Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • once a debt is sb'd nothing not even a judge can unbar it no harm in talking to BC at all. they are nothing to do with the claim they sold the debt in .........see NOA letter    
    • Here are the Particulars of Claim   Name of the Claimant ? Hoist Finance UK Holdings Limited   date of claim - 30th January 2020   Date  to acknowledge) = 17/02/2020   date to submit defence = 02/03/2020    Particulars of Claim   1. The claim is for the sum of £7939.36 arising from the defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no xxxx926xxxxxx03   2. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3.The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd(Ex Barclaycard) Written notice of the assignment has been given.   4.The Claimant claims 1. The sum of £7939.36 2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £8449.00   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes dated 02092019   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Not sure   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address?Not sure Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card.   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  After April 2007 actually August 2007   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Can't recall   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ?No idea   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Claim issued by Hoist, so assigned.   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Howard Cohen solicitors says yes. I say no   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not to my knowledge   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No   Why did you cease payments? Costly divorce and failed small business   What was the date of your last payment? Over 6 yeras ago I believe   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Spoke to them many years ago   Will get on with CCA and CPR tomorrow.   Is there a danger that if he attempts to call BC he could take it out of staute barred?  I will have to contact him Spain so need to advise him what not to say.
    • DX ,thanks for spacing post BankFodder,  sorry, point taken,   FS
    • defence due by 4pm Monday 2nd   has he...   .  get a CCA Request running to the claimant https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/  leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed . .  get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] . . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . . type your name ONLY no need to sign anything . you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]   get him to ring BC ask last payment date tomorrow.    
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3017 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi, I received a private parking charge yesterday from a company called OPC and it had official stamp saying BPA approved operator. I had used a car park a couple of weeks before, one that I have used regularly for past 4 years, and is a free car park, and I had stayed for less than 20 minutes longer than the maximum stay. The letter confirms that they have photographic evidence of me entering and leaving the car park which proves that I had stayed over the maximum time. The PPC is for £100, £50 if I pay within 14 days. They state if I do not pay they will take me to court and I may have to pay up to £400. I had never took any notice of the signs in the car park previously and so I honestly did not realise there was a time limit for parking there. I re-visited the site and there are quite a few signs in the car park showing maximum stay and confirming you will be fined if you overstay the maximum time, I do not know how I failed to notice this, although the signs are quite small - but you don't expect to be fined if parking is free? My question is should I pay up quickly to avoid higher fees, but the fee seems very high especially as it is a free car park and it was not busy the day I parked anyway. I am an honest person and I do not want to get into trouble, the thought of court is scary but this seems very unreasonable to me. I am concerned as I am the only person insured to drive my car so it is obvious who would have been driving it, so I do not think I could argue this as suggested in other posts. Please can someone offer advice, even if it is to pay up! I have heard that they can only sue for actual losses so if it is a free car park wouldn't that make the losses nil??? I am very frightened about just ignoring this as I can not afford £400. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay nothing. Do not contact them. Totally ignore them.

 

There is no fine - only Courts can do that.

 

Yes, the maximum they can seek is their actual loss or damage by your being there. As the parking was free for a period what is their loss for the next 20 minutes? You got it - NOTHING.

Thats what you pay them!

 

Dont worry about their intimidatory threats of Court. The only time OPC go to Court is as Defendant

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/03/31/26000-fine-for-parking-firm/

 

Sadly you will have to put up with a series of Threat-0-Grammes. But dont worry - enjoy the feeling of gently placing them in the recycling box. It's very relaxing.

 

Come back here when the intimidation is beginning to play on you. Be strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have had a look at your link and they do appear to be a dodgy company, however it looks like it only got thrown out of court due to the people that were fined being able to prove they entered and left the car park twice and therefore did not overstay they time, whereas I did overstay the maximum period according to OPC and photos (I have not seen the photos).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree the case was not particularly relevant to you other than to demonstrate OPC's business model has no respect for Law. That extends to misrepresenting facts to intimidate people into paying money they have no obligation to pay.

 

The point remains the 'Notice' you received is nothing more than a Speculative Invoice - a begging letter asking to to voluntarily send them money for no legal reason other than your generosity and fear of unwarranted intimidation.

 

Look back over the last dozen pages of past threads and read all those with OPC in the title. Look at the Stickeys at the top of the list about Speculative Invoices and PPCs

 

For more about OPC and their ethics look at paragraphs 37 onwards of this submission before the UK Parliamentary Commons Select Committee.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/writev/dda/dda09.htm

 

Trust me. Do nothing. Iignore them. You owe them nothing.

Edited by Tony P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opc have also been spanked in court many times.

 

Your in safe hands here. Don't worry!! If they do take you to court(very unlikely) then yiou are in the right place.

 

From this thread you will see how many times they have lost in court http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3414489

 

The thing about your insurance is irrelevent as they have no way of finding out.

 

If you pay up now then you would just be falling for another [problem]..

 

Also you can visit pepipoo which has a good private ticket section.

 

Finally you are taking this bunch far to seriously.

Edited by BASFORDLAD2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a chance that by mistakenly seeming to remember they had an incident with the vehicle that they for some strange moment in time made them think they could lawfully use the MIB website to check if the vehicle was insured they could obtain this information it would not say who else would be covered by their own third party insurance to drive the car so it still is no proof who may have been the driver.

But this is indeed taking matters seriously that are really the province of Python humour.

"I have a completely unfounded sum of money I want you to pay me"

"Ok Gov its a fair Cop"

The key to the way the whole thing works is in the OP statement "I am very frightened "

As every one else says its irrelevant threats there is no such animal as as private penalty charge or fine its just a speculative invoice.any time the temptation is to contact them at all immediately take a swift dose of medicine from the forums. They sound very intimidating they have to as they know they cant win so fear of all the dreadful things that they MAY , MIGHT,COULD do is their way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have had a look over the internet since posting this and apparently there is a new law being introduced in April 2012 which will allow the PPC companies to pursue the registered keeper for monies. Is anyone else aware of this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we are . But it makes no difference. Again you are taking this to Seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi, I have had a look over the internet since posting this and apparently there is a new law being introduced in April 2012 which will allow the PPC companies to pursue the registered keeper for monies. Is anyone else aware of this?

Fear not. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill - which is what is being referred to - does contain a clause setting out how private parking companies (PPC) may pursue the registered keeper (RK) in respect of unpaid charges.

 

However, what is not said is that all this does is to provide a mechanism for PPC's to take RK's to the small claims court and makes no reference whatsoever to the greatest stumbling block of all. That is that whether the PPC initiate proceedings for an alleged breach of contract or in respect of trespass there is simply no means - in civil law (this bill proposes no change to that law, by the way, and the clause in question sits oddly on its own and provides no powers) for the registered keeper to be held responsible unless the PPC can prove that they were driving. The only people capable of being held to the terms of a contract, and therefore liable to be sued for an alleged breach, are the parties to it (i.e. the driver and the PPC) and the only person responsible for any damages in tort for trespass is the trespasser - i.e. the driver.

 

This clause changes the law not one jot and the only body that can rule on whether a person is liable for the so-called charges (assuming that they do not amount to a penalty and can be shown to be a genuine pre-estimate of damages) is a court of law. PPC's simply do not do court on anything like a regular basis because it fouls up their business model. They simply cannot recover what it actually costs them to issue and pursue proceedings and besides the cost such work is very time consuming. Ever hour taken in preparing proceedings is an hour during which they cannot pursue other victims and therefore make money rather than spending it. Besides, the regularity with which PPC's are thoroughly spanked in court means that they often conspire in their own financial downfall.

 

Importantly, if and when the Bill becomes law it will not be retrospective and you therefore have nothing to fear from that perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification regarding the new bill, I appreciate that as I was a bit worried about it before. From what you have said I am pressuming that irrespective of whether or not I was the driver on the day in question, what they are asking is realistically a penalty and therefore not a legitimate claim - it definately is not a realistic estimate of damages as the car parking is free anyway. I will try and ignore this letter, but I have to confess I will find it difficult as I am a bit of a worrier and I have never dared ignore anything like this before.

Thanks for the advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
From what you have said I am pressuming that irrespective of whether or not I was the driver on the day in question, what they are asking is realistically a penalty

What they are asking for is realistically money beyond any sustainable claim. Forget the word penalty. It is a Speculative Invoice, a begging letter, wrapped up to appear official and intimidating. Exactly as the worthless threat-o-grams that will be sent to the RK over the coming weeks and months.

IF they go to Court they can only take action against the Driver, if they know who he was. And the only possible claim that could succeed is for their actual loss suffered because of the Driver and car being there. Bearing mind entry was free for a period how can a further 20 minutes cause them actual damage and cost after the free period ended?

How do you sue someone for 'Nothing'? But sadly that doesn't deter unprincipled, threatening, intimidating beggers from preying on the weak, ignorant and ill-informed.

 

I have to confess I will find it difficult as I am a bit of a worrier and I have never dared ignore anything like this before.

Just the sort of person that ensures these people stay in business, and to be able to continue undeterred by multiple criminal convictions and £37,000 payouts to the Courts.

Even more important that you do not contact them - any contact is seen as a weakness they can exploit as well as possibly providing identity details so as to pressurise the Driver instead of the RK.

 

Be strong. Come back here for reassurance as time goes by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fear not. Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Bill - which is what is being referred to - does contain a clause setting out how private parking companies (PPC) may pursue the registered keeper (RK) in respect of unpaid charges.

 

no difference to what they can do now, they can take anyone to court if they want

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...