Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apologies dx100uk  I did not put the answers in red  Thank you all for your patience. H
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? Overdales solicitors  How many defendant's  joint or self ?  Self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account 4546384809766042. The defendant faild to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. The dbt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim.  It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor?  Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment?  May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
    • what device are you using? copy all the questions then come here to this thread and paste them. then answer each question click on red give answers here. when done  hit submit reply bottom right.  
  • 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

The DVLA. Are they out of order??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3805 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

Does anyone else think it's only a matter of time before DVLA are taken to court for providing personal details to PCN Companies (when so many have been found to operate outside of agreed guidlines) for what amounts to nothing more than a civil matter and not a criminal offence?

 

It happened to the banks so if it is proven to have been wrong, the DVLA had better watch out for all the back claims (and the DVLA will have records of those individuals whos details they have supplied to such companies...won't they?)

 

:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you would think so.. I don't know if you can do a Subject Access Request to the DVLA for your own data ?

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

"Reasonable cause" is the key anybody with reasonable cause can require the DVLA to furnish them with a keepers details. Where it falls over is in a PPC's case being a member of an accredited ATA is enough reasonable cause. Its bad enough when they do a paper request because they simply say the cause is the issue of a charge. If they have access to the electronic link, they just receive the details! The only record the DVLA have of the request is that it was made, not for the reason it was made!

 

When keeper liability first came in the DVLA suspended 5 companies from receiving details for 3 months for issuing false claims on their signs and or paperwork. Since that time they seem to be able to get away with anything.

 

Complain to the DVLA they contact the BPA who then say they are not a regulator, yet have a sanctions system which is very secretive about it.

 

It really does need looking at because as you say certain companies are really overstepping the mark when it comes to these charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, to me, it looks like there's scope for investigation to unearth issues that could to people being able to reclaim any money they may have paid, if not from the PPC from the DVLA.

 

This could be embarrasing and costly for the governement and also lead to other investigations into Personal Data Protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is interesting, esme.. :)

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

"It is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to obtain information under false pretence or to use it for a purpose other than that originally stated."

While i'm no legal expert, this does seem thin ice. If PCC's are sending threatening letters and demands for money, surely this is against the principle on which the data was realeased?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to obtain information under false pretence or to use it for a purpose other than that originally stated."

While i'm no legal expert, this does seem thin ice. If PCC's are sending threatening letters and demands for money, surely this is against the principle on which the data was realeased?

 

Not really they are perfectly entitled to send a "demand" or request for payment for something you owe them. As long as they follow the correct format for requesting payment. The whole problem is the amounts they claim, and the way they go about trying to collect it. I dont think many people would complain if NCP sent a NTK for any due amount ie: the cost of parking which was not paid, £2.50 DVLA fee and say £5 admin, its the £60/70/100 for whatever they have dreamed up they want paying for.

 

I remember the good old days NCP car park you drove in took a ticket, on the way out handed ticket to person in kiosk and they charged you whatever was due. Now stay 10 mins over the paid time and they deem it reasonable to charge you £60/70

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with the concept of paying to park and that the excessive charges are THE problem we want to get rid of. BUT, my point was that when proven to use the data and then NOT to follow guidelines (coersion, extortionate charges etc etc), thats when the DVLA have failed to protect our data and should be culpupal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with the concept of paying to park and that the excessive charges are THE problem we want to get rid of. BUT, my point was that when proven to use the data and then NOT to follow guidelines (coersion, extortionate charges etc etc), thats when the DVLA have failed to protect our data and should be culpupal.

 

 

I wonder if the applicants for this data have the right to pass it on to third parties in their attempts to recover their extortionate charges.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

nice one dw 190, great point. I think we're getting there now

 

 

Quite a lot of advice goes out to send complaints to the dvla about many things.

 

 

I think anyone who has received a letter from a DCA should complain to the DVLA that the information provided by the Agency has been passed to a t/party without the consent of the Data Subject.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where reasonable cause has been demonstrated, information is disclosed on the condition that it will only be used for the requested purpose and that the recipient will protect its confidentiality. It is an offence under Section 55 of the Data Protection Act to obtain information under false pretence or to use it for a purpose other than that originally stated.

 

I wonder if the applicants disclose that they may pass the information on to DCA's

 

 

I have not had the opportunity to make a Subject Access Request to the DVLA but anyone who's data has been passed on to a DCA could make a SAR and see what reasons the applicant has given.

 

 

 

 

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Reasonable cause" is the key anybody with reasonable cause can require the DVLA to furnish them with a keepers details. Where it falls over is in a PPC's case being a member of an accredited ATA is enough reasonable cause. Its bad enough when they do a paper request because they simply say the cause is the issue of a charge. If they have access to the electronic link, they just receive the details! The only record the DVLA have of the request is that it was made, not for the reason it was made!

 

When keeper liability first came in the DVLA suspended 5 companies from receiving details for 3 months for issuing false claims on their signs and or paperwork. Since that time they seem to be able to get away with anything.

 

Complain to the DVLA they contact the BPA who then say they are not a regulator, yet have a sanctions system which is very secretive about it.

 

It really does need looking at because as you say certain companies are really overstepping the mark when it comes to these charges.

 

I agree that this whole issue needs to be looked at in much greater detail, however I was recently made aware of a case in Scotland relating to the lack of ENTRY signage at a Lidl's Supermarket . A number of Parking Charges were issued in the absence of signage and a subsequent compliant was raised through the BPA by the local CAB. Not surprisingly this complaint was rejected on the basis that the BPA do not insist on entry signage in all cases.

 

A further compliant was then raised through the DVLA on the reasonable cause issue, as a consequence the DVLA investigated the matter further and found in favour of the complainer. The outcome was that all charges had to be refunded or cancelled during the period that entry signage was missing and as I understand it the BPA received a slap for failing to investigate the matter properly (Nothing new there then)

 

However to date the company in question have not notified the recipients of cancelation and thefore a further complaint may be required. Nevertheless ther appears to be a glimmer of hope that things are moving in the right direction.

Edited by Crocdoc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding that case in Scotland. Those people who made the payments for those charges need to be refunded. Either through the PCC repaying them (not likely without pressure from those who made the judgement) or by directly chasing up for a refund (IF THEY ARE AWARE THEY ARE DUE ONE).

 

Crocdoc. Any chance you could provide the name of the area so that we can get this info out to those who have paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...