Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Six year deadline, difference of opinions.


Guest peed orf
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6292 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

Guest peed orf

Hi all,

Having read lots and lots of different posts, ther seems to be a huge differece of opinion as to the six year deadline!

I had an account with HSBC for approx 15 years. I closed it in 2001 due to the charges were riddiculous. Being self employed, money owed didn't always arrive when promised, so HSBC hit me hard and often. The snowball affect is still with me today.

I want my charges back to compensate for some of the distress this caused.

 

Presumably, if requesting more than six years statements, the letter in the liberary isn't suitable.

All and Any advice will be wecome, I'll sift thru it and go from there.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably, if requesting more than six years statements, the letter in the liberary isn't suitable.

.

 

Why not?

 

Please supply me with a complete list of transactions and charges relating to my banking history with your organisation. Alternatively, a complete set of statements for that period will be acceptable.

 

Doesn't say 6 years :-?

 

Anyway, the 6 years limit. Hmm. Someone will test that sooner or later, that's for sure.

 

Personally, I'd think: "What have I got to lose?" and decide accordingly, after having read everything I can about the subject and made up my mind from there. But that's me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you cannot go back further than 6 years is because the limitation date for contract law is 6 years. In other words to enforce anything under a contract, you have to start court proceedings within 6 years of the date of the thing you are trying to enforce.

 

Ie in this case, the first charge you are reclaiming must not be dated more than 6 years from the date you issue court proceedings.

 

If you tried to issue a claim with the court for charges older than 6 years, it would be thrown out due to limitation.

 

HTH x x x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zoe if you can satisfy the court that "any fact relevant to the plaintiff's right of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant; the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the concealment" - S.32 (1)(b) Limitation Act 1980.

Link to post
Share on other sites

zoe130280 , please have a good read around.

 

1 - There is a very good argument to get around the 6 years limit, which is what Peed o'rf's query was about. it's called s. 32b of the statute of limitation.

 

2 - This is quite incorrect. It's 6 years from the date you first dispute the charges, which is either from when you first send your SAR, or when you send your prelim.

 

3 - If you tried to issue a claim for older charges than 6 yrs using s. 32b, a judge would have to deal with that and not "throw it out".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that you would have a hard job proving that the banks have 'deliberately concealed' your right of action, but I certainly wish you the best of luck trying :)

 

When I mentioned issuing proceedings within 6 years, I was talking generally about the limitation period, not with using s32 LA 1980. Sorry if this has confused anybody :(

 

 

"This is quite incorrect. It's 6 years from the date you first dispute the charges, which is either from when you first send your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), or when you send your prelim"

 

This is also incorrect. The 6 years runs from the date you discovered you have a right of action. This is a different thing than the date when you first dispute the charges. Someone could take months after discovering they had an action before doing anything about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But they wouldn't be able to show this to be the case. You simply can't say "Oh, I knew about the charges being unlawful for years, but did nothing about it", which is why for simplification, I worded it that way. For all intents and purposes, and especially when it comes to raising a court action, the cut-off date will be the date you first wrote to the bank disputing the amounts. We altered the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) templates precisely to that purpose, as some charges were dropping beyond the 6 years between S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) and compliance.

 

I just think that you would have a hard job proving that the banks have 'deliberately concealed' your right of action, but I certainly wish you the best of luck trying

 

That is your opinion. In your first posting, you categorically stated this as a fact: "If you tried to issue a claim with the court for charges older than 6 years, it would be thrown out due to limitation".

 

Quite a few people are testing this, as indeed others did when they were first told that they couldn't get their bank charges back. ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for any confusion. No ill feeling was meant :(

 

"If you tried to issue a claim with the court for charges older than 6 years, it would be thrown out due to limitation".

I didn't explain the meaning behind my post very well I'm afraid. I wasn't thinking about s32. I was thinking about contract law in general. Once again, sorry for any confusion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I intend to make 2 claims.

 

The first will be within the eligable 6 years and the second will be for everything prior. I do not want to roll the whole period into one as I do not want to risk losing the charges within the eligable 6 year period.

 

Once the eligable 6 year period has been payed I am going after everything prior. If I do not get anything for the period prior to the 6 years well nothing ventured nothing gained, but they might just pay up to stop it from going to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
Guest peed orf

Hi guys, received reply from HSBC on 1st claim, outside limitations act, bla bla bla. Date of charges June 2000 - Aug 2000.

Just ignore them and send next letter?

Is there a pre done LBA for contracual interest?

 

[Joint account £277 + CI = £1450]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest peed orf

Right..... I'm ready to get to grips with this one now.

The reply to my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) said they don't keep info more than six years, blaa blaa blaa. However I do have an old printout statement thingy from 1996 with "fiche" written on the top, so presumably this would be microfiche the same as sAbbey use, and therefore ongoing.

Would it be better to request the info again, or hit 'em with a Court order?

 

[account going back to 1990ish, at the moment estimated + CI = approx £30k]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest peed orf

Just noticed posts 19 & 20 next to each other could be confusing, tried to clear it a little.

I've got 3 claims to look at for HSBC

1. £690 8% prelim sent October.

2. Joint account CI, LBA sent November.

3. old account needing more info, possible £30k inc int.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Can anyone direct me to a sample letter for impleneting the 6 year limitation. I ahve received paperwork over the past 6-8 months from a debt copllecting agency chasing me on a store card debt (alledged) they have sent me a copy of the application form I filled out in 1994 but no evbidence that I ran up a debt. I have disputed this all the way down the line, where do I go noe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest peed orf

If there's no proof of dept, you won't have to pay it.

The "legaities" section deals with this in more detail, and they have more knowledge of how to word what!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...