Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dunno you've not scanned up what you've had before how can we tell?  
    • Today , after a lotof years i recieved a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we havent had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. uP TO 2000 I hadsucessfully gotten deferment on low income. But rarther thansign on as unemployed,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondance ceased from them, circa 2001. To date  I have had no correspondance from Student Loans. I was made  redundant in 2009 and  reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now ,today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
    • But I'm not mixing and matching. Sure, when researching I do check multiple avenues, but when speaking, I will open a single post. The Fb post was made in March, it is now June, time has passed, and when the suggestion was made, no further information was given on how I should progress beyond "send a letter", which has meant that I've needed to start another stream - this one, but only after taking the time to research first.
    • hes not turning you away he is simply saying that you should stick to one channel of advice. he is perfectly happy with that channel being this forum, and he will help you   all he is saying, and I agree, is that you should stick to one help channel, not mix and match 3/4
  • 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

Vehicle Control Services vs HMRC


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4155 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

Perhaps those more versed in law can decide on the legal aspects of the following question;

 

A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer, you then accept the offer by visiting the store and purchasing goods. I assume at that point that there is a contract in place as an offer was made and then accepted. The retailer has not attached any terms and conditions relating to parking on their private land. I would assume that the retailer is now the principle in the agreement or contract.

However while parked on their land you are issued with a "ticket" by the PPC monitoring the parking area for the retailer because you overstayed by 20 minutes while concluding the contract. On entering the parking area although there are numerous signs at the entrance to parking area, you did not read the signs as nothing was mentioned in the offer about parking conditions. By the way how many reasonable people stop and read these signs fully?

As you never read the sign technically you have not agreed to any contract or terms and conditions. Also the PPC is a sub-contractor to the retailer who made the offer and is not a principle in the original contract therefore I would assume that the first contract would over ride the second contract.

Would you be able to use any of the above as part of a defence in case involving parking on private land?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer" An offer of what exactly ?Aadverts just show prices. How (do you believe that) an advert can form a contract ? A merchant can refuse to sell to anyone and the sale contract only happens, if it happens, in the store.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps those more versed in law can decide on the legal aspects of the following question;

 

A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer, you then accept the offer by visiting the store and purchasing goods. I assume at that point that there is a contract in place as an offer was made and then accepted. The retailer has not attached any terms and conditions relating to parking on their private land. I would assume that the retailer is now the principle in the agreement or contract.

However while parked on their land you are issued with a "ticket" by the PPC monitoring the parking area for the retailer because you overstayed by 20 minutes while concluding the contract. On entering the parking area although there are numerous signs at the entrance to parking area, you did not read the signs as nothing was mentioned in the offer about parking conditions. By the way how many reasonable people stop and read these signs fully?

As you never read the sign technically you have not agreed to any contract or terms and conditions. Also the PPC is a sub-contractor to the retailer who made the offer and is not a principle in the original contract therefore I would assume that the first contract would over ride the second contract.

Would you be able to use any of the above as part of a defence in case involving parking on private land?

 

I get exactly what you mean Surfer01, and I would say it could be a good arguing point against the 'highway robbers'.

If you read and understand a 'contract' and agree to be bound by the terms thats fine. But if you don't read a 'contract' and dont even know it existed, how can you have agreed to it???? As you say, the contract is really with the person who is supplying the goods and the land owner from whom you purchased goods from in their store.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A retailer advertises in the local rag making an offer" An offer of what exactly ?Aadverts just show prices. How (do you believe that) an advert can form a contract ? A merchant can refuse to sell to anyone and the sale contract only happens, if it happens, in the store.

 

Surely an advertisement is stating the the retailer is making an offer? They are offering to sell it. From the points you raised how can a PPC believe that you have accepted their contract because you read their sign?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If you get a PPC "ticket" where they use ANPR cameras, surely they need to prove that you parked up for the time in question and then exceeded their limit. Maybe the car park was full when you first went in and it took you 20 minutes to find parking. I guess if it ever went to court, this would be another defence to make them look foolish. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their calibration certificates are normally registered already. dont count on using that as a defence.

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

Interesting point. Not the Credit Licence but the legitimacy of being a Creditor.

 

If PPC speculative invoices are not prima facie enforceable debts, the recipient cannot be a Creditor - therefore the FoI Act does not apply ?

 

If so - yet another distortion of the Law by PPCs claiming otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you pay for the parking you normally have to pay cash. When they send you demands they ask for cash. The moment you do not pay they are extending a loan to you to pay their silly charges after 28 days. A council or the police are not known as creditors, but a PPC is referred to as a creditor?

 

Have a read through this and decide whether a PPC is a creditor or not. If not then they cannot use Protection of Freedom Act. If not it seems they need a credit licence as per this article which states the following;

 

Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 most businesses that provide goods and services on credit or for hire, lend money or provide debt collecting, debt counselling or debt adjusting services to consumers need to have a credit licence.

Trading in credit activities without a credit licence is a criminal offence, for more information see penalties and requirements.

 

I goes on to say;

If your business sells goods or services on credit, offers goods for hire or provides debt counselling or debt adjusting services to consumers, you almost certainly need to be licensed by the OFT. Surely the 28 days grace before chasing up an "invoice" or is offering credit? As the PPC state you entered into a contract and you have 28 dasy to pay, that is extending credit?

Engaging in licensable credit activities without a credit licence is a criminal offence, and can result in a fine and/or imprisonment. Businesses cannot normally legally enforce a credit agreement if they are not licensed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't damages associated with trespass rather than a parking charge? How can they claim damages because you never paid the £1? As they are not the LL or the leaseholder of the land how can they claim damages? They have permission from the landowner to control parking, but do they have permission from the LL to claim damages on behalf of the LL and keep the damages paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me just repeat what was said in court. [not verbatim] and I've just rounded up the sums to make it easier.

 

So your charge is £100 or if paid within 14 days £50. Which one is the true estimate of damages? If it's the £100 then why are you willing to make a loss and accept £50?

If the true estimate is £50 then why are you adding on £50 as that can't then be a true estimate of losses. They are penalty charges and case dismissed.

 

I'll dig out the transcript of this case and add it to my signature later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

to bring it back to the question, Dublindel's answer is what you need to know. To add to that, the PPC may very well claim they are in better financial shape than they really are by claiming that all the unpaid invoices are "debts" and persuade banks to lend them money on the back of it.

If you buy something online, you become a creditor of that store until your goods arrive. If you buy HMV gift vouchers you soon realise you are an unsecured creditor as the banks are secured creditors and thus first in line on the dissolution of the company and you are likely to get nothing.

If you are loaning money, to make an enforceable contract that involves charges or interest you have to be a licensed credit broker which is authorised by the FSA. Banks, insurance companies, Furniturland and other shops that let you have stuff on tick all have to register or get a good kicking from the regulator. Now, your PPC is in a strange position here because without a FSA licence cannot charge interest or most kind of fees upon its charges as they are supposedly losses which are recoverable but the courts dont seem to have picked up on that one, presumably because when it gets to court they lose on other matters anyway so the questions havent been asked of a judge. I would like to see that question asked one day, though not as an alternative to all the other ways they get it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the damages argument.

 

Damages are not taxable in the hands of the recipient as they don't represent a gain - just restoring the position to as before the event giving cause.

 

However, HMRC appeals tribunals/courts have said PPC receipts from these sources should include VAT that has to be accounted for. That must deem the monies as a trading receipt, albeit perhaps voluntarily given, and not damages?

 

A real can of worms!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...