Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello, welcome to CAG. As you say, appealing this ticket doesn't help as these people hardly ever accept appeals. They don't care how difficult someone's life is, they just want the money. The forum guys should be along later with thoughts for you on how to deal with this. Best, HB
    • I have received an email in the last 10 minutes 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024  It also includes a "Notice of Hearing" stating that the application hearing will take place on 13th June at 10.00am.  Confused as to whether I need to attend this ?
    • I've received this notice to keeper. I work for the NHS and was delayed due to patient care. I park here regular and and have never had any issues. I've looked at the evidence on the portal and other than showing that i entered at 12.59.33 and departed at 17:14:14 it doesn't state how long i overstayed for. I paid for 4 hours parking over the phone which i wont have done till i got parked but as its over the phone i have no receipt or record but it is not possible for me to have been in excess of 15mins from the photos alone but I'm unsure having read other threads whether grace periods are 10 or 15 minutes. I havent appealed yet but and was about to but in appealing i'm showing i'm the driver which i gather is something you state we must never do. I don't like confrontation but £60 seems extortionate. Hope you can help. 🤞 1 Date of the infringement 30th May 2024 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 30th May 2024 [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s 3 Date received 5th June 2024 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No reference to schedule 4 just says"...we the creditor reserve the right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper in accordance with POFA 2012." 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes 6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up NA 7 Who is the parking company? Carpark securities 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Northgate, Halifax Former Dews Car Park HX1 1XJ For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. IAS There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE   Notice to Keeper.pdf
    • It never seems to amaze me how the chuckleheads think that No Stopping can ever offer a contract when it is prohibitory. In any case you did not accept the contract by entering the land, you entered the land to get to the airport for goodness sake. In most car parks there is a Consideration period that allows motorists to decide whether they want to stay in the car park . Here on a road, there is no consideration period and whether the motorist finds the terms agreeable or not even assuming that they are able to understand that they are being hoodwinked into believing they are being offered a  contract they cannot turn back. They have a plane to catch and even if they did turn back because they didn't accept the  No Stopping term of   the so called contract they would still have had to stop to turn around. Plus there is a question of Frustration of Contract. You had to stop at a pedestrian crossing .    
    • Just a couple paragraphs their WS that it might be useful to refer to specifically in the OP's WS... Para 6 A contract was formed with "the driver" of the vehicle. Para 8 "The driver" accepted the contract. (The "driver" is not named, or identified anywhere in the WS). Para 7 WHY would there ever be a "no stopping" restriction in a car park? (In Para 10, they specify that it is a "car park"). Para 11 "The Defendant" became liable." Again, they have not shown that the Defendant was "the driver", simply the keeper. Para 20 "It is a matter of agreement"? Not really sure what they're trying to say here...
  • 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

MKDP Credit Report Entry


cheops
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3539 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

yea there you go then...

 

its welcome staff.

 

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

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have spoken with welcome(FSCS) this morning and

 

they too cannot see where the £370 was credited back on loan 2

 

so they are logging it on there system as a complaint,

 

i will receive a letter confirming that shortly,

 

MKDP still own the loan and

 

what has happened is they have sent a letter to MDKP offsetting the amount they come up with as PPI calculation,

 

however it will no have to be done again as its wrong and should have included the £370 in the calculation.

 

As for the unfair charges, even though I have a signed for on royal mail it is not in the system and they are saying they have lost it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to question the FSCS authority to offset

to a debt buyer

 

the FOS website specifically details offsetting

nowhere does it say a reclaim can be paid to a debt buyer.

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

I have sent a message to the real FSCS not the Welcome Employed FSCS regarding this, I will let you know. Its all dodgy.

 

What do I do about the Unfair charges I sent off and they saying they haven't got it even though I have a signed for proof?

Link to post
Share on other sites

good work

 

that's welcome for you/

 

you could resend it I suppose but as its already signed for that incredible!!

 

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

Yeah, I have a log of everything not one detail missing.

 

I still don't trust them logging it on the system, I will be writing a formal letter to them signed for too.

 

It gets me how the FSCS can trust them to handle there own complaints, sounds like a right stitch up to me.

 

Is there any course of action for reclaiming Personal Accident Care and Life Care 24? This was added same as PPI?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah you should have lumped that in too

 

its all the same

 

even GAP/mechanical breakdowm/MIF/shortfall

 

whatever extras welcome added were simply insurance direct to their pocket

 

and they went bust

 

well, the directors ran off with everything.

 

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

i'd rehash the old claim

 

it should all be as one lump sum?

 

 

without gong back

 

is it listed on the statements payments sep from PPI

I expect its lumped I already?

 

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

Yeah the original PPI was calculated at £585.21 with Lifecare 24 and Personal Accident Plan it totals £955.21 without interest.

 

I have mentioned it in my dispute calculations letter as well as the the missing £376 and also the fact about the offsetting when the loan has been so called sold.

 

Posting in the morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from pat thread shere

 

when the FSCS get involved

 

ALL the insurance are normally or should be refunded

 

their remit is to put you back in the financial position 'as if'

any of the extras were never taken

then they calculate 90% of that figure

 

me thinks the FSCS are not keeping the thumb on welcome staff.

 

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

Yeah I agree, thats certainly the impression I get I think they are just trying it on.

 

The whole setup of the FSCS and Welcome just seems wrong to me and not impartial.

 

Thats why I wrote the real FSCS an email this afternoon. I might actually give them a call too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

 

Just an update on where we are with this.

 

I have received the CCA back from MKDP and looks correct but only for the refinanced loan which I guess is correct.

 

Now for the Welcome Side and the FSCS.

 

After contacting the 'Real' FSCS I am now in contact with someone directly who is looking into all this for me and have 3 seperate complaints he is 'overseeing'

 

1. Shortfall on the PPI calculation.

2. Offset issue as the loan was sold to MKDP.

3. The other 2 non-PPI insurance policies.(Lifecare 24 and Personal Accident Plan)

 

He has also re-assured me Welcome have now received the 'unfair' charges complaint.

 

So I now have another 4 complaints on the go :-o

 

Just wondering what MKDP's next move might be???

 

Will keep everyone updated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another update.

 

I have had a response regarding the shortfall from the FSCS and the offset issue.

 

They are saying that welcome claim they evidence that it was applied to the account so no adjustment will be made as they can only go on what figures welcome give them.

 

However they said that welcome have to provide evidence that this has was done. So I phoned Welcome and they are saying that they no longer have the evidence so I have another complaint going regarding this.

 

As for the offset issue the loan was transferred for collection to 'mkdp' by way of 'interest' whatever that means? The debt is still owned by welcome.

 

What a complete and utter mess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh tying themselves up in knots here

 

the FSCS wont keep participating in this charade for long

and decide in your favour me thinks.

 

 

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

Not according to the FSCS unfortunately

 

As I confirmed to you yesterday, if you believe the figures are incorrect you will need to pursue the issue with Welcome. We are entitled to rely on the figures they have given us. I am sorry that FSCS will not be able to pursue this matter on your behalf. I will also make Welcome aware of your issue.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another update.

 

I have had a response regarding the shortfall from the FSCS and the offset issue.

 

They are saying that welcome claim they evidence that it was applied to the account so no adjustment will be made as they can only go on what figures welcome give them.

 

However they said that welcome have to provide evidence that this has was done. So I phoned Welcome and they are saying that they no longer have the evidence so I have another complaint going regarding this.

 

As for the offset issue the loan was transferred for collection to 'mkdp' by way of 'interest' whatever that means? The debt is still owned by welcome.

 

What a complete and utter mess.

 

 

Sounds like a " profit sharing deal" you spoof the poor bugger into paying and we'll share the proceeds.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

while my complaints are being investigated by Welcome and FSCS

 

 

I am receiving letters from MKDP regarding getting into contact with them to sort a payment out!

 

How do I proceed with them at this stage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

send them a copy of one of the FSCS letters

that basically states your 'debt' is being investigated

and as such remains in dispute.

regarding the outstanding bal

 

 

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

so MKDP have never replied to the CCA request?

 

 

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

sri for not looking back

am out at present.

 

 

so the only thing you've sent to MKDP is a CCA request

 

 

and basically since MKDP came on the scene some years previous

all they ever sent you is a series of threat-o-grams

 

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...