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

HSBC v Pipster - Court Tomorrow!! *****Discontinued*****


Pipster2797
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4463 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

  • Replies 359
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I’m going through this as fast as I can – need to counter the WS, and do a quick skelly.

 

The judge should rip their arses for delivering the WS on the day of the hearing – it should have been issued with the application.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, folks, WS in response to their pile of rubbish done. All a bit quick, but hopefully coherent. It was a bit of a combined WS and skelly as it included the relevant case law and statutes.

 

Save to say we found an example DN from the time, exact same wording, and it only allowed 14 days to rectify. Ooops. Anyway, Pipster never received it. Amex v Brandon is therefore a bar to enforcement.

 

Also, we can show they have not – and cannot ever – comply with a s 78 request, as a contract or application form was never, ever signed. It was done over the phone. So Carey – which they rely on – blows them out of their own paddling pool. Phoenix v Kotecha 2011 means it’s therefore unenforceable.

 

Some of it sensitive and we know the oppo look in, so done off forum as the hearing is in a short while.

 

One overriding factor – and the reason I help in cases like this – is that the OP was trying to settle with the creditor, and they failed to supply documents requested under statute. That’s not on.

 

Let’s hope we’ve done enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well thank you firstly to Donkey B for all the help with this. He saved my bacon on it as think i would of lost had it just been my WS

 

Not a loss but not a win either.

 

Basically I got there and HSBC Sol was already there. Had a quiet word with me. I gave her the new WS. She read through it and mentioned that she had brought the Carey case with her. I said I was already aware of the case and I’ve also read it. Tried to explain again to her that a recon may suit a s78 request but to enforce then the signed agreement has to be there.

 

Got in to the room with the judge, first thing he commented on was the length of time this case had took as claim was first brought in May 2010 and he started straight away at her not so much that they had served the WS on me as LIP today but that they had served it on him today, she then gave him a copy of the Carey case and he asked her if she expected him to read the full case within 30 minutes on top of her WS and my amended WS. She tried to pick the bones out and gave him the gist but I kept piping up and repeating that it does fulfil a s78 request but to enforce you need the signed CCA and HSBC were trying to enforce here so different from Carey. She kept repeating Carey, in the end the judge got a bit annoyed and bit at her that I wasn’t disputing the findings of the Carey case but I was actually saying sec 127 of the consumer credit act was applicable, he then asked her to explain to him why sec 127 wasn’t relevant as per their WS, she couldn’t answer him. He also said that this was going to have to go to trial. Thought I was about to get what I wanted at this point. She waffled on about Carey again but avoided his questions.

 

He brought up about the DN and I was trying to get my point across that I only got it this morning and done some research and found a one on the internet that was word for word and the dates didn’t give enough time for service etc and to remedy the breach. He asked her how long it should give and her reply was 14 days I think?? Couldn’t believe what I was hearing. She then tried to get the judges mind off the DN by going on about Carey and thought she was going to bring up about the DN not being relevant as it wasn’t in Carey. Was ready with my reply but again she kept bleating about s78 from carey.

 

Thought it was all going my way and going well but he decided to relist it for a 2 hour hearing for the strike out. He said my WS today would be used as my defence in light of recent docs i.e. the DN. They admitted there was no DN just the template and no CCA either. Judge said I can’t order for docs to be sent when there isn’t any. Wasn’t happy I had put directions in when I know there aren’t any docs. I got away with it by saying to be fair the draft directions were wrote up before I got HSBC’s WS this morning and I had worked all morning on it rather than ask for an adjournment as the case has dragged on long enough. He seemed ok with that and asked me if it was all my own research or had I got the info from the internet. I said it was all my own work but I did research from the internet.

 

So he has ordered that 14 days from the order HSBC have to write a skelly argument and serve it to the court and me and then I have 28 days to put my skelly to the court and the claimant and then the first date after that for a 2 hour hearing.

 

Not a loss and gives me some time to get the Skelly in place and make sure everything is perfect and HSBC can’t play funny beggars as they have to get their skelly in place first. He did try and scare me by saying that as I am LIP I won’t have any costs but if I lose HSBC have hired and I will have what could be considerable costs. Bit my lip but felt like saying so you think I should just roll over and give in despite what the law says?

 

So don’t know if it’s a stalemate or round 1 to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One overriding factor – and the reason I help in cases like this – is that the OP was trying to settle with the creditor, and they failed to supply documents requested under statute. That’s not on.

 

Let’s hope we’ve done enough.

 

 

Well you did do enough and more than you should of. I can only thank you again.

 

I spoke to the solicitor outside and discussed and she was trying to batter me down to admitting the money and I told her the full story of how it had went, why I originally requested the CCA but HSBC done everything they could to stop me from checking charges etc and trying to push my debt down. Think she may have realised at that point that my intention was not to avoid the debt but to lower it through possible PPI (turns out there isn't any PPI) and charges. Think she realised that HSBC's main aim was to avoid me knowing there was no CCA when that wasn't what I was after and just information to lower my debt. As it still is. I'm hoping that with charges and interest I can get a full and final settlement on the account and haggle for the default to be removed.

 

Anyway's I'm going to relax with my little boy now and play toys and watch cartoons because over the last week I haven't spent enough time with him. May also have 1,2 or even more beers tonight.

 

Thanks again to everyone for their comments but again to DonkeyB for a huge help and a debt I probably never be able to repay to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a fair result given the amount of sh*te the judge had to take from them. As we said at the start, these tossers do not play fair. This judge saw through that. They blast away at Carey to cover the fact they have no evidence. They send witness statements in late to try and hoodwink the judge and the defendant. They lie to you and tell you that you are not entitled to a witness statement. In short, they cheat. You have to be wise to their tricks.

 

It may well be worth you trying to negotiate with them – if they’ll listen, and if that’s what you want. The aim of today was to stop them getting a ridiculous summary judgment.

 

My view now is that as they have gone for you tooth and nail, you are entitled to fight back. They cannot win this on Carey. I imagine their rep started to realise that.

 

Let’s see what the judge’s order brings.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Pipster, with Donkey's support you have won today - they did not get what they wanted.

It is for them to prover their case, they have no documents

How can they prove you signed something? Because Marge in accounts specifically remembers your application from umpteen years ago?

 

I think not

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is quite simply that Pipster signed nothing – the card was arranged over the telephone.

 

Their argument is that, as their systems are wholly reliable, the likelihood is that he WOULD have signed a contract.

 

Our simple counter argument is that if their systems are so reliable, how come they don’t have a copy of the contract he signed?

 

They can’t rely on the efficiency of their systems, then deny that efficiency in the same breath, simply to suit their case.

 

The judge said as much in the Harrison v Link Financial case – Link produced an MBNA employee who swore that certain things must have happened because that’s how things were done. Luckily, Mr Harrison had proof to the contrary. Too often the judiciary believe these well-meaning fibbers – oh it’s a bank, they must do things properly. Well, no, they do not.

 

There is no signed document with Pipster’s scrawl. Never has been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...