Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

ccj from hegarty and welcome financial


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3762 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

Not particularly but must be raised that there is false reporting to the CRAs and inaccurate data being placed/ removed...it does not effect the debt only the default marker.

 

Should be showing on your Credit File until 2014...wonder what they are up to....I have seen other posters stating the same.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

researching this now andy.

 

 

it seems like welcome

[or I'm being told IND, whom now have control of all welcome 'live' accounts]

are removing them from everyones CRA file.

 

 

they appear to have taken administration control from welcome as part of the on going closedown of welcome

 

 

I am being 'led' to believe that its to do with 'a significant number of complaints'

concerning how welcome staff over a number of years were routinely told to

'fill out' & sign new agreements on behalf of customers when they had payment problems.

rather than restructuring the old loans.

 

 

an investigation into 10,000's of welcome accounts has confirmed what we on CAG ofcourse,

in numerous threads here already knew about.

 

 

it has also got something to do with the FSCS and them doing welcomes PPI reclaims

where this evidence may have come from.

 

 

wont know more till atleast Thursday.

 

 

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

Right you are DX thanks for that...bit more knowledge for you Michael.:wink:

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi andy

 

I have just been going through the paperwork again preparing for court

I sent the s.79 request on 5th august they received it on the 6th august in which I received the agreement of account and also terms and conditions

I did not receive the statement until the Thursday or Friday 22/23rd august from their letter dated the 21st august

am I right in thinking that they have missed the 12 working day deadline set by the oft

hence making the debt unenforceable ?

 

kind regards

 

many thanks for your help so far

 

michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hi dx

 

 

thanks for help so far

 

 

do you have any more information on what is happening to welcome as in regards

to removing all the reports from peoples cra

and also its been 3 weeks since I got a letter from Northampton saying it was being transferred to my local court . I still haven't heard any thing yet from my local court . how long does it normally take ?

 

kind regards

 

 

 

 

michael

Edited by michaellast
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy

 

Am I correct in believing that proceeds from the auction of the car do not count as payment by myself ?

The only reason I ask is that I received a sar back from Ind and in the email logs between Ind and wf they say it counts as payment and therefore debt is not s.b

 

Regards

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy

 

Am I correct in believing that proceeds from the auction of the car do not count as payment by myself ?

The only reason I ask is that I received a sar back from Ind and in the email logs between Ind and wf they say it counts as payment and therefore debt is not s.b

 

Regards

 

Michael

 

 

Correct Michael...yes its a credit but not from you...its their asset

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Andy

 

Many thanks for confirming that for me

Can I use email logs between the company's in court ?

 

I still haven't heard anything from my local court its been 3 1/2 weeks now

How long does it normally take for the judge to contact

 

 

Regards

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since what ? submitted your DQ?

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they are probably waiting for the claimants DQ before you will receive Notice of Allocation....the longer the better for you

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hi dx

 

 

I have just received a sar back from welcome

 

 

should it include proof of payments made ?

 

 

because all it has is activities, comments reports, some dodgy default notice with a different date from anything else even mentioned and repo letters and that's it

 

 

kind regards

 

 

michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

proof of payments? what do you mean?

 

you mean the statements

 

that sounds ok

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

right so now you can check your last payment/

 

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 andy

 

 

quick question

 

 

can I use emails between ind ltd and welcome as evidence in my witness statement

 

 

because I have 3 separate pieces of paperwork all from s.a.r confirming that my payment received on account that they have proof for is 04/05/2007

 

 

and also the sale of goods which you have already explained is their asset and not a payment by myself

 

 

 

 

thanks for all your help so far

 

 

kind regards

 

 

michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes as long as you disclose them on your list when it comes to standard disclosure.

 

Regards

 

andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi andy

 

 

im just writing my witness statement now and wondered if you could help

am I right in understanding that if a creditor did not issue a default notice for the default date the debt is unenforceable under section 127 and section 111 of the consumer credit act 1974 ?

 

 

just wanted to make sure I understand section 127 and 111 correctly

 

 

 

 

kind regards

 

 

 

 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Default notices, litigation and section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act

 

July 2010

 

For a creditor to enforce a credit agreement against the debtor, he must serve the latter with a default notice, this notice must be served in accordance with section 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

Generally, the prescribed form of a default notice according section 88 is as follows:

 

"The default notice must be in the prescribed form and specify

 

(a) the nature of the alleged breach;

(b) if the breach is capable of remedy, what action is required to remedy it and the date before which that action is to be taken;

© if the breach is not capable of remedy, the sum (if any) required to be paid as compensation for the breach, and the date before which it is to be paid."

 

Section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Should the debtor be sued for the outstanding amount, it may be open to the debtor to raise an argument that the agreement is unenforceable because it does not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations.

 

Agreements executed before 6 April 2007 are subject to sections 127 (3) & (4) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'). Agreements entered into after that date are not by operation of the repeal under the Consumer Credit Act 2006.

 

The effect of sections 127 (3) & (4) truly displays the paternalistic nature of the CCA, in that where a breach of a prescribed term under regulation 6 and schedule 6 to the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 is found, the agreement as a whole will be irredeemably unenforceable.

 

In other words, the lender cannot enforce the agreement or realise any surety under that agreement; the debt in effect is written off.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...