Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.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

Claim form Cabot- old cat 'debt'***Claim Discontinued***


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3318 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

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Ring CCBC and ask for assistance.

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

I logged on again and noticed the following message on the Fashion World claim page:

 

 

"A bar has been put in place on this claim. You cannot respond to the claim at this time."

 

 

If this thing is still live, how am I supposed to enter my defence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi everyone,

 

Today I have received 2 letters from Cabot:

 

"Unfortunately, Cabot has not been able to provide you with the requested information within the relevant time period...

...Your credit agreement is currently unenforceable, which means we are not permitted to obtain a judgement or decree against you in court.

 

 

However, you are still obliged to repay the outstanding balance as confirmed in this letter,

and therefore we would recommend you contact us as soon as possible to set up a repayment arrangement or continue with an existing plan"

 

Yeah, you wish!

 

I guess this means I can expect communication from the court advising me the claims have been stayed,

once the 28 days from me filing my defence have elapsed.

 

I want to thank everyone here who has helped me on this case.

I was going to cave in and simply go along with the claim but you persuaded me otherwise. It has been much appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this means I can expect communication from the court advising me the claims have been stayed, once the 28 days from me filing my defence have elapsed.

 

Not quite...the court does not inform you if its stayed....you know it stayed if you do not receive a DQ ....looking good though OldDebt.

 

Andy

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

Directions Questionnaire ...its the next part of the proceedings if they do respond and it allocates the claim to your local county court....if they do respond.

 

:wink:

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

Let us know if they discontinue the claim OldDebt and we can amend your thread title to reflect the outcome.....its beneficial to others to be able to conclude a thread.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Oh dear, I thought this one was dead but apparently it won't lie down.

 

 

I have today received a letter dated 14th October, 2014, from one of the solicitors who were involved in this case, specifically the solicitors who dealt with Simply Be. The letter itself was mangled and torn by the Post Office but it is just about readable.

 

 

The letter contains a lot of "legalese" basically telling me that my defence is not good enough. This in spite of the fact that Cabot themselves have admitted in writing that they cannot enforce this debt because they do not have the required proof. The letter ends:

 

 

"In our view, your Defence has no prospect of success. In the circumstances, we will recommend to our Client that an application be made to strike out the Defence and for Judgement to be entered against you for the full amount claimed, together with all legal costs incurred as a result of that application. Should you wish to avoid this action, then we invite you to withdraw your Defence by completing the enclosed Form N9A and returning it to this office within the next 14 days."

 

 

"Alternatively, you may wish to resolve this matter amicably without further Court intervention. If this is of interest to you, please forward your settlement proposals within the next 14 days."

 

 

Now, first question obviously is: it this sheer intimidation or do they have legal grounds to do this? Also, it is over 28 days during which they could have responded to my Defence, it's about 6 weeks actually, so does this invalidate any attempt to counter my Defence?

 

 

I have no intention of withdrawing my Defence but I feel I am on shaky ground here, if they can do what they are saying.

 

 

Any advice here would be gratefully received! Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is dead...its there last throw of the dice to see if you will cave in......without the agreement its going nowhere.

 

Andy

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

They cant proceed to Summary Judgment without filling the DQ and they wont file the DQ because they dont have the proof.

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

Thanks guys, do you think I should dignify this letter with a reply?

 

Think you already know the answer to that rhetorical question OldDebt...silence is golden

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

It's very tempting to reply, as this is a pretty despicable way to behave. I don't see what they should get away with this kind of threat, which it is after all, when they have no legal grounds on which to carry out their threat. They are saying the agreement was with Cabot, not Simply Be, but surely the same proof is required, whoever actually owns the debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It most certainly is and that's the intention to invoke a response and to get you to communicate and open up...Cabot are the Claimant...SB have washed their hands of it and claimed tax relief.

 

Have a nice weekend.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...