Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
    • If Labour are elected I hope they go after everyone who made huge amounts of money out of this, by loading the company with debt. The sad thing is that some pension schemes, including the universities one, USS, will lose money along with customers.
    • What's the reason for not wanting a smart meter? Personally I'm saving a pile on a tariff only available with one. Today electricity is 17.17p/kWh. If the meter is truly past its certification date the supplier is obliged to replace it. If you refuse to allow this then eventually they'll get warrant and do so by force. Certified life varies between models and generations, some only 10 or 15 years, some older types as long as 40 years or maybe even more. Your meter should have its certified start date marked somewhere so if you doubt the supplier you can look up the certified life and cross check.
    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
  • 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 4134 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 guys,

 

Hope your all good, been a while since I was advising here on CAG (been very busy). My friend got a letter from MMF (I've never dealt with them before) , after sending them a doorstep collection letter and as I have been out of this for a while I thought I would put it up on here to make sure I am still upto speed with current OFT guidelines etc.

 

The debt was with a payday loan company for 350. Anyway MMFhave sent a NOA and then about a million texts and phone calls. Now this letter he received today.

 

Dear Mr xxxxxx

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxxxx regarding your account with us.

 

I understand that you have decided to revoke your doorstep licence.

 

In relation to your revocation of the doorstep licence regarding our intention to send an agent to you home to discuss the debt. I can confirm that we are fully aware of this an we ensure that we fully comply with OFT guidance regarding debt collection and visits by agents. You are not correct I you assertion that under OFT rules, we can only call at your home if you agree to make an appointment. The debt is not reasonably disputed or deadlocked, and we are giving you reasonable notice of he timing of the intended visit.

 

In law a creditor is in a different position to a postman or a member of the public asking directions. When you took this loan, you implied lay agreed that the creditor could communicate with you to discuss repayment. You do not have the contractual right to revoke that agreement until the loan has been repaid. Yet you have frustrated our attempts to discuss the matter with us either by letter or telephone.

 

We will not disregard any reasonable requests you make as to timing or method by which we have those discussions. Unless we hear further from you with such a request we therefore give you notice that our aent will be calling at your home address to discuss repay,ent of this loan.

 

Etc etc etc.

 

What do you guys think ???

My advice is given through personal experience and is given without prejudice

 

 

If I Have helped please feel free to click the star

:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stadard Crapola,

The OFT Gudance is that it is unfair to ignore a debtors reasonable request as to when where and how they are contacted.

 

Write to Neil Petty Director at MMF and tell the above and also mention you are sending a copy of the letter to the OFT.

 

I've done on a few of these MMF letters and they have backed down, your original letter is a little archaic now.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what letter he sent regarding doorstep collections to be honest. And as I guessed things had probably changed since I was regularly posting on CAG I thought I would check.

My advice is given through personal experience and is given without prejudice

 

 

If I Have helped please feel free to click the star

:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what letter he sent regarding doorstep collections to be honest. And as I guessed things had probably changed since I was regularly posting on CAG I thought I would check.

It,s best to keep the letter for this down just to a quote of the OFT Guidance as said in post 2#

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

have moved this to the MMF forum

 

al the info is here for you

 

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

Hi CD, long time no speak, how's the HFO/roxboroug bashing going?

 

I think he said lending stream, but I'll check with him. They sent a NOA dated 11/12/2012 yet sent this letter 10 days later. Obviously previously they were collecting on behalf of the PDL company . I pointed out that as they only owned the debt door 10 days how could they have been frustrated in their attemps to contact him.

 

As they were previously collecting on behalf of the the PRL his responsibility was to them not MMF.

My advice is given through personal experience and is given without prejudice

 

 

If I Have helped please feel free to click the star

:smile:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...