Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4285 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

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?360613-Website-Announcement-from-Moneylender-Ltd

 

Sure is good news, but it gets you thinking about whats happening behind the scenes.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

True, however I also think its a sign of what's happening in this market. Whilst I don't agree with a lot of what some of these companies do, this is also a clear sign of the amount of people taking these loans out and simply not paying them back, forcing these businesses to close.

 

Just reading on here there are too many people who take out these loans then conveniently lose their jobs the day after (or similar) when the truth is they just dont want to pay the loan back or pay it in one lump sum so look for a way out or to split the payment over several months.

 

I can't help but think that's sometimes it's people like this that drives the industry to be the way it is? I think the culture of the borrower needs to change also, you can't borrow money and simply not expect to pay it back and expect a 12 month payment plan on a £100 loan.

 

From what I know of the industry, lenders really have tightened their criteria for borrowers now and these loans are going to be increasingly less available for people with bad credit over the next few months.

 

That said, some of the unscrupulous lenders out there give a bad name to the industry and should be shut down immediately.

 

Just a thought that's all, I guess it's a double edged sword.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rip off merchants - why are they able to trade under licence, then so called investigations into back street traders with high interest rates, who has their hand in the merchants pockets = Banks?????? I wonder.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robinghood, agreed, you make SOME good points.

 

I'm sure in many cases it's far from "convenient" the borrower losing their job and not being able to pay.

 

All boils down to the 'can't pays' and the 'won't pays'.

 

This Market targets those with poor credit history, they loan people that can't get loans from the high street. They must know the risks associated with this.

 

I for one am happy that this payday lender has ceased trading. I have had no dealing with this particular company but unfortunately have had dealings with a few others.

 

I never took out any of my loans and conveniently lost my job the next day... Maybe I'm one of the lucky ones? I did however get into financial difficulty (after paying rollover/extension charges for many months - all of them more than covering the original loan amount, some, many times over).

 

Read round the forums here. A lot of us had our Hour of need and could have done with a little breathing space from these companies. I won't deny, we all knew what we were signing up to when we took out the loans... Things happen, things change.

 

If they ALL go bust - good. You won't find many stories on these forums with payday loans having a happy ending.

It never rains but it pours...

Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely make some interesting points RHood about people's true intentions when taking out these loans and have always echoed that they are businesses at the end of the day. I will openly admit that I resorted to taking out loans to fund a gambling addiction that I developed due to becoming depressed because of a chronic illness. However, I did have every intention of paying them back on time which I initially did but at a cost of rolling them over or repaying and immediately taking out new ones. This went on a few months until my health gradually improved and I kicked the gambling and decided to face up to the debt that I had got myself in.

 

I found these forums and they were of great help in informing me about the default process and how to set up repayment plans. I'm back in control of my finances and will not shy away from the responsibility that I have in repaying these loans off efficiently (3 in total - two defaulted and one ongoing) - on the basis of loan and one months interest. Any additional extortionate charges added should of course be disputed because this is one thing that these companies shouldn't be doing. Going back to the first point though, I do think some people want to try and shy away or play the naive victim when it all catches up on them - normally because they have buried their head in the sand and have not dealt with the situation by showing willingness to communicate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong guys I am not at all saying everyone takes out these loans and makes up stories about why they can't pay them, I appreciate that at times people do genuinely fall into hardship.

 

However I just feel that perhaps the "won't pay" category outweighs the "can't pay" which then pushes the industry to start using desperate measures just to get some money back.

 

I have been a reader on here for a long time and know all about the difficulties in dealing with these companies. Thankfully like you I've turned things around for the better and I hope to be able to share some of my experience on here. I just wanted to offer a different opinion as opposed to the same advice which is generally repeated over and over on these forums.

 

Undoubtably there is some excellent advice being given out from the regular posters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...