Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • 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.  
  • 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

HFC would I be wasting my time.


ATRO
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3696 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

  • 1 month later...

A bit of advice/help if possible please.

 

I have today received a letter from HFC upholding my complaint, 2 problems however!

 

Firstly they have calculated the amount using an 8% statutory interest rate meaning the amount is a great deal less than it should be.

 

Secondly because it is less than it should be it is less than the charged off amount and they are taking all of it against the monies still owed to HFC bank, they sold this to Aktiv Kapital who were actively chasing it until it was proved to be statute barred, are they within their rights to do this?

 

Do I need to go back to them and tell them to recalculate the interest as this was a running credit account (personal loan plus), and do I have a case for them to be repaying to me or are they well within their rights to keep it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a running credit account you should get back the premiums paid and any contractual interest charged as a result of those premiums. In addition, if the reconstructed account produces a credit balance for any period then you will get 8% simple interest on that credit balance for that period.

 

How was their offer broken down into the individual components?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They broke it down into 67 premium payments at a cost of £2204.56 (19p different to mine but we won't quibble about that) and then 8% interest at £2142.44.

 

I have just tried to ring them but they didn't want to talk about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write and ask them for a full breakdown of how their offer is calculated and ask them why they have appear not to have refunded contractual interest charged as a result of the PPI premiums applied to the account

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think it is worthwhile to just pass it straight on to FOS to deal with? Its one I didn't contemplate winning really so happy enough for it to take as long as it takes?

 

Just wondered why they aren't saying they will give it to the DCA and instead saying they will keep it, bit strange considering there is some activity after it was passed on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were me I would challenge them first ....quicker than going to fos.

 

When they say they will keep it they mean they will set it off against the amount owing. See previous posts on this.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you're saying about setting off, but is the debt still officially theirs? If they sold it on I assume it became the property of the DCA?

 

Just re read your earlier post about setting off, misunderstood it originally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have sold it then no it is not officially theirs.

 

Case law would suggest that they cannot set-off under these circumstances but fos appear to be taking a different view and agreeing that set-off can happen even when a debt has been sold.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange stuff!

 

I wasn't really expecting anything from this so I will just pass it straight to the FOS and make them fully aware with supporting documentation the debt that HFC claim to be owed is somewhat different due to activity since they sold it on, how they could still then find in HFC favour would be interesting.

 

Nothing ventured nothing gained and I assume my "complaint" to FOS would cost HFC a fine?

 

Thanks for all your help thus far!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Firstly, sorry I haven't been around in a while!

 

I sent my complaint to the FOS and received a call from them yesterday. They have spoken with HFC who confirmed to them they sold the debt to Olympia in 2005, they adjudicator I spoke to (nice chap) is awaiting documentation from them to prove this and informed me if this is the case then they can't set off and must refund me. He also told me that he is awaiting their calculations for the figure they came to and whilst he hadn't studied what I claim it should be he confirmed it should be premiums paid, plus contractual interest plus statutory interest.

 

So I've left things in his capable hands and he said he hoped he would have some news for me soon but definitely within 28 days.

 

Fingers crossed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

great news

 

nice about the offsetting too

 

usually they don't get involved or side with the bank

 

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

  • 6 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...