Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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

DCA Chasing debt that already has a CCJ


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4395 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 all

A few years ago I was helped on this forum when I received a County Court summons from Irwin Mitchell on behalf of Welcome Finance.

 

I agreed a figure of £110 with the courts and that sum was paid regularly until I lost my job a few months later.

 

I then contacted Irwin Mitchell, who agreed that I could reduce the payment to £10pm.

I did so, and have continued paying that amount and I am currently still paying that.

 

I received a letter today from a company called LRC, and it was a final demand for the Welcome Finance debt!

 

I called them and they said that they had taken over from Irwin Mitchell and that I now should pay them and not Irwin Mitchell,

and that Irwin Mitchell's reduced amount is no longer available.

 

Can anyone tell me where I stand on this?

 

Do I really have to pay LRC instead?

 

Can they really increase the amount back to the original amount just like that?

 

Thanks in advance for any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 points.

firstly to reduce the amount you should have applied to the courts for a redetermination

- you can still do this based on a change of circumstance.

 

secondly you must continue to pay the CCJ to whomever the order says you have to pay it to and that's NOT Welcome Finance.

 

So a couple of things to research on the site and no doubt others will be along with more specific advice.

 

But you may find the answers to both questions before then...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Thanks for the reply.

 

I didn't apply to the court because Irwin Mitchell were so good about it and just accepted my reduced offer without question.

 

The courts told me to pay Irwin Mitchell.

Now this new company want me to pay them.

 

I emailed Irwin Mitchell and they confirmed they are no longer dealing with Welcome's customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the court order is for Welcome then you have estopel as your defence but you should still apply to the courts for a retermination I believe.

 

But is the CCJ for Welcome or IM?

 

You need to make sure your payments have been coming off the amount owed too.

 

You should only be paying whomever the order says, no-one else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Well I agree with the 'don't respond to an email' , but if I keep on paying IM and they don't want the money I am not sure what will happen. I am going to write to the court, but judging by the lack of help they provided when I was first summonsed I don't expect a lot of help or advice this time!

Thanks for all your input everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting..........

 

 

also did you get reclaiming from welcome PPI/INS and PENALTY charges?

 

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

Funny enough, yes, I got the PPI thing the other day and will be completing it at the weekend.

From what I have been reading in the last few hours it is becoming apparent that this new company have no juristiction over my ccj and would have to go to court again to enforce it, so I will ask IM for a letter to confirm I no longer have to pay them and then see what this new lot do next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to get in touch with the court that awarded you your CCJ and advise them as to what is going on, the courts will take a very dim view of this, and your reducing payments, you need to comply with what the court ordered, if your circumstances have changed, which you say they have then you need to apply to the court for a redetermination, IM do not have your best interest at heart, neither does any DCA, going against the word of the court will land you in a whole lot of bother you really don't need.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I beginning to feel as though someone's yanking my chain?:ballchain:

 

As bbnb has already said, all of the advice has been given, you choose not to listen to it, and seem quite happy to choose your own path, which is not the way to go about it, and for that reason......................I'm out!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...