Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
    • This is simply a scam site.  It's been shown to be a scam in the national press and on national TV. Please fill in the the forum sticky and upload the invoice you've received. In fact what you have is an invoice, not a fine, a private company doesn't have the power to issue fines.  
    • Moved to the Private Parking forum.
  • 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

Anyone work or worked for Abbey in 2007 who can answer this about transaction codes?


spot
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4386 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

I have a statement I received in my Subject Access Request which shows an ANMF Transaction code against the full balance of my mortgage loan slap bang in the middle of all my other debits and credits to the account.

 

It is a statement/listing of all transactions on the loan account.

 

I need to know EXACTLY what these transaction codes mean and what happened in the accounting system or to this loan which triggered this.

 

I have the ANMF Transaction Code Analysis Sheet. On it are two codes with adjoining descriptions thus:

 

1) CSF - SEC - Capital Transfer to Old Lender

 

2) CST - SEC - Capital Transfer to New Lender

 

 

These transactions happened on:

 

04/01/2007

 

and again on:

 

30/03/2007

 

I need to know what they did on those dates and exactly what those transactions are?

 

 

Can anyone tell me?

 

PM if it's too risky on open forum.

 

Be nice to me, this is very important to me.

 

Thank you.

 

Spot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on all you Santander employees and ex employees, surely someone can tell me what this is about? There must be lots of you come on CAG to see what's going on. If I tell you this could be the difference between me keeping my family in my house or losing it maybe you'll nod the wink to me?

 

 

1) CSF - SEC - Capital Transfer to Old Lender

 

2) CST - SEC - Capital Transfer to New Lender

 

What do they mean exactly?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Freakyleaky - (love the name)

 

I have the official Transaction Code Analysis sheet in with the SAR. and I'd been more interested in the CST and CSF until you just mentioned that.

 

Upon looking again at the Anaysis codes there are a number with SEC in the description such as:

 

Code - Description

AIS - SEC - Delayed Insurance to date of SEC

 

AIT - SEC - Delayed Interest to date of SEC

 

AOI - SEC - Delayed OVI to date of SEC (OVI is shown as Interest on Overdue balance)

 

DRF - SEC - Drawdown Transfer from

 

DRT - SEC - Drawdown Transfer to

 

RTF - SEC - Retention Transfer from

 

RTT - SEC - Retention Transfer to

 

TIS - SEC - Delayed INS/AIS to Receivable

 

TIT - SEC - Delayed INT/AIT to Receivable

 

TOI -SEC - Delayed OVI/AOI to Arrears

 

TRT - SEC - Transfer from New Lender

 

So, all these have the prefix of SEC along with those CSF & CST COdes - What is this and has it got anything to do with Securitisation perhaps?

 

Thanks...I need a mole!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well well, people in Santander must be very loyal or nobody must know the nitty gritty workings in there....I thought I'd at least have had a sniffle from employees.

 

 

Come on folks whistleblowing time....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...