Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My story starts with being issued a windscreen PCN on 8/3/24 which was almost immediately removed and a second  PCN was then  sent by post on 13/3/24  [deemed delivered 15/3/24] which I did not receive and had to send an sar to have that particular mess revealed later  but that is not the reason for my complaint. UKPC then sent a Keeper Liability Notice dated 12/4/24 warning me that as 28 days have now elapsed, I as keeper am now liable for the charge.  This is in direct contravention of PoFA since the keeper does not become liable to pay until the day after the original PCN is deemed to have been given which would have been 13/4/24 -a Saturday ]. Not only does it not comply with PoFA but it fails to adhere to your Code of Practice and is in breach of their agreement with the DVLA.  I have included copies of both Notices for information. You will realise the seriousness of this situation if this is standard practice from the UKPCM to all motorists or just those where windscreen tickets are involved since the Law regarding PoFA is being abused and it is unfair to misguide motorists. I await your  response which I understand will usually be within a week.
    • It probably deletes after a certain time. What a shame you did not check at the time. However I have no doubt that there was a PCN envelope under your windscreen wiper  as shown quite clearly on one of the photographs. . It would seem strange that it was placed there empty hence the reason I stated a second Notice was issued [though not necessarily sent. As I said in that letter to IPC that was not what the complaint was about and probably  IPC will ask about that at the same time if they accept you  going direct to IPC for the other matter. It is immaterial how many original PCNs were issued or not issued. You are able to show the two that you have from their sar one of which coincides with the one you received in the post and that is the one that does not agree with the date times of PoFA. Thus breaching not only the Act, but also the IPC  Code of Conduct and the ability of UKPCM to obtain data from the DVLA. So leave that part of the letter as good to go. However as it is as Dave [Thank you Dave!} pointed out that it is UKPCM and not UKPCI have amended the letter and posted it below.
    • Just under half of young savers put away at least 20% of their monthly income, compared to just 12% of 45- to 54-year-olds.View the full article
    • Its based on 10% annual depreciation, divided by 52 weeks and then x the excess number of weeks that they have had the vehicle for, after the agreed initial 3 week repair.
    • LOL LOL LOL Don't need that many to deport a handful of volunteers - at best Home Office department processing Rwanda deportations told to cut jobs Exclusive: Illegal Migration Operations Command freezes recruitment and draws up redundancy plans, leaked documents show Cant have hundreds of well paid people in a department deporting a single volunteer when we have an upcoming election to lose now can we - VIPal drenched in riches and departments full of pals well paid for doing nowt will 'sadly soon be history - was rumored to in a text from a soon to be ex-minister texting in from one of his main jobs in a number of industries he will soon be unable to help.   Home Office department processing Rwanda deportations told to cut jobs | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Illegal Migration Operations Command freezes recruitment and draws up redundancy plans, leaked documents show  
  • 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 4952 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 4952 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...