Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

lapope

Schedule of Inhibition (nationwide building society)

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1626 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Is there a way of stopping or challenging this from being renewed at the end of its 5 years (before the actual debt is cleared)?

 

Original debt: Nationwide Overdraft back in 2004 of £3500

 

Nationwide refused to deal with Christians Against Poverty who were sorting out a repayment schedule at the time

and as soon as they were involved took me to court.

 

 

They had been phoning me in the evenings to try and get me to repay the overdraft and had offered if I could pay the overdraft of £2000

- they would waive the £1500 over that but I was pregnant at the time and about to come off on maternity leave soon

and did not have that amount of money available to me then.

 

 

The guy I was speaking said that in that case they would take me to court and take my house away from me.

 

 

Decree was granted in April 2005 and Order of inhibition on any property I own after that.

Was renewed on expiry in 2010 and due again to expire in May.

 

 

Have £1900 left of balance.

 

 

Have not received any statement of the account since the decree in 2005,

so have no idea of interest and charges that have occurred

or how much I have actually paid back.

 

 

First was passed to Morton Fraser solicitors and now with Aberdein Considine.

 

I have tried to put in a claim for unfair fees and charges that were added to the account

- the overdraft was £2000 and the fees and charges the rest.

 

 

Morton Fraser said I was not allowed to contact Nationwide Building Society to do this.

Never got a reason why they would not look at the fees and charges

- on the one hand Nationwide were saying to contact Morton Fraser with a settlement offer

and they would consider it through them but Morton Fraser said they received no such instruction from Nationwide

- so just kept going round in circles.

 

 

This was a few years ago and I had too many other things going on in my life to fight with them about who said what so just left it.

 

 

However, I want this inhibition removed so I can move on with my life.

I could possibly just about manage to settle the debt before May,

but it would be a struggle (we are a family of 7 so every penny counts).

I do still have some other outstanding debts that I still am paying that defaulted at the same time.

 

Any advice on how to go about this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you should have been receiving at least one statement of account per year.

 

I think you should be asking first for a statement of account to confirm the balance.


Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent of a CCA request (to Aberdein Considine) asking for a full breakdown of the account and also put in a complaint via the Nationwide website so far just had an automated response that they will get back to me within 8 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Received in post a letter from Nationwide and an income and expenditure form to fill in and also want further information on how I am in financial difficulty so they can consider request to waive fees and charges. Says that once returned they should have a reply by 13th April.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you happy to provide the info.


 
 

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you happy to provide the info.

 

The letter that came said it would only consider in case of hardship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update - managed to get full payment details of payments made after the court order and that balance is now suddenly over £400 less than it was in the first letter. Aberdein Considine have said that their client is not obliged to send the copy of the signed credit agreement for the overdraft as the overdraft facility is not covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats correct about overdraft not being covered


Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...