Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
  • 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

DPA - Cahoot


keld
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6587 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

Hi,

 

I sent my first DPA letter to Cahoot on 9th March and my second including the £10 on 21st March 2006. Am I right that the 40 days starts from 21st?

 

Thanks.

KELD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I've just received a voicemail and this email in response to my DPA letter.

 

'Dear Mrs D,

I am e-mailing following your letter of 21st March regarding your cahoot accounts.

I've today attempted to call you in relation to your letter. I'd be grateful if you could advise me via e-mail at: [email protected], of a convenient time and number to discuss the points you've raised.

Yours sincerely,

David Freeman,

cahoot Service Relationship Manager.

 

'I have emailed the following. 'Dear Mr Freeman, I don't have regular access to a phone at the moment, please email with your queries. Regards, Mrs D'

KELD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I've just received this from Cahoot.

 

'Dear Mrs D,

 

I am e-mailing following your letter of 21st March 2006 regarding your cahoot accounts. I had hoped to discuss this with you in person but will attempt to address your concerns in this e-mail.

 

Having reviewed the request outlined in your letter I am of the opinion that it might be in both parties interest not to complete a full Subject Access request. I understand your are asking for a list of charges you've incurred throughout your accounts history. I've listed this below for your information.

 

*******

 

3/03/05 £25.00

 

*******

 

9/02/05 £20.00

14/02/05 £20.00

24/12/05 £20.00

01/05/03 £25.00

31/03/03 £25.00 (This charge was refunded on 22nd April 2003)

 

I understand that you wish to contest the legitimacy of these charges. I've reviewed your account history and can see that these were incurred as a result of isolated incidents. I've considered this matter sympathetically and, in the interests of customer retention and as a gesture of goodwill, I'd like to refund the £110 you've incurred. I'd be grateful if you could confirm whether you wish to accept this in settlement of your complaint via e-mail at: [email protected].

 

Should you still require the Subject Access Request, please advise me via e-mail and I'll make the necessary arrangements. We would be unable to consider refunding the £10 as this is a fair representation of the cost of producing the request.

 

Thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to my attention.

 

If you've any further queries or wish to discuss anything in greater depth, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

David Freeman,

cahoot Service Relationship Manager.

 

 

*********************

Internet communications are not necessarily secure and may be intercepted or changed after they are sent. cahoot does not accept liability for any such changes. If you wish to confirm the origin or content of this communication, please contact the sender using an alternative means of communication.

 

This communication does not create or modify any contract.

 

This email may contain confidential information intended solely for use by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication you should destroy it without copying, disclosing or otherwise using its contents.

 

Please notify the sender immediately of the error.

 

cahoot is a division of Abbey National plc.

Abbey National plc is registered in England, registered number 2294747.

Registered Office: Abbey National House, 2 Triton Square, Regent's Place, London, NW1 3AN.

 

 

--

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.3.5/301 - Release Date: 04/04/2006'

 

Just goes to show what you get if you ask. So what do you think take the money and tell everyone to have a go?

KELD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The money has been credited to my bank account. I can't believe that two letters and two emails have got me £110 so easily.

 

Thanks again. Now just to get TSB, Mint and Coop.

KELD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

KELD

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6587 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...