Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   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;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

Admirial insurance auto renewing despite being told not to. Taking payments without consent.


Adie1974
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3882 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 an issue with Admirial insurance.

 

I bought another car about 2 months or so prior to my insurance expiring and paid the transfer / admin fee of about £20 or there abouts.

 

Their renewal was several hundred more than quotes I received prior to buying the car

 

when paying this transfer fee I specifically stated not to auto renew my insurance.

 

The man said he noted this down on the system.

(Their quotes for the new car being around £700 a year, normally paying around £300)

 

I always paid annually.

 

My renewal was mid-September and received an email that my funds did not go through (luckily it was an old card I used for the admin fee)

and emailed them of my previous conversation that I did not want to auto renew.

 

I then received my "confirmation of motor insurance", charging some £1000 more than swift insurance. (£1300)

 

Their renewal is set up now as monthly payments so unsure how that can auto renew and change from annual to monthly, so this is another concern.

 

I have just had another email saying that if I do not pay within 7 days I have committed an offence under the road traffic act and

DEFAULT NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 87 (1) OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974”

Admiral have ignored both telephone calls and emails and threatening with court action should I not pay.

Another issue was that my old car was taken off the road from around Feb 2013 till july 2013

so asked them to place insurance on hold which they failed to do.

What can I do about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have an email address for them ?

 

Either email or write urgently - head your letter / email "Formal Complaint" and pretty much confirm what you have said above.

 

If you have to send a letter, I would send by Special Delivery.

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to follow Admirals official complaint process as shown in their policy booklet. Provide them with details of the alternative cover and of when you phoned them to stop the auto renewal. Admiral should then just lapse the policy, with nothing owed by 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 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

Just to update that they have just taken a payment from my dads card now

 

Get your Dad to ask his bank to reject the payment as unauthorised. You need to make a complaint to Admiral and to go to the FOS if necessary.

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

Just to let you all know payment sorted.

 

At start of call I asked to confirm that all calls (in and out) are recorded then said that I cancelled the auto renew when I changed car.

 

He confirmed he saw it on system as not to auto renew but could not understand why it was auto renewed.

 

HOWEVER

 

Because my dad’s car, originally my car, was on a multicar policy he said the insurance for his car was now £700, shooting from £300,

using it for SDP and for only 3000 miles.

 

This car has been in the family for 12 years and never paid over £350 for it, and that was me using it for business.

 

It was lucky that my dads insurance runs out on 8th Oct so we said not to auto renew and got a quote via go compare whist on phone to him for £250

 

I want to make others aware and I can see the downfall of multi car that if a family member removes a car then existing cars,

with several months to run on insurance, will or may inflate in price with the driver having no or little rights.

 

I also said about my other car then was taken off the road in feb (SORN) and they should of held my insurance until I got another car (JUNE).

 

They said provide evidence of SORN and will get a partial refund J

Link to post
Share on other sites

follow the chargeback and CPA cancellation details below:

 

We have been telling people to put a letter into their bank instructing them not to make any payments under any circumstances to these companie

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/- it works!

 

banks MUST follow written intructions from their customers !

This fsa [now the FCA] 11:24 31/05/2013 guide has now been updated:

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/consumer_...ghts_guide.pdf

 

Here's the text:

 

Cancelling a regular

card payment:

 

When you give your credit or debit card details to a company and authorise them to take regular payments from your account,

such as for a gym membership or magazine subscription,

it is known as a ‘recurring transaction’ or ‘continuous payment authority’.

These are often confused with direct debits, but do not offer the same guarantee if the amount or date of the payment changes.

In most cases, regular payments can be cancelled by telling the company taking the payments.

.

However,

you have the right to cancel them directly with your bank or card issuer by telling it that you have stopped permission for the payments.

Your bank or card issuer must then stop them – it has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments.

Be aware, though, that you will still be responsible for paying any money that you owe.

.

see: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?336569-How-to-remove-a-lender-s-continuous-payment-authority(2-Viewing)-nbsp

.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/product_news/banking/know_your_rights/solving/index.shtml

and

Attach the following to your claim and in the interim period write to your bank and attach the following (Keep a copy)

Regulation 55 of The Payment Services Regulations 2009:

55.—(1) A payment transaction is to be regarded as having been authorised by the payer for the purposes of this Part only if the payer has given its consent to—

(a)the execution of the payment transaction; or .

(b)the execution of a series of payment transactions of which that payment transaction forms part. .

(2) Such consent—

(a)may be given before or, if agreed between the payer and its payment service provider, after the execution of the payment transaction; and .

(b)must be given in the form, and in accordance with the procedure, agreed between the payer and its payment service provider. .

(3) The payer may withdraw its consent to a payment transaction at any time before the point at which the payment order can no longer be revoked under regulation 67.

(4) Subject to regulation 67(3) to (5), the payer may withdraw its consent to the execution of a series of payment transactions at any time with the effect that any future payment transactions are not regarded as authorised for the purposes of this Part.

This means that you can simply ask your bank to refuse the payments, it is also good practice to let the lender know too.

So, if you would like your creditor to stop trying to take a payment all you need to do, in theory, is to inform them that you remove their authority. It's probably better to do this in writing and via recorded delivery - if possible.

You can learn more about your rights via the following fsa guide :

Ending recurring payments from credit cards

57 Recurring payments, is the term used to describe transactions for which a client has granted written permission for her/his credit or debit card to be debited for recurring goods or services, for example, club membership subscriptions, insurance cover or payday loansicon. The card may be debited annually, monthly or at other regular intervals.

.

58 In most cases, recurring payments can be cancelled by telling the trader taking the payments. However, a client has the right to withdraw consent by simply telling whoever issued the card (the bank, building society or credit card company) that s/he does not want a payment to be made. S/he can tell the card issuer by phone, email or letter.

.

59 The card issuer has no right to insist that the client ask the trader to stop taking the payment first. The card issuer has to stop the payments if the client has asked them to. The client could point out to the card issuer that they should follow the FSA guidance available in the FSA know your rightsicon booklet which is available on the FSA website at www.fsa.gov.uk.

.

59a If money is still taken from the client's account, it will be deemed to be an unauthorised transaction, and the card issuer must give her/him an immediate refund. The card issuer will have to cancel any interest and charges added to the her/his account because the payment was taken. It is not up to the client to prove that s/he told the card issuer to stop taking payments. Instead, the card issuer would have to prove that s/he did not tell them to stop making payments.

.

60 The client should make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service when all the internal complaints systems within the company issuing the card have been exhausted.

I hope this information is of assistance

 

New june 2013

 

Regulator orders Banks and mutuals to review complaints about not cancelling recurring payments from November 2009.

Consumers who have set up a regular payment from their account will now be able to successfully cancel that arrangement

by contacting their card provider, the Financial Conduct Authority said.

The FCA has been examining how easy it is for customers to cancel Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs)

due either to payday lendersicon or for other regular payments such as subscriptions or gymicon memberships.

 

CPAs, which are also commonly called recurring transactions or recurring payments,

are relatively easy to set up but can be hard to cancel, causing problems for consumers trying to manage their finances,the FCA said.

 

Now, following the FCA review of how the largest high street banks and mutuals process requests to cancel CPAs, they have agreed that they will ensure that when a customer asks for a recurring payment to end, that will be sufficient to cancel the arrangement. They have also confirmed that should a payment go through by mistake following cancellation by a customer the customer will be refunded immediately.

 

In addition to securing this commitment, the largest banks and mutuals have agreed to review every individual complaint they have received about the non-cancellation of a CPA and to pay redress where payments have continued to be made despite the customer cancelling the arrangement. This applies to all complaints since November 2009 when the Financial Services Authority, the FCA’s predecessor, began regulating banking conduct.

 

Clive Adamson, the FCA’s director of supervision, said: “It’s important that consumers are confident that banks are meeting their everyday banking needs. Today customers can be confident that when they ask for a Continuous Payment Authority to be cancelled – it will be cancelled - and that it can be done easily.

 

“We recognise that historically this is an area where some customers have struggled but the banks and mutuals have responded positively to our work on this issue. From now on we expect them to be getting this right. In addition, they have committed to review past complaints.”

 

http://www.ftadviser.com/2013/06/28/regulation/regulators/fca-banks-have-to-cancel-recurring-payments-if-requested-UxbeHUuYQIy0SEYbGRE4tJ/article.html

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...