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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Drydensfairfax on behalf of Natwest


ohdarn
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3337 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

Hello all. I have a few questions I'd like to ask please regarding CCA document request advice.

 

We have recently written to our creditors for a CCA request (the debt has been passed on to other companies).

 

 

They have all replied saying that they don't have the original documents

but will request them from the original creditors however this may take up to 30 days.

 

Should we still send the letters that say they have breached the time limit for returning the documents or should we wait 30 days?

 

Also, one of them has replied saying that they will request the documents from the original creditor however,

 

"As Judgement has been entered against you, this account is not governed under Section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act. We therefore return your £1 Postal Order."

 

As far as we are aware we haven't had a CCJ taken out against us so what could they be referring to please?

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

might be best to start a thread for each debt in the named forum of the OC from the top main forum tab

for the bank in question

 

 

then tell us all the details about each debt

 

 

I would not ever recommend sending any chase letters

simply invites letter tennis

 

 

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 is a clear reference to a CCJ

 

You must check now to see if you have one. Someone will be along soon with the link to the website that allows you to check for CCJ S

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what does your credit file say?

 

 

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

Thanks for the replies.

On the CCA letter template thread it says you have to send a follow up letter if the documents are not provided to you within 14 days of you sending the request forms. Because they have all replied saying that they will try to provide the documentation within 30 days, should we wait for the recommended 14 days or the 30 days as the companies have asked for?

 

We are intending on making Full and Final Settlement offers to each creditor, however as has been recommended we would like to start negotiations at a different amount depending on if they have documentation to legally enforce the debt.

 

From my Experian report we have one CCJ to Shoosmiths (which is mentioned in another thread on this forum), however the creditor that sent the letter quoted in the first post was Drydensfairfax on behalf of Natwest, and at the moment it doesn't mention a CCJ on their behalf nor have they sent us any paperwork saying they're taking out a CCJ against us.

Thanks again

 

*Actually after having a closer look you would be correct, there are two judgements against us but I did not notice this before as they are on the same date. Shoosmiths sent us all of the info documents and charging order information however I'm fairly certain we didn't recieve anything from Drydensfairfax, I don't even know what the terms are. Very odd, unless I have misfiled the information thinking they referred to the same CCJ.

I will get all the paperwork out this evening and check through it all.

Edited by ohdarn
added extra info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies.

On the CCA letter template thread it says you have to send a follow up letter if the documents are not provided to you within 14 days of you sending the request forms. Because they have all replied saying that they will try to provide the documentation within 30 days, should we wait for the recommended 14 days or the 30 days as the companies have asked for?

.

 

 

not that I can see

 

 

CCA request

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

thank you old hat now

 

 

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

Thanks I think I've figured out the CCJ thing, I've replied on my other thread thanks.

So you no longer need to send a follow up letter for the CCA requests and we should just wait for the creditors to send the paperwork?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

until/unless they prove an enforceable CCA

they get nothing

unless the debt is subject to a judgement already

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

if they are not on your credit file

and not harming you

I question you wisdom on paying anything

 

 

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

Unfortunately they are on the credit file. The credit score isn't wrecked but it could do with improvement. I'm just worried that they could also be turned into CCJs which might harm it further. We'd very much like to move house in the distant future so we need to sweep it all away now.

What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

bugger all you can do until the CCJ's reach their 6th birthday

 

 

same goes for any defaulted debts

 

 

All references to a defaulted debt must be removed from your credit files after 6 years

has passed from date of default, whether paid off or not.

.

{the WHOLE ACCOUNT WILL VANISH, never to return}.

.

{however, this does not mean the debt itself is not still owed

consider a CCA request.}

.

This is so that someone who continues paying something

- even after 6 years from default

- should not be at a disadvantage to someone who pays nothing after default

and ends up with a clean file after 6 years.

 

 

paying a debt does NOT improve your CRA file

 

 

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

Thanks, so we'll wait and see if they come back with the original paperwork then?

 

 

It's my understanding then that if they have the paperwork from a CCA request

they can turn it into a CCJ (or other legal enforcement).

 

 

If however they don't have it then the debt is unenforceable

and you'd really just be paying to have them stop sending you letters?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, so we'll wait and see if they come back with the original paperwork then?

 

 

yes.

 

It's my understanding then that if they have the paperwork from a CCA request

they can turn it into a CCJ (or other legal enforcement).

 

not necessarily. they'd have to win a court case first. IF IF IF they did that ofcourse

If however they don't have it then the debt is unenforceable

and you'd really just be paying to have them stop sending you letters?

 

 

they don't get bugger all if they cant enforce a debt!

paying does not stop any letters either

 

 

a dca is not a bailiff

and has no such legal powers

 

 

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...