Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

PPC Successes (No Questions please)


Recommended Posts

ParkingEYE notice received for car park offering £10 per day parking** WON. PE didn't contest**

 

"Regency Car Park" in Swiss Cottage.*

 

I have successfully appealed against this*parking charge*at POPLA stage.parking eye*didn't even contest the appeal. Thanks everybody for guiding me through the initial stages. I never established a connection between Park-Here, Parking-Here, Regency Car Park, so only referred to them as another agent, and pointed out the confusion in my last appeal point. Everything else is pretty standard.*

 

1. No Keeper Liability

2. Ambiguous, inadequate and non-compliant signage Signage

3. No standing or authority to pursue charges, nor form contracts with drivers!

4. The Charge is not a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

5. Inadequate accuracy of ANPR camera!

6. Existence of two agents, two contradicting contracts, two different tariff rates and two different 'penalties' on one site.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?459128-ParkingEYE-notice-received-for-car-park-offering-%A310-per-day-parking**-WON.-PE-didn-t-contest**

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The photographs supplied of the signs are not clearly visible*

therefore it is fair to assume that the appellant would not have been able to determine

the terms and conditions at the site.*

 

 

The operator provided a copy of what the signage says,*

but this is not sufficient for me to determine that this is what the signs at the site say.*

 

 

Section 18 of the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice with particular reference to Section 18.3 states

“signs must be conspicuous and legible and written in intelligible language so that they are easy to read and understand”.

 

 

Based on the evidence provided it is not in compliance with the BPA Code of Practice,*

the burden of proof is on the operator to ensure that it gives sufficient, clear and concise evidence*

however, based on the information submitted it is not sufficient to determine.*

 

 

I am not satisfied that the operator has provided sufficient evidence of the signage at the site*

and as such I conclude that the PCN was issued incorrectly.*

Accordingly this appeal should be allowed.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456710-Park-Direct-UK-left-a-ticket-for-driver-displaying-blue-badge-**-APPEAL-WON-AT-POPLA-**

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking Eye - Holiday Inn

 

Had a meeting in the hotel and did not realise that it is now a pay car park. I was running a bit late so did not pay a lot of attention to the signs but will be back over the weekend to get the photos.

 

I have contacted the hotel who said that they would look into it as we spent over the minimum spend to get the parking for free however it was the people I met that paid.*

 

Cancelled by the principal.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?460611-Parking-Eye-Holiday-Inn

Link to post
Share on other sites

DecisionSuccessful

Assessor NameSamuel Connop

Assessor summary of operator case

The operator’s case is that the appellant had not paid for his time at the site.

 

Assessor summary of your case

The appellant’s case is that the lighting for the signage was insufficient, the small print is difficult to read, over grown plant obscured the signage, no illumination for the screen and pad and has questioned the landowner authority.

Assessor supporting rational for decision

While the appellant has raised more than one ground for appeal, my report will focus solely on land owner authority, as this supersedes the other aspects of the appeal. “Section 7 of the British Parking Association (BPA) code of practice requires Operators to own the land or to have written authority from the landowner to operate on the land.” As the Operator has failed to provide any sufficient evidence in response to this ground of appeal, it has failed to prove that it has the required authority to operate on the land in question. As such I have no requirements to take into consideration other points made by the appellant.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?457304-Is-it-worth-the-POPLA-appeal-Parking-Eye-2X-PCN-s-**WON-BOTH**

Link to post
Share on other sites

My son sold his car to a friend last April (14) and

 

 

received a couple of*parking eye*letters that he passed on to his friend for an alleged offence that took place in December 14.

 

 

He then wrote to DVLA saying he didn't think they had received the transfer notice.*

This was acknowledged by DVLA but only in February this year.

 

Today (18/3/15) my son received the attached Claim from*parking eye*= £ 175.00.*

 

 

My son's not responded to the letters he's just passed them on,

any advice on how he should proceed would be much appreciated.

 

 

 

 

Finally, it went to court - they didn't turn up, they sent a letter the next day saying we had settled and they were dropping the case - news to me, didn't pay a penny apart from the*contribution*o this site - good job guys, and thanks again..

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?443030-Parking-Eye-Claim-Form-Received-help-please!-**-WON-**

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 8 months later...
  • Haha 1

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Haha 1

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

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...
  • 4 months later...
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...