with the original contract? The answer is in the DOA and another contract document referred to in said DOA.

 

PS. I would put the question up in debt forum too as I am sure it has come up before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Magda I think you are missing a very important point made by Steven.

 

Indeed Link purchased the right to receive the debt as at sale date, however, did they also purchase the right to receive interest in line with the original contract? The answer is in the DOA and another contract document referred to in said DOA.

 

PS. I would put the question up in debt forum too as I am sure it has come up before.

 

Hi Aktiv, I see what you mean about the interest and whether they have a legal right to charge it. I have requested the DoA in a cpr 31.14 request and also cpr 18 when proceedings first began. They replied recently to say that I had no right to see the actual assignment. However, I was kindly given a letter explaining why this is not so, and I have written again stating that as a matter of law etc I am entitled to see this document. Just waiting to hear back again now. I do have a thread on this, as it is one of two Link claims currently back up and running again. Many thanks for the above, Magda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I purchased a car back in june 2008, however i have done a subject access request and all my documentation has now come back from welcome.

 

My agreement states 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'

 

However i purchased a car from them and surely my agreement should say 'Hire Purchase agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974'

 

Anyone have any suggestions whether this is now enforceable????

 

Also in the terms and conditions and agreement nothing is mentioned about repossession or termination rights????

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I purchased a car back in june 2008, however i have done a subject access request and all my documentation has now come back from welcome.

 

My agreement states 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'

 

However i purchased a car from them and surely my agreement should say 'Hire Purchase agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974'

 

Anyone have any suggestions whether this is now enforceable???

 

Depends if it was a HP agreement or a loan agreement, and we would need to see the agreement to determine it. You can have "personal loans" that are restricted use to buy the car.

 

Can you post a copy please?

 

H

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

can antone help ( and please excuse me if this is the wrong thread) I have a managed loan with HSBC basically the repayment schedule was mis-stated, HSBC have confirmed this in writing. Having written the letters to explain that the account is therefore unenforceable, they have written back saying:

 

"We do not agree that this is a serious error hat would render the account unenforceable.....you have clearly had the benefits of the monies withdrawn under the agreement.....we will exercise the right to proceed against you for recovery/ contact credit reference agencies...."

 

My question is what do i do next - sit and wait or be more proactive and reply, and if so saying what?

 

would be truly greatful for any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can antone help ( and please excuse me if this is the wrong thread) I have a managed loan with HSBC basically the repayment schedule was mis-stated, HSBC have confirmed this in writing. Having written the letters to explain that the account is therefore unenforceable, they have written back saying:

 

"We do not agree that this is a serious error hat would render the account unenforceable.....you have clearly had the benefits of the monies withdrawn under the agreement.....we will exercise the right to proceed against you for recovery/ contact credit reference agencies...."

 

My question is what do i do next - sit and wait or be more proactive and reply, and if so saying what?

 

would be truly greatful for any help.

 

Have you CCA'd them, then?

 

I'd suggest you start a new thread in the legal issues or general debt forums and post a copy of their response, including the agreement they have sent, if any, with personal details removed of course, so we can see if it is indeed enforceable or not.

 

Just because they say it's enforceable, doesn't necessarily mean that it is :roll:

 

There's some help starting a new thread in my signature, below - beginners guide to CAG - if you're at all unsure

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached.

 

Anyone know of any case law on this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a loan is in excess of £25000.00 but purports to be regulated by the CCA, is it enforceable. I have a claim against the HSBC. I borrowed £41000.00. The loan agreement says its a regulated agreement. When I advised them that the limit under the CCA was £25k, they worte to tell me that it is not in fact regulated and that I dont have the protection of the prescribed terms that they have clearly breached.

 

Anyone know of any case law on this?

 

If the loan was prior to Aprill 2008 it would not be covered by the cca 1974.

 

It would be regulated by the FSA.

They are correct in saying that the prescribed terms are of no use to you and that unenforceablity under the cca 1974 is not an option as this would be an exempt agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4927 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...