Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have recently found myself in financial difficulties and with the help of forum members in another thread regarding this, I think I can get myself sorted. My query here is how to deal with a Cifas marker that has been logged against me by one of my creditors for "evasion of payment". Admittedly yes I did get a £5000 loan with them and have not paid any payment but at the start of the year, which is when the loan landed, I realised I was going to be struggling to repay that and other debts and I contacted MCB to ask if there was any way I could extend the loan from 24 months to 36 months. I explained my situation and that I was going with a DMP and asked them if they could help me with this. They did not reply. I then emailed them again a month later explaining that my DMP was going ahead and could they confirm that the direct debit was indeed cancelled. Again, they did not reply. The DMP fell apart and so did everything else thereafter. My bank withdrew my overdraft and said I could not stay with them (I thought initially that it was because of the DMP) so I opened another account (Starling) and set up all my direct debits etc with the new bank. A month into being with the new bank, they contacted me and said they were closing my account in three months. So I started applying for other basic accounts and every single one of them either refused or revoked.  Through the help in the other thread, I requested a SAR from Cifas and discovered that I have this marker against my name for "evasion of payment". I have logged a complaint with MCB on the advice of other forum members, but my query really is do you think the marker is fair given that I did ask them for help and I did explain that I was going to be struggling financially to repay the loan over the original two years, and is there any way that I can get it removed? I fully admit that I have yet to make a payment to them and I suppose in my naivety and panic I thought if I emailed them early on they could extend the loan and help me out, but they didn't even reply  I did manage to open an account with Monzo before the marker was in place, but I am very concerned that if Monzo do what Starling did, I will have no bank account to pay my bills or get my wages paid into.  Realistically based on the information I have given here, what do you think my chances are of getting this marker removed? Any help/advice on this would be greatly appreciated x
    • Thank you dx, that is what I intend to do now. I have gone through all the SAR documents, a lot of which I am seeing for the first time! As per my previous post #116 letters and statements alleged to have been sent to me, as recorded on their system notes I have not received. Letters I have sent requesting information and account statements have not been recorded as being received by them, all were sent either by Recorded or Special Delivery. I have all the proof you menrtioned from my files for payments and from their SAR info for fees added. Thanks t
    • In my experience (not with car payments) but with many other things, my partner has been ill and signed off in the past and we have been unable to meet various commitments.  Naturally if you ring the call centre they are going to fob you off and tell you you must pay, that's why that never ever works. I would obtain a note from her GP listing all her health issues plus medications plus side effects, then write to the finance company with a copy of it, explaining the situation, as you have here, asking for a payment holiday. Perhaps mention that the car is very much needed for hospital appointments etc. It's likely the finance company would rather you pay till term end than, chase you for money they will never see, and sell the car at auction for a loss,  You can search some of my threads going back years, advising people to do this for Council Tax, Tax Credits, HMRC, Even a solicitors company and it always works, because contrary to popular belief people are reasonable.
    • Sorry, I haven't ever seen one of these agreements. Read it all and look out for anything that says when she can withdraw and when she is committed to go ahead. If it isn't clear she may need to call the housing provider and simply say what you posted here, she doesn't want to go ahead and how does she withdraw her swap application?
    • Thank you! Your head is like a power bank of knowledge.  Her health issues are short term, due to a relationship breakdown she took it pretty hard and has been signed off work on medication for 3 months. She only started her job in February 24 so does not qualify for any occupational sick benefits, which is where the ssp only comes in. (You will see me posting a few things over the coming days, whilst I try and sort some things for her)  I sat with her last night relaying all this back and she does want to work out a plan, she was ready to propose £100 for the next 3 months and then an additional £70 per month onto of her contractual to "catch up" but Money247 rejecting the payment holiday and demanding £200 thew her, which is why I came on here.   
  • 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

ParkingEye car park management 'speculative invoice'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4524 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

My wife parked in the Priory Fields Retail Park in Taunton which is isolated from the town centre.

 

She spent 3 hours 26 minutes shopping only at that retail centre and had not realised there was a limit of 3 hours.

 

I find it highly unlikely that this would stand up in court as we can prove by receipts that she never left the retail park.

 

ParkingEye have clearly been employed to catch out people who just use the car park.

 

My wife is considering writing a letter of appeal to them but I feel that we should write and tell them that we will not be paying as we can prove she never left the site.

 

Does anyone have similar experience of this scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ignore completely and DON`T appeal, you will get the six standard letters of threat.

Now instead of being peed off at getting at ticket you can laugh, relax and sit back with a smile on your face having found this site!:lol:

I know what its like! But trust me, ignore and laugh and tell your friends!

 

Tell them you got a fake parking ticket and sound happy! Really happy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife parked in the Priory Fields Retail Park in Taunton which is isolated from the town centre.

 

She spent 3 hours 26 minutes shopping only at that retail centre and had not realised there was a limit of 3 hours.

 

I find it highly unlikely that this would stand up in court as we can prove by receipts that she never left the retail park.

 

ParkingEye have clearly been employed to catch out people who just use the car park.

 

My wife is considering writing a letter of appeal to them but I feel that we should write and tell them that we will not be paying as we can prove she never left the site.

 

Does anyone have similar experience of this scenario?

 

 

its NOT a fine

 

nowhere on the paper work does it say that

 

its a speculative invoice

 

ignore them

 

and do some reading in this forum.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do take people to court. Apparently one person was ordered to pay costs totaling £2500!!!

 

My wife parked in the Priory Fields Retail Park in Taunton which is isolated from the town centre.

 

She spent 3 hours 26 minutes shopping only at that retail centre and had not realised there was a limit of 3 hours.

 

I find it highly unlikely that this would stand up in court as we can prove by receipts that she never left the retail park.

 

ParkingEye have clearly been employed to catch out people who just use the car park.

 

My wife is considering writing a letter of appeal to them but I feel that we should write and tell them that we will not be paying as we can prove she never left the site.

 

Does anyone have similar experience of this scenario?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They do take people to court. Apparently one person was ordered to pay costs totaling £2500!!!

 

 

Really?

Care to give details so we can verify and then believe it?

(because, Dear brand new subscriber, quite frankly I don't)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That, according to numberous threads on various forums, was a highly suspect case. None of the circumstances, claims, defense and details have been revealed.

 

Widely thought to be a Plant Case in the hope of success for its future threat purposes. This is especially in view of the number of 'new posters' who keep appearing and 'know' all about it in discussions. and who certainly did not always quote correctly about such circumstances and involvements as are known.

 

It is interesting that full details are never produced in suport of the fear effect they try to induce. Maybe the thinker, unlike those before him, can assist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

surely if it was a plant case then the perpetrator would be guilty of fraud or purgery or something?

 

why? PPC says he owed charges, "victim" agreed. Court orders payment. Seems straight forward enough to me.

 

Seems unlikely that a car parking company would do that when the freedoms bill is shifting everything in favour of parking charges being more enforceable.

 

Really? So how do you figure the freedoms bill is shifting in their favour? It's still a "contract" which cannot involve a 3rd party.

 

Anyway, this is looking more and more like a plant thread soI think I will head for the door now. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right the contract is between the car park owner and the vehicle owner. The PPC is hired by the property owner to collect the money owed. Seems fairly straight forward.

 

If you stay in a hotel and go without paying, you will get an invoice. It would be fair to assume that the hotel owner will use the legal process to enforce payment of the amount owed.

 

Morally, it seems that anyone that uses a property should be prepared to pay the charge that applies. That is as long as the property owner makes the charges clear up front.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you stay in a hotel and go without paying, you will get an invoice. It would be fair to assume that the hotel owner will use the legal process to enforce payment of the amount owed.

 

Bad example!

 

If, after a night in a hotel, you fail to check out by the time stated the maximum they will seek is no more than for another period (night) at the same rate.

Compare that with a private car park where the first period is free or maybe a couple of pounds - there the PPCs feel it 'fair' to try to claim many many times the original amount, and then escalates the amount if unpaid, all dressed up as a 'penalty'!

 

(un)thinker - please give us the details of the case you are quick to quote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go away from the hotel without paying, then you will get charged more than the original cost as they will add collection fees... or the third party will.

 

Sad fact is that you don't get something for nothing. And if you want them to chase you, you will have to pay them for it!

Edited by Thinker123
incorrect
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you go away from the hotel without paying, then you will get charged more than the original cost as they will add collection fees... or the third party will.

 

Sad fact is that you don't get something for nothing. And if you want them to chase you, you will have to pay them for it!

 

£90 (for example) "collection fees" for a FREE car park?? In what way is that a fair cost of losses + reasonable collection fees, rather than a penalty? Just look at the recent case of Parking Eye v Smithy, where all they got was the daily charge + the £2.50 DVLA fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i never understand is , why a large retail park would be happy with a PPC limiting the time its customers can stay before penalising them? surely that is counterproductive to the retail outlets on the park?

The only reason i can see for a time limit is for the greed of the PPCs.

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i never understand is , why a large retail park would be happy with a PPC limiting the time its customers can stay before penalising them? surely that is counterproductive to the retail outlets on the park?

The only reason i can see for a time limit is for the greed of the PPCs.

 

These commercial companies must have some reason for doing it. If the car park is full and genuine shoppers can't get in, then they will be missing out on revenue. Those that are in the car park, but are not genuine shoppers are blocking others from getting in.

 

The car park is a service provided to customers. People that use it without shopping or paying are engaging in an act of theft!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Dave the Porch

What you are seeing is, to me, clearly a PPC 'plant' trying to unnerve you into paying unreasonable amounts of money to his employer.

 

Note the extensive 'knowledge'and one sided arguments - but never a mention of the details of the Case he quoted.

 

My advice to you is to follow the advice of those who have a good reputation and post count on these threads sooner than a newby.

Having followed these threads for a long time, posters and posts 2, 3, and 4 would convince me.

And you will get support and assistance from them and others in the unlikely event of things progressing beyond threats-o-gram letters to the Registered Keeper, who may or may not be the Driver.

Don't write and dont tell them the Driver's details - there is no obligation to provide these details to anyone other than to Police and Local Councils.

 

IGNORE and enjoy life!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car park is a service provided to customers. People that use it without shopping or paying are engaging in an act of theft!

 

You mean unlike private parking companies who send frightening letters. carefully designed to look like official documents, to motorists trying to con them out of their money?

 

I'm endeavouring to find out more about this case. I don't believe it's genuine. I will post on here whatever I can find.

 

Perhaps meantime, you can answer the request above for more info, or at least tell us where you got your case details from.

 

I wait with little hope - go on, surprise me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

These commercial companies must have some reason for doing it. If the car park is full and genuine shoppers can't get in, then they will be missing out on revenue. Those that are in the car park, but are not genuine shoppers are blocking others from getting in.

 

The car park is a service provided to customers. People that use it without shopping or paying are engaging in an act of theft!

But people who park on large retail outlets are genuine shoppers or users of the retail park. most retail parks i have been on are in out of town areas or dissused old industrial areas. The car parks are not used for anything other than customers!

hello all:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...