Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Problems with MBNA - Deceased mothers credit card debt


muldy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3920 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 CaggersPls accept apologies if i have posted this in the wrong thread...Need some advice/pick someones brain or both !!I am currently sorting out the last of my mums debts after she passed away in December 2012.(I am one of 3 executors)I have successfully had all her other debts written off except one....guess who??Yes...MBNA.They are sticking their heels in...and I have already written to them twice to advs that there arent any funds/monies available in any of her accounts. I have also supplied a copy of her last bank statement to prove this.I sent exactly the same letter to all debtors and they are the only one kicking up a a fuss...I have now had another letter saying they would accept xxx amount times xxx payments....I have read up on the web about how to deal with o/s debts relating to deceased persons and as I understand it the creditors (including CC companies) cant ask the deceased persons immediate relatives for monies to personally pay off the debts...Can someone tell me if this is correct or not?? The info on the web says that we arent personally liable. Also please note that Barclays very promplty WROTE OFF my mums debt with them without so much as a "can we have proof??" and that debt was in excess of £6000 !!So we were pleased with that outcomeI am also v tempted to ask MBNA to prove the debt is owed as they have started beiing difficult. They didnt even reply to my statement that we werent liable to pay her debt.Answers on a postcard pls !!Having read with disgust how bad MBNA and the way they treat customers whether exisiting or not it doesnt surprise me in the least....

Edited by muldy
Link to post
Share on other sites

bugger all they can do

 

shes dead

gone

 

debt goes with her if there is no money in her assets/estate.

 

suggest you tell mbna this one last time

 

and forget about them

 

there cant exactly take her to court!!

 

send them the address of the graveyard too

just incase they are that stupid!!

 

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

If theres no money left after paying for the funeral, any secure creditors and priority debts (gas, elec etc), its tough they have no legal choice but to write it off. Send them a letter of complaint, they have 8 weeks to respond. After this time complain to FOS making sure youy ask for compensation for harassment. Companies like this depend on executors/relatives ignorance of the law to make them pay up. If they took this to court (which they wouldnt), they would be laughed at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, once the house is sold you are obliged to pay this debt from the proceedings. Its possible theyv'e carried out a Land Registry search and realised that there entitled to a share (as long as theres equity in the house. If theres not enough equity, you will not be liable for the shortfall). Im suprised that the other credit card companies have written off the debts. If you have not advised them of the property, as an executor, if they find out, you could be in big trouble for not fullfilling your dutities as an executor. All debtors are entitled to payment if theres enough money in the estate. This would be considered to be fraudulent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an 'estate' with assets so the debt must be paid from the sale of the assets.

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

As for the other debts that have been written off presumably on the understanding there is no money in the estate, I would seriously think about admitting your mistake. If you distribute the proceeds of the sale to the beneficiaries and they found out, it is the executors who will be liable for the debts. You could also finish up in court for the criminal offence of fraud. Unless of course you told them about the house and they still agreed to write the debt off, which I find highly unlikely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...