Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (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 fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3707 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

Ok..here I go.

On 22th of December I made the single most stupid thing in my life. I tried to steal about 70 pounds of stuff from a B&Q store. They were mostly bits and drills,small things.. Only I and God knows how I felt and still feel after that event..so I won't try to justify myself. Instead I'm asking for some advices.

Long story short: got caught,taken in a room,police were called,given a fixed penalty notice of 100pounds (which I paid),details taken,banned and told to await a call from a Civil Recovery company withing a week or two. The security guy told me 100 times how important is to answer the call and pay the fine,otherwise I would be taken to court immediatly.

I've been ever since awaiting for that call,to answer and pay for my shameful act so that I can sleep better. I have not received any calls or letter to this day,only a mysterious "private number" call which I missed this morning,a call that I'm inclined to believe it was from them.

I stated to the manager and the security guy that I would pay five times that amount,only because I was so ashamed of myself and I wanted to do the right thing. I almost begged that they accept 350 pounds right there on the spot.

I even intend to pay this civil recovery fine,but I'm not so sure

Can you guys provide me with some advices/replies,please?

What's the worst that can happen now? Will I get a criminal record or something like that?

When I do receive a call or letter,what should I do?

Edited by BadDecision
Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT PAY THE CIVIL RECOVERY BUSINESS.

 

 

It is NOT a fine in any sense of the word. The police have already dealt with you, its over, done. The civil recovery business is basically a huge con to extort money out of you. If you pay, you are legitimising their borderline illegal business practice.

 

The civil recovery cannot do ANYTHING to you regarding a criminal record. Only the police and courts can. They cant say anything to pursuade the police or courts, because frankly, it has got nothing to do with them.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG

 

Here you will not be judged as you have done that yourself.

 

You received a fixed penalty from the plod. Now I cannot say whether this stays on any police record or not. Others will have to say.

 

As for the CIVIL claim, whichever company contacts you, they are after profit. Nothing to do with crime prevention.

 

Even if they did take you to court (highly unlikely) it is not a criminal case and no conviction will result if you lost.

 

I would now wait and see what appears through the post before your next step. IF they try phoning, just say 'In Writing' and hang up.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was the Police who gave you the FPN and you paid it then that is the end of the matter.

 

You will not be judged on this site. If the above is correct you have been dealt with by the police and paid the penalty.

 

You won't get a criminal record as this has been dealt with as a civil matter.

 

The Civil Recovery people may try and get you to pay them some money but you really should not be parting with anything to them. They have no power to take you to court, only the retailer can do that and as I have said this has already been dealt with via a Fixed Penalty.

 

You may receive threats and intimidation from the Civil Recovery people but do not give in to them.

 

Have you read some of the other threads here about Civil Recovery? If not you would be wise to do so as there is a wealth of information which you will find useful and perhaps interesting.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the security guy told me he's got me on CCTV and will send the footage to a Civil Recovery Company,which therefore will be used in a court in case I won't pay the fine.

Thank you for your understanding. It's really a heart lifting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have already paid the fine which was issued by the police.

 

Only the retailer can issue against you which is extremely unlikely.

 

Of course the security guy would tell you that....he works for the Civil Recovery company.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like this security guard is on commission.

 

It doesn't matter that they have CCTV. The police have dealt with it.

 

Make no mistake, they will try everything to get you to cough up but please read around the forum and see what happened in other cases.

 

If you really want to investigate more, go on the RLP website and see when they last (read that as retailer) took anyone to court.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a civil matter. There will not be any criminal conviction.

 

You have paid the fixed penalty issued by the police.

 

You have been dealt with and that is the end of it on that front.

 

Civil Recovery (whichever company B&Q use) will try and intimidate, frighten and bully you into paying money to them. Do not fall for it as you will only be helping to fund their operation to intimidate and frighten others into giving them money which they have no right to demand.

 

It has been suggested that you do some reading around the forum at other similar threads. There are many of them.

 

Go and do some reading and all will become clear to you.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police took the option to give you a fixed penalty instead of prosecuting you through the Court system. That is the end of their involvement, so stop worrying on that score. You will not have a criminal record, however the matter will be retained on file and disclosed if deemed relevant during any future DBS check which may be required for certain jobs etc.

 

As stated previously you should not pay any Civil Recovery company a penny. They have no part in what has happened and are merely trying to extract money to which they are not entitled. Anything you pay does not go entirely to the retailer - the vast majority goes to the CR company. They will write to you and issue dire (and groundless) threats that you will be hauled in front of a Judge at the County Court and made to pay for your wrongdoing - just remember though that only the retailer themselves can do this, not the CR company, and they will almost certainly not do so - a)due to the cost which they would be most unlikely to recover, and b)because any claim would be made on extremely shaky foundations and in a defended case they stand a very high chance of losing and putting at risk the entire CR business model - which is exactly what happened in a case a little under two years ago.

 

They will be hoping (hence why they tend to strike whilst the iron is hot) that your shame and the threat of scary sounding words like 'Court' and 'Debt Collector' will be enough to make you pay up to make the problem go away. One particular organisation even loves to trawl through these pages to match details with cases on file and will tell you that your posts acknowledge your wrongdoing and that you have not expressed remorse for your actions and should take professional advice because we are all layabouts who know nothing and are putting you at risk. The only real risk is to their balance sheet!

 

With a bit of a thick skin however, what will make them go away is to ignore them completely - save for perhaps sending a single line response - 'I deny any liability to your company or any client that you claim to represent' and after four or five increasingly desperate letters they will get a scary debt collector to write (although there is no 'debt' to collect) and they will then refer it back to their client 'to prepare papers to issue proceedings' and that should be the last that you hear.

 

You have done wrong, you know this, and no doubt you are most unlikely to do it again - paying an exorbitant and unnecessary sum of money will not change that, but it will legitimise their borderline unlawful demands and we cannot stress enough that CR companies should have no place in the justice system whatsoever. The police had it in their power to prosecute but chose not to do so - that is where it should always start and finish with criminal offences. In the hands of those who represent the law.

  • Haha 1

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop. Worrying. The police have dealt with it. its done, finished over. 70 is a lot to you, but NOTHING to B&Q. Move on with your life and ignore the silly Civil recovery company. it doesnt matter if they werent in a sellable condition, as we've stated multiple times now, the police have dealt with it, the matter is now closed.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

So,I've received my letter on the 26th of February. It's from Civil Recovery Solutions and they're claiming 180,then says something about settlement figure which says I only have to pay 145.

I see this company is different from the usual RLP. It says "On behalf of Civil Recovery Solutions Limited".

Is there any chance they'll take me to court?

Any advice is most welcome.

Thank you !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore or send the one line letter. They are exactly the same as RLP.

 

Can you scan and post up that letter. I dont see how they are saying on behalf of CRS when its CRS sending the letter.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS are the same as RLP. Full of bovine excrement. There letters contain certain key words. 'May' 'Could' 'If' They rarely say 'Will'

 

CRS can take no action independently from B&Q.

 

RLP used to work for B&Q until B&Q sacked them and sent this response to the BBC watchdog program.

 

"At B&Q the safety and security of our customers and employees is a priority. Like many retailers we use Civil Recovery as a mechanism to deter shop lifters from our stores. We have ceased working with Retail Loss Prevention (RLP) having given them notice at the end of October 2010. We instructed them at the time to drop every case that had been highlighted by the Citizens Advice Bureau's report including the one you featured in tonight's programme. Our aim is to ensure our Civil Recovery policy is used in only the most responsible way."
So they drop RLP and CRS take over. A most responsible way? Nope! Just as bad.

 

This is just the first of the chain of threat-o-grams designed to intimidate before passing the 'debt to a debt collector. Ermm! What debt?

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chances of taking you to court? ZERO as they dont have any rights over anything. You can recover monies owed by civil action and that debt can be for a breach of contract, civil tort (where a wrong has been done to you that has cost you money) and for certain damages under statute law. None of this applies to these people and they know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...