Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.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

HPH2/Cohen claimform - old Abbey OD from 1992


RMS
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3162 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

Thanks - had you been active in using the account up until the time they called it in? Had you gone over the authorised limit at all?

 

The account was active and at the time of removal, it was running at 50% of authorised limit and was not going over the authorised limit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What 'right' were they seeking to exercise when they 'called in' the overdraft? Has this point been clarified in the claimant's WS?

 

 

None, I think it was back in the recession in 2009 and financial institutions withdrew a lot of 'load' facilities. WS does not refer to it. I am busy scanning WS now, it's a slow process but will be posted later. Meanwhile, I have one question about the outcome, that I would like to ask by PM, I do not want it on the forum. It anybody would be happy to try and help with that one, it would be much appreciated. It's a short question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Feel free to PM me if you like. Can't guarantee that I'll have the answer though!

 

I sent you a PM, let me know if for any reason you don't get it. If answering my question, please do it by PM, not on the main board. I'm sure you'll understand why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can you please put all of those images into a word doc and pdf it?

 

 

so much easier to see and zoom.

 

 

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

can you please put all of those images into a word doc and pdf it?

 

 

so much easier to see and zoom.

 

I'm not so good with stuff like that. I had a stroke last year

 

 

dx

 

I'm not so good with stuff like that. I had a stroke last year and it isn't so easy any more. I bought a new printer scanner today, but it took over two hours to get going, and that wasn't just me, it was a nightmare. Anyway, it is tomorrow morning, so I presently am just try to make sure I have all my paperwork in place and then maybe concentrate on getting a good night's sleep.

 

Anything you can suggest from the muddle you see, or particular points that you think I should be raising, please free to add them. I'll look here again tonight and first thing morning (it will be early, as I will get a lift and the person starts work at 7:00am, so I have to fit in with them. Living in a village is a nightmare and I just couldn't rely on public transport to guarantee me arriving on time). And the last thing I want to do is give them a summary judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Going through their WS...

 

Where's the default notice (template wording) they mention?

 

They refer to paragraph 12 with regards unauthorised fees and interest - do you have that document.

 

Do you have the overdraft extension application they refer to from 1998?

 

In one of my earlier posts, I asked if you had gone over the agreed limit, etc. You said no. What's the situation with all the charges they've applied?

 

I didn't realise your hearing was tomorrow! You probably don't want to hear negative stuff right now, but you could have fought this much better if we'd got onto it much sooner. Nevertheless, you will just need to go in with a plan and focus on whatever weaknesses you can and then hope for the best.

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went over the limit, because they removed the overdraft, thereby making it an unauthorised overdraft, rather than an authorised overdraft that was within limit.

 

Overdraft extension document is listed, post 80 number 6, top line, one on the right.

 

default notice

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]59589[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't see the docs

Jpg pix are not handled well by this msg board software

 

Do you want an email to send them all too

And I'll put them up...

 

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

That's the Notice of Assignment - doesn't have anything to do with paragraph 12. It must be some terms and conditions document. It'll be exhibited as SLW7.

 

So, they just withdrew the overdraft facility?? The overdraft application was for a £2,000 credit limit - when were you given the higher limit? I'm not sure the limit matters actually, but it would be interesting to see any terms, particularly to find out if it contains anything with regards withdrawing the overdraft facility.

 

Do you have any correspondence to do with them withdrawing the overdraft?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can't see the docs

Jpg pix are not handled well by this msg board software

 

Do you want an email to send them all too

And I'll put them up...

 

Dx

 

Yes please, do you need them all emailed, if not, let me know the ones you need.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the Notice of Assignment - doesn't have anything to do with paragraph 12. It must be some terms and conditions document. It'll be exhibited as SLW7.

 

So, they just withdrew the overdraft facility?? The overdraft application was for a £2,000 credit limit - when were you given the higher limit? I'm not sure the limit matters actually, but it would be interesting to see any terms, particularly to find out if it contains anything with regards withdrawing the overdraft facility.

 

Do you have any correspondence to do with them withdrawing the overdraft?

 

Post 86 is SLWY.

 

From memory (I'm pretty sure on this one), the original request for an overdraft was one or two years after opening the account, and it was for £1,000. There is no copy of that in the WS. The application for the £2,000 was the document you see, in 98, so about 5 years after the original overdraft.

 

There was no letter, about terminating the overdraft (or not that I got, otherwise I would have been straight on the phone), but apparently it was a standard one sent to most customers. It was nothing about how you had kept your account with in good standing. They went out about May 2009 apparently with one month's notice.

 

I should imagine the Santander still have a copy of it somewhere on file. Again, that is not included in the WS. Just a by the way, the solicitor sent their WS right at the last minute, it was dated the 14th, but there was no way it was sent that day, and impossible for it to arrive two weeks before the 23rd even if it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post 86 is SLWY.

 

From memory (I'm pretty sure on this one), the original request for an overdraft was one or two years after opening the account, and it was for £1,000. There is no copy of that in the WS. The application for the £2,000 was the document you see, in 98, so about 5 years after the original overdraft.

 

There was no letter, about terminating the overdraft (or not that I got, otherwise I would have been straight on the phone), but apparently it was a standard one sent to most customers. It was nothing about how you had kept your account with in good standing. They went out about May 2009 apparently with one month's notice.

 

I should imagine the Santander still have a copy of it somewhere on file. Again, that is not included in the WS. Just a by the way, the solicitor sent their WS right at the last minute, it was dated the 14th, but there was no way it was sent that day, and impossible for it to arrive two weeks before the 23rd even if it was.

 

Ok, thanks.

 

As things stand, do you have a plan in mind for how to contest this tomorrow?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, ref. Post 86 is the default notice template, not anything to do with terms of the account. The exhibit with the terms is actually SWL2 - do you have it?

 

It's a T&C booklet , pretty much standard from about 25 years ago, for current account, cheque guarantee card and Abbeylink card (cash card). The bit about overdrafts.

 

Not a good plan, I never expected them to have copies of original stuff from pre-computer days. I don't really know what to do, but if I don't turn up then it is a summary judgement, and that won't be any better.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]59592[/ATTACH]

Link to post
Share on other sites

RMS - as it's getting late and we both need to be getting to bed, I'll give you my own personal view on what you need to challenge verbally tomorrow.

 

Please do mention your health situation and that you have had great difficulty in making proper sense of the whole situation with the claim. Make the judge aware that their WS and documents did not arrive until very recently so only then did you realise, after consulting with a friend for advice, that you needed to challenge certain particulars within their WS and claim as a whole. Consequently, you are not as prepared as you could have been, were it not for your own nativity with regards the process.

 

Points to raise:

- Claimant has not stipulated the reasons the account was placed in default.

- Overdraft facility was withdrawn without notice or consultation. My recollection was that the limit was significantly higher than that being claimed. I only discovered that overdraft facility was withdrawn when I went to make a withdrawal.

- Claimant contents that I would be charged fees in accordance with p12 of the terms. I only incurred fees because the overdraft facility was withdrawn. Once the overdraft facility is withdrawn, the agreement is ended and further fees and interest should not be applied. In any event, these charges are unfair penalties and should be refunded with interest.

- Before legal action is taken, a valid Default Notice should be served upon the debtor. I do not recall receiving one from the original creditor. The template provided does not fit the requirement of a valid Default Notice, nor does it act as confirmation that statutory requirements have been fulfilled. The claimant states that the reference made on the 'predecessor's system screen' indicates the issuing of a Default Notice. We have no means of confirming this to be true or factual. An invalid Default Notice is fatal to any claim as the agreement has been ended by the original creditor, thus an opportunity to remedy no longer exists as it must be issued as part of an agreement.

 

I would hope that a sympathetic judge may be swayed by the above - but please do act humble and do not try to overly challenge the opposition (or judge for that matter) - try to get him/her onside. Point out the obvious failing with regards the default notice and keep your fingers crossed that it gets some merit. It's a bit late in the day to be getting too detailed, so I'll leave it at that and wish you all the best.

 

If you do come off on the end of the decision, you may be best advised to take a different approach and then focus in on all the charges. Argue that, not only are they totally unfair, but some shouldn't have been applied after the agreement was ended by the original creditor. Say that you will accept that a balance is due, but you wish to challenge the charges. You might achieve some form of reduction.

 

Best of luck!

 

Sham

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please, do you need them all emailed, if not, let me know the ones you need.

 

 

send everything and anything else

i'll put it up

 

 

pm sent

 

 

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

Sorry for not coming back yesterday, I was fairly fatigued, the stroke does that to you sometimes, both mentally and physically.

 

Just the very brief details tonight and then the in depth tomorrow, I'm still tired and thinking hurts.

 

Lost the claim, I'll go into detail tomorrow, they did offer me a Tomlin order beforehand at full money.

 

I got about £800 in charges knocked off, I had incorrectly estimated it a bit higher (some where just debits back from credits paid for DDs then cancelled).

 

Their lawyer tried to claim over £200 for his time for a time wasting case brought before the court, which was denied, as the judge said Mr.RMS put up a fairly robust defence on a very technical case.

 

I must have given them a run for the money, the whole case took 1:45 minutes. Which is a long time up against a lawyer when you're not used to or have any experience in the field.

 

As well as going through it in depth, I have a couple of questions about the case and also about my best course of action following on.

 

And Sham, thanks for your help at short notice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...