Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Debt collectors chasing 17 year old...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4097 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

I have a friend who has just had a baby, she's 17 and had to have an emergency Caesarian section, next day drugged up and with a premature baby she was approached in the special care section and asked if she wanted some photos.

 

First 'proof' was free and buy any extras, there was no paperwork, but they had her address.

 

A heap of photos have arrived with a bill for about £100.

 

Apart from being stunned that the hospital allow these ambulance chasers in a secure ward (a letter is to be sent to my MP about that)

 

As there was no paperwork and she was only 17, I'm guessing its a 'get lost/prove it' letter?

Andrew

 

Escaped the DCA nightmare, now helping others start businesses

www.ukleakdetection.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. Anybody under 18 cannot usually be held liable for a 'debt' so tell them to do one! Write denying any debt, and that there was no contract or agreement to buy photos.

 

Who is the debt collector out of interest?

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who has just had a baby, she's 17 and had to have an emergency Caesarian section, next day drugged up and with a premature baby she was approached in the special care section and asked if she wanted some photos.

 

First 'proof' was free and buy any extras, there was no paperwork, but they had her address.

 

A heap of photos have arrived with a bill for about £100.

 

Apart from being stunned that the hospital allow these ambulance chasers in a secure ward (a letter is to be sent to my MP about that)

 

As there was no paperwork and she was only 17, I'm guessing its a 'get lost/prove it' letter?

 

She can technically agree to buy items under 18, providing that she understood the cost and how it would work. It is only credit arrangements that you can't enter into until you are 18.

 

Suggest that she sends the photos backs by recorded delivery and explains that she did not agree to buy any photographs. That she is a 17 year old girl, who had just woken, after recovering from a Caesarian section, when the person approached her. Advise them that she will contact the Hospital authorities, Trading Standard and her local MP, if anymore is heard about this.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Suggest that she sends the photos backs by recorded delivery and explains that she did not agree to buy any photographs. That she is a 17 year old girl, who had just woken, after recovering from a Caesarian section, when the person approached her. Advise them that she will contact the Hospital authorities, Trading Standard and her local MP, if anymore is heard about this.

 

She doesn't even have to return them, technically they are unsolicited goods, if they want her to send them back, they should provide a pre-paid label or come and collect them. It does sound like quite the con, actually, so I would also notify the police, because that sounds decidedly shifty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Also onto UncleBs advice on a letter to that company request clarification as to who at that Hospital gave that company authorisation to be on these hospitals premises on a Secured Ward.

 

and at the very end of the letter put:

 

cc: Patient Liasion Dept (Full Hospital Address)

 

 

(Note - Then send the Hospital a copy of that letter with a complaint to the hospital Patient liasion)

 

Try to do both letters and send them at the same time if possible keep everything in writing and always get Proof of Posting.

Edited by stu007

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there no dignity anymore?

 

Not only a formal complaint to the Hospital, your/her local MP, but get this put in the public domain, inform the local press/media, this should never be allowed to happen, sounds like someone is getting a back hander here?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the company who did the photos called Bounty? If so then they are allowed in maternity units as they offer a 'service' to new mums which includes photographs of your newborn and the such like. After I had my son I filled out a form whilst in hospital but declined the photos - Bounty then gave my details out to other companies despite me asking them not too by ticking the relevant box and I had months of unwanted phone calls etc. When I had my daughter the lady from Bounty was told (very strongly) to go away

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the company who did the photos called Bounty? If so then they are allowed in maternity units as they offer a 'service' to new mums which includes photographs of your newborn and the such like.

 

If an NHS Trust has entered into some sort of agreement with such a company, there should be boundaries within which the company should operate. A FOI request would probably be most revealing, as it would also show what the Trust are getting from the deal.Personally I find it morally reprehensible that NHS Trusts should seek to exploit patients by entering into commercial arrangements with such companies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just pointing out that you will find Bounty Representatives on pretty much every maternity ward in the country. I don't know the ins and outs of their agreement with the NHS. I'm also not saying that what they did was right at all - if the girl in question was obviously groggy/dosed up on pain meds so not quite 'all there' at the time then the Bounty Rep in question shouldn't have pushed these photos on her.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Are they the St Ives, Cornwall, TR26 3HU ones by any chance?

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Well have a look at this link: http://www.tempest-babys.co.uk/lemon/index.php

 

This is from there Terms & Conditions:

 

Returns Policy

 

If you are unhappy with the pack of photographs you received, please return these within 14 days. Please use the Original Delivery Box and the postage paid address label provided. Please ensure you get a post office stamp on the return card provided, as your proof of posting. This stamp will not incur any additional cost to you.

If you make a payment for your photographs and decide you are unhappy with your purchase for any reason, return your complete pack of photographs in the original condition within 28 days and we’ll give you a full refund.

 

Please note: Photographs, cards, keepsake folder and packaging must be in the original condition. Please use the Original Delivery Box and the postage paid address label provided. Please ensure you get a post office stamp on the return card provided, as your proof of posting. This stamp will not incur any additional cost to you.

 

Returns Address:

 

Baby’s First Portrait

St Ives

Cornwall

TR26 3HU

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plot thickens as they have no first name on the letters but the original form has a first name printed instead of a signature filled in by the agent.

 

Who in turn used the private patient records to introduce herself!!!!

 

I'll scan the letters....

Andrew

 

Escaped the DCA nightmare, now helping others start businesses

www.ukleakdetection.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I refered to that page only not to do with payment but as it specifically has Baby details on that page with the costs and their terms & conditions for reference thats all.

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...