Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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 does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Capital 1 Card & Robbersway


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3295 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

The default notice allows for a remedy - for example 'If you don't pay up within X then we will do Y'

 

The CoA cannot therefore occur before the expiry of the period allowed in which to remedy the default and the option to enforce the Y part of the condition comes to pass

 

 

generally. if the dn is not remedied, then the breach mentioned in it (ie the cause) subsists as the cause from breach date (not the dn date).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies guy’s,

 

I think I understand, but my point was that the default notice was issued, the period allowed for remedy expired and the account was registered as a default back in 2006.

 

Is the cause of action not begun then? they certainly threatened it enough.

 

Nosnibor

"THE CAG IS MY SHEPHERD I SHALL NOT PAY": :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

you say #19 that there was a payment in nov 08, so that def date 06 is n/a

what was the nature of that payment? a plan, revised agreement, or just a one off, or...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ford

I was on a regular reduced payment plan,then I discovered CAG��last payment was 17th November 2008,

 

check the terms, if any, of that plan. but, as has been said on thread, is likely then to be the mth after the last payment ie when the next payment was due but not paid, in breach of the plan?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Old Cap One account, now owned by Hoist Portfolio been chased by Robinson Way.

 

Last payment November 2008 (100% certain)

 

Sent RW statute barred letter and as you can see from the attached reply it seems they have decided that the laws pertaining to statute barred debts are irrelevant!!

 

I’m sure this is grounds for a whole raft of complaints but would be grateful for some guidance.

 

Many thanks

Nosnibor

"THE CAG IS MY SHEPHERD I SHALL NOT PAY": :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical response from them trying to bluff their way out of it. It doesnt matter where you got the template from. I would be reporting this to the FCA as soon as is possible. Robbers way have already been reprimanded a few times for misleading debtors.

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

My god I want your time machine grab the lottery results for next week, Last payment 2018? Should that be 2008.

 

1: Template no foundation, They wish

2: Maybe a complaint to the FOS, ignorring your staue barred notice.

 

Sure others with more experience will be along to advise against these bottom feeders.

 

George

Link to post
Share on other sites

report to FCA, Formal Complaint to RW which can be forwarded to FOS if refused

 

CONC 7.15 Statute barred debts

 

CONC 7.15.1

01/04/2014

FCA

 

A debt is statute barred where the prescribed period within which a claim in relation to the debt may be brought expires. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the limitation period is generally six years in relation to debt. In Scotland, the prescriptive period is five years in relation to debt.

 

[Note: annex B1 of DCG]

 

CONC 7.15.2

01/04/2014

FCA

 

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, a statute barred debt still exists and is recoverable.

 

[Note: paragraph 3.15a and annex B3 of DCG]

 

CONC 7.15.3

01/04/2014

FCA

 

In Scotland, a statute barred debt ceases to exist and is no longer recoverable if1) a relevant claim on behalf of the lender or owner has not been made during the relevant limitation period; and

(2) the debt has not been acknowledged by, or on behalf of, the customer during the relevant limitation period.

 

[Note: annex B3 of DCG]

 

 

CONC 7.15.4

01/04/2014

FCA

 

Notwithstanding that a debt may be recoverable, a firm must not attempt to recover a statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland if the lender or owner has not been in contact with the customer during the limitation period.

 

[Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]

 

CONC 7.15.5

01/04/2014

FCA

 

If the lender or owner has been in regular contact with the customer during the limitation period, the firm may continue to attempt to recover the debt.

[Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]

 

CONC 7.15.6

01/04/2014

FCA

 

A firm must endeavour to ensure that it does not mislead a customer as to the customer's rights and obligations.

 

[Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]

 

CONC 7.15.7

01/04/2014

FCA

 

It is misleading for a firm to suggest or state that a customer may be the subject of court action for the sum of the statute barred debt when the firm knows, or reasonably ought to know, that the relevant limitation period has expired.

 

[Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]

 

CONC 7.15.8

01/04/2014

FCA

 

A firm must not continue to demand payment from a customer after the customer has stated that he will not be paying the debt because it is statute barred.

 

[Note: paragraph 3.15b of DCG]

 

CONC 7.15.9

01/04/2014

FCA

 

A firm must identify for prospective purchasers of debts arising under credit agreements or consumer hire agreements or P2P agreements those debts which it knows or ought reasonably to know are statute barred, so as to avoid a firm taking inappropriate action against customers in relation to such debts.

 

[Note: paragraph 3.23c of DCG]

 

Complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service and initiating legal proceedings

 

CONC 7.15.10

01/04/2014

FCA

 

A lender must not initiate legal proceedings in relation to a regulated credit agreement where the lender is aware that the customer has submitted a valid complaint or what appears to the firm may be a valid complaint relating to the agreement in question that is being considered by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

 

[Note: paragraph 7.9 (box) of ILG]

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

Any help I am able to give is from my own experience only. Should you have any doubt you should contact a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just updating and hopefully finally concluding this thread.

 

Following advice given made a formal complaint to RW and have now received the attached reply.

"THE CAG IS MY SHEPHERD I SHALL NOT PAY": :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...