Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Personal Guarantee with Keyline Trade Account


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4062 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 completed a credit account application for an account with Keyline. I was a director of the company at the time but left the company last year. The company has recently gone into administration and Keyline are chasing me for payment of the outstanding balance as I was the only director that signed the form. The form as the following paragraph which is headed Credit Guarantee in the body of the form

 

"In consideration of your agreeing to supply goods to the applicant company on credit, we the undersigned being owner/director/directors of the applicant company jointly and severally guarantee payment of all the financial obligations.... etc etc"

 

But as far as I'm aware this is not a peronal guarantee and I note that in my defence I can use the following from one of the other posts on this subject:

 

1) Misrepresentation - the document is headed 'Credit Account Application Form' and for it to be a PG is misrepresentation by creditor

2) id not sign the Applciation Form in a personal capacity but as a Director of XXX Limited. It is further submitted that if this Application Form is found to be a guarantee it has an unreasonable indemnity clause within the meaning of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (”the 1977 Act”). The form that is the subject of this guarantee was between the Claimant and XXX Ltd. My involvement as a guarantor was purely a personal matter between myself and XXX Ltd

3) My trade or profession is not that of guarantor and I did not provide this guarantee in return for a fee or commission. It is therefore submitted that I was ”dealing as a consumer” within the meaning of section 12 of the 1977 Act (R & B Customs Brokers Company Ltd v United Dominions Trust Ltd [1987] EWCA Civ 3).

4) As a result of the above case, the guarantee must be reasonable and it is submitted that the guarantee does not meet the reasonableness test of section 11 of the UCTA1977 Act and it is noted that by subsection (5) that it is for those claiming that a contract term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness to show that it does.

5) It is my belief that the guarantee does not meet the reasonableness test for the following reasons.

6) I had no intention of entering into a personal guarantee

7) What is purporting to be a personal liability is incorporated in the body of a document which is clearly designed to impose liability on XXX Limited and not myself personally.

8) It has been shown above that I am a consumer in this case. Under the Unfair Terms (Consumer Contract) Regulations 1999 (regulation 8) an unfair term is not binding on the consumer and therefore I cannot be held liable for the XXX Ltd debt.

9) Under regulation 5(1) of the UTCCR a contractual term that is not individually negotiated will be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirements of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer. The Application Form was clearly pre-printed and was a standard form of the Claimant and therefore cannot have been individually negotiated. By trying to pass the liability of a third party to myself, without my knowledge, there has clearly been a imbalance in the parties rights and is to the detriment of myself financially.

 

My question is what else can I add in support that I was not a director at the time the company went into administration?

 

My thoughts are to add the above into a letter with a full and final settlement amount for about 20% of the balance?

 

Thanks in advance for any help

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the agreement exists between the Ltd Co and Supplier, and you signed as a director, unless it actually states that the person signing the agreement becomes personally liable for the LTD companies account if they default, than they cannot enforce a judgment against you.

 

Any claim issued would have to be against the company, if they nolonger exist.....they can whistle in the wind.

 

I think they are trying it on.

 

Have they actually instigated legal proceedings?

 

debbie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Debbie

 

Thanks for responding.

 

Yes it is a Limited company, I did sign as a Director and the wording under the Guarantee section is as follows:

 

"In consideration of your agreeing to supply goods to the applicant company on credit, we the undersigned being owner/director/directors of the applicant company jointly and severally guarantee payment of all the financial obligations.... etc etc"

 

I did leave the company as per companies house last year before the company ceased trading in the past few weeks and no they are just sending out letters headed "Personal Guarantees" which is rather odd as per above the word "personal" is not used?

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

By chasing you, what have you actually received Fourby?

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, if the company is Dissolved any creditors will have been served the DS01 and informed at the time of dissolving.The creditor should have registered any outstanding arrears with Companies House anyhow.

 

Look forward to your uploads later Fourby.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy

 

The company is not currently dissolved as they first issued a CVA in January and apparently to avoid paying their advisors £5k to wind the company up they have to wait 60 or 90 days to have it done automatically without cost, which I believe will be either in June or July

 

Regards

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok gone into administration ok no problem look forward to your uploads later.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andy

 

The wording in the letter is as follows:

 

We write in relation to the above outstanding debt and charges in respect of which correspondence has been sent to you.

 

You have provided Keyline Builders Merchants Limited with a signed personal guarantee confirming that you will pay any sums not paid by your company. We have been instructed to pursue you under the personal guarantee that you have signed as your company has failed to pay. Unless payment is received within 7 days we shall issue a statutory demand for payment followed by bankruptcy proceedings if the demand is not complied with.

 

Regards

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

"In consideration of your agreeing to supply goods to the applicant company on credit, we the undersigned being owner/director/directors of the applicant company jointly and severally guarantee payment of all the financial obligations.... etc etc"

 

I have to say that this has become common practice among many builders merchants, employees and directors are signing credit agreements which include a clause which makes them personally liable if the company fails to pay.

 

This looks to me as if they have you. You have signed a personal guarantee on behalf of all the directors.Your only chance is in the wording "we the undersigned being owner/director/directors " if you can provide proof that you resigned as a director before this debt occurred you may be able to challenge this. Prove that you longer worked at the company when this problem arose, otherwise your only option is to personally go after the other directors as it clearly states, you are all joint and severally liable. Any claim will be issued against all of the directors, perhaps the threat of this will make them pay up.

 

Good Luck

 

Debbie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Debbie

 

Thanks for responding.

 

Yes it is a Limited company, I did sign as a Director and the wording under the Guarantee section is as follows:

 

"In consideration of your agreeing to supply goods to the applicant company on credit, we the undersigned being owner/director/directors of the applicant company jointly and severally guarantee payment of all the financial obligations.... etc etc"

 

I did leave the company as per companies house last year before the company ceased trading in the past few weeks and no they are just sending out letters headed "Personal Guarantees" which is rather odd as per above the word "personal" is not used?

 

Chris

 

 

Hi,

 

How many directors actually signed it? Was it just you?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no sign of that Stat Demand then fourby?

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

No but I have responed with a detailed earnings and expenditure to agree some sort of payment plan or settlement figure

 

So you are accepting that you are liable?

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally would not make any offer or payment until a SD landed.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the SD lands ( which I have reservations it ever will as SD,s should not be used as a debt collection tool when there is an obvious dispute on the debt) I would then set a side and form a defence on the basis that there are existing directors (parties) involved which are jointly liable and that the company continued to trade after your departure.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
Hi give a contact email address some we can take this off line

 

Hello there.

 

Please don't ask for email details; these should not be given out online, for everyone's security.

 

Please keep all discussions on the thread.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be grateful to hear how things were concluded with TP as we are awaiting a claim against a personal guarantor for around £8k signed back in 2007 apparently. Once we receive a copy of the document signed i guess we will be in a better position to know what version of form from TP was signed and how that may affect the approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...