Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lookinforinfo
      EPC ANPR PCN - St Nicholas Street, Weymouth DT4 8AD

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • dx100uk
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By dx100uk · Posted

      please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • lookinforinfo
      G24 anpr PCN - Double Dipping - Wigan Robin Retail Park

      By lookinforinfo · Posted

      he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • FTMDave
      One Parking Solutions Windscreen PCN - private flat bays, share of freehold . - Durrington, West Sussex.

      By FTMDave · Posted

      Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • NewsBot
      How the computer games industry is embracing AI

      By NewsBot · Posted

      Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Cap1 & CCA return

tamadus

By tamadus
in Capital One

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4940 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

ODC

ODC

Posted
Posted

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

Viscount Stair

Viscount Stair

Posted
Posted

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
patrickq1

patrickq1

Posted
Posted
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
SteveH2508

SteveH2508

Posted
Posted

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...
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted (edited)

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
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted
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
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted

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
MAGDA

MAGDA

Posted
Posted
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
make them aktiv runners

make them aktiv runners

Posted
Posted

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

MAGDA

Posted
Posted
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
rob20042513

rob20042513

Posted
Posted

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
heliosfa

heliosfa

Posted
Posted
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
presumeddead

presumeddead

Posted
Posted

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
car2403

car2403

Posted
Posted
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
lawyerscum2003

lawyerscum2003

Posted
Posted

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
samanthasquig

samanthasquig

Posted
Posted
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 4940 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.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...