Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Margot the Snail
      friends paying a DCa on a loan subject to ID theft? - Help!

      By Margot the Snail · Posted

      Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • grumpy59
      eBay parcel worth £265, booked via Parcel 2 Go, 'lost' by Evri

      By grumpy59 · Posted

      That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • dx100uk
      MFC The Sofa Store - New sofa + chairs not what expected - Refund possible?

      By dx100uk · Posted

      it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • honeybee13
      The sub-postmasters scandal

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
    • BankFodder
      eBay parcel worth £265, booked via Parcel 2 Go, 'lost' by Evri

      By BankFodder · Posted

      Frankly I think you should go to a hearing unless you feel especially nervous . If you have any worries then you should follow our link to find out about a county court familiarisation visit     You shouldn't forget that county Court judgements are very helpful but they are not binding. They are only persuasive.  It is difficult to see you losing but it might be better to be there in order to counter any arguments from the other side

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Freeedoms Bill - A lot of questions answered here.

diskmandave
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4040 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

MARTIN3030

MARTIN3030

Posted
Posted

But remember...........this is from the BPA !

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
diskmandave

diskmandave

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, but like Martin rightly pointed out, this from the BPA.

 

I might have to go out and test the water on a few issues, which I'll update here..

 

I'm good thank you, I've not been anywhere, just not as prominent these days, and

no battles to fight like in the good old days, hope you're ok too! :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Zonker

Zonker

Posted
Posted

How will the Independant Appeals Service differentiate when a Notice to Keeper is issued to a driver in Scotland where the Freedoms Act wiil not apply?

 

Each operator will be required to have processes in place to differentiate the origin of the parking ticket. If a Notice to Keeper is issued to a driver under the terms of PoFA, it will not be lawful. However that driver will also not have the privilege of using the independent appeals service.

 

I like the words in bold, shame i wont be able to use the independant appeals for an unlawful notice to keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
Mikes1992

Mikes1992

Posted
Posted
the freedoms bill sounds scary saying that keepers can be chased for charges that is so unfair! has anyone got any experience on this issue? i have been sent an £85 charge for parking in morrisons in stratford

 

Can they really chase the Keeper though? They have no proof the keeper ever entered a contract and the contract which was agreed to by an unknown entity should have no power over any 3rd party to whome never agreed to the implied contract. Is this right? Surely they can't use the freedoms act to unwilfully force you into a CONtract?

Link to post
Share on other sites
paulmunim

paulmunim

Posted
Posted

Sorry Mike but I did some serious reading up and I think they can chase the registered keeper to pay. The problem is that when this bill was being debated no one realised this very important law was slipped in. The problem with enforcing parking was always that they had to prove who was driving at the time but now all they have to do is show the car was there and then it is up to the registered keeper to say who was driving at the time. If they do not say who was driving their car then the registered keeper is liable. I hope someone else can say something different because this now means we cannot ignore parking charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikes1992

Mikes1992

Posted
Posted

(assuming the driver isn't the keeper) Even if they know who the driver is and he refuses to pay, they can still charge the keeper after 28 days... this also means if you rent a car and get a parking ticket, which the company pass onto you and you refuse to pay the hire cars owners will be charged, and if the hire company just pays they have valid legal reasons to claim the money off you.

 

If that's true I may start my own car hire company, then stalk the hirer until he/she parks and give them a £1000 ticket and if they refuse to pay after 28 days. After paying the money into my own account, Say that I the hire company paid for the ticket and you have a solid signed and dated contract to hold the hirer responsible for the damages. This really shouldn't exsist :S

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Browne

Michael Browne

Posted
Posted
(assuming the driver isn't the keeper) Even if they know who the driver is and he refuses to pay, they can still charge the keeper after 28 days...

 

No, once the PPC has been informed of the name and address of the driver, the RK has no further liability and the PPC can then only chase the named driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikes1992

Mikes1992

Posted
Posted

I found something in the POFA, it says that

Conditions that must be met for purposes of paragraph 4 (claiming unpaid charges from the keeper)

( Paragraph 5) (1) The first condition is that the creditor—

(a)has the right to enforce against the driver of the vehicle the requirement to pay the unpaid parking charges; but

(b)is unable to take steps to enforce that requirement against the driver because the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver.

 

So as I read that it's more or less stating that they must have the legal authority (which basically means a judgement in court) to ENFORCE the charges onto the driver before holding the keeper responsible for the charges right?

After 28 days however section 1b ceases to apply, but they would still need a court case to enforce this charge (If you never named the driver and/or never turned up to court they could win by default, I assume?).

 

I assume that's what it means, Unless somewhere in the document they have something to invalidate that as well, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael Browne

Michael Browne

Posted
Posted

So as I read that it's more or less stating that they must have the legal authority (which basically means a judgement in court) to ENFORCE the charges onto the driver before holding the keeper responsible for the charges right?

 

Wrong, If they know the name and address of the driver, the RK no longer has any liability and the PPC can only chase/issue a court claim to that named driver They can only chase/ issue a court claim to the RK where either the RK admits to being the driver or refuses to give name and address of the driver.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
lgwarren

lgwarren

Posted
Posted

Here is an interesting question.

 

Bailiff clamps a car that does not belong to a debtor.

It is on a private drive.

the car has no parking tickets issued against it.

the owner is not a debtor of any kind. (debt is someone elses)

Did he have "legal authority" to clamp.

If not, is he in breach of POFA (54)

 

I would be interested to hear your views.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Liverpool way

Liverpool way

Posted
Posted
the link on BPA's site has been removed - what a shame as I hoped to read it.... perhaps they're looking for another vague law to use instead :razz:

 

Ooooo, couldnt help posting to you....I am rather sad, in that private parking issues have become my hobby!

What I would like to point out is that the BPA is made up by the very companies that send you these invoices...and that is all they are!

 

For instance, I know for sure that Roxburghe's managing director is on the BPA board.....His name is Gary Osner, and he turned up at my partners court case( which they lost), and claimed he was the driver!!!! Ha ha ha ...still laughing about it now.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
renegadeimp

renegadeimp

Posted
Posted
Ooooo, couldnt help posting to you....I am rather sad, in that private parking issues have become my hobby!

What I would like to point out is that the BPA is made up by the very companies that send you these invoices...and that is all they are!

 

For instance, I know for sure that Roxburghe's managing director is on the BPA board.....His name is Gary Osner, and he turned up at my partners court case( which they lost), and claimed he was the driver!!!! Ha ha ha ...still laughing about it now.....

 

Any chance you could give more info on that?

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
  • 2 weeks later...
Big Bill

Big Bill

Posted
Posted

Has any one else noted that the Protection of freedoms Act that came into force in October 2012 also amended the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

 

It expanded the definition of road (highway maintained at public expense) to include "or other land".

 

The Secretary of State for Transport ( DVLA) can then by regulation (SI introduced by the DVLA) delegate the powers of the local council to the parking management companies of the BPA.

 

That will mean that a single MP ( Mike Penning ?) will have the power to reverse the Protection of Freedoms Act and legalize the the clamping and towing away from private land.The Rogue Clampers will then be legalized.

 

Keep checking the Draft SI's to see when that happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Bill

Big Bill

Posted
Posted (edited)

The Registered Keeper is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle and very few Keepers can actually prove that they own the vehicle. The registered keeper does not necessarily need a driving license so making your aged aunt who is registered blind the registered keeper solves a lot of problems.

The vehicle owner (who is not registered by the DVLA and cannot be located by the DVLA) can permit any licensed driver who has his own "Any other vehicle" insurance policy to drive that vehicle without the knowledge of the registered keeper. Thus limiting the powers of the BPA to practically nil.

 

Unless of course the DVLA extend another SI to those Rogue Clampers and that states " References to the owner are to the person who is the keeper of the vehicle at that time"

 

In recording a date, time and place of all vehicles, is the parking management company actually invading the privacy of the drivers of the other cars, not the ones who overstay, which might make the ANPR cameras unlawful .

 

Food for thought?

Edited by Big Bill
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
Scouse Magic

Scouse Magic

Posted
Posted
Sorry Mike but I did some serious reading up and I think they can chase the registered keeper to pay. The problem is that when this bill was being debated no one realised this very important law was slipped in. The problem with enforcing parking was always that they had to prove who was driving at the time but now all they have to do is show the car was there and then it is up to the registered keeper to say who was driving at the time. If they do not say who was driving their car then the registered keeper is liable. I hope someone else can say something different because this now means we cannot ignore parking charges.

 

I had a invoice from TCP asking for £70 under the new bill for an alleged contravention in asda (Free fo 3 Hours) It was night time, left the car running in a disabled bay while using the ATM, no one else about, didnt even get a PCN. I argued that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner.

 

Result..... Appology from TCP

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dan6470

Dan6470

Posted
Posted (edited)

I also was issued with a parking fine (*) from Smart Parking Ltd, for parking in a disabled space at my local Sainsbury's, I know its wrong but at least 10 spaces were empty and I was in a hurry to collect a prescription from the pharmacy. I accept, not a very good excuse but it's done now and I have a £60.00 fine, reduced to £30.00 if I pay within two weeks. I don't particularly want to pay this, even though I accept I was in error but how does the fine work since there was no loss of income because it's free parking for 2hrs and I was only there for a few minutes, also at least 10 of the twelve disabled bays were empty, well 9 after I parked. Can I argue anything here?

 

Further I do not understand the above argument:

"that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner"!

Thanks

 

(*) Just checked my ticket, it is called a Parking Charge Notice and referred to as a PCN on the parking ticket.

Edited by Dan6470
extra details
Link to post
Share on other sites
renegadeimp

renegadeimp

Posted
Posted
I also was issued with a parking fine (*) from Smart Parking Ltd, for parking in a disabled space at my local Sainsbury's, I know its wrong but at least 10 spaces were empty and I was in a hurry to collect a prescription from the pharmacy. I accept, not a very good excuse but it's done now and I have a £60.00 fine, reduced to £30.00 if I pay within two weeks. I don't particularly want to pay this, even though I accept I was in error but how does the fine work since there was no loss of income because it's free parking for 2hrs and I was only there for a few minutes, also at least 10 of the twelve disabled bays were empty, well 9 after I parked. Can I argue anything here?

 

Further I do not understand the above argument:

"that TCP did not own the land and had no legal right to enter into a contract with a land user on behalf of the land owner"!

Thanks

 

(*) Just checked my ticket, it is called a Parking Charge Notice and referred to as a PCN on the parking ticket.

 

Mouse over the word IGNORE in this reply and follow the info

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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4040 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...