Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So they only sent you the NOSP/NTQ via email to date !   Its good you're seeing a solicitor who can answer all your question, keep us posted on CAG.
    • Thanks Brass.. got rid of Zoom as suggested..   dx100uk.. that's a great suggestion, but perhaps after I win this one we can go after his terminology    
    • pretty much par for the course then for a fleecing DCA that expects, as 99.9% of respondents do, wet themselves and cough up the instant a court form lands. they never expect a defence to be filed and simply don't bother to get their ducks in line.   so get each of these instances of missing paperwork together  list them. pop up on our enhanced google search box and type in claimform card default won or various other sentences and knock up a few words for each instance to relate to the sheriff during the CMD about how each is important within the consumer credit act and for the claimant to not hold them, under CCa rule xxx (for a DN its section 87) , its fatal to their claim.   dx  
    • Hi Bankfodder thank you for your interest and your comments.   There are issues with ground rents AND service charges. In my case, non residential, not eligeable for Tier 1 tribunal so there is no possibility of holding the leaseholder to account for unreasonable service charges because of the loophole below. Even if it is residential see Richard Barclay and others quoted in the article above. You win the case about unreasonable costs yet have to pay the leaseholders court fees for loosing their case! Criminal!!!   From the article I quoted above.  'The Times reported that last year leasehold owner Richard Barclay successfully recovered £1,200 of a £10,100 service charge from the management company in respect of his central London Flat. But the victory soon turned sour when Barclay was hit with a bill for £61,300 in legal fees by Quadrant Property Management who takes care of the building.   The loophole is contained in the majority of leases which typically allow freeholders to recoup their legal costs from leaseholders, even if the freeholder loses the case. There is no parallel right for leaseholders to claim costs back.    
    • The online retailer wants to buy the brands, not their shops, suggesting any deal would cost jobs. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2033 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

Hi all,

I'm posting on behalf of a friend of mine

 

, he received a parking fine which he paid online on April 6th,

he has deleted the confirmation of payment email sometime ago.

 

Recently he has received a letter saying he has not paid and they are now demanding a larger payment or they will take him to court.

 

How should he go about proving he has paid, bank statement etc

 

. Or should he just ignore them.

 

Sorry the post is a little vague, but that was all the info he gave me.

 

Thanks in advance hob :!::!::!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Council or private?

 

Who is the letter from?

 

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

If this is a council PCN, he does not have a letter saying they will take him to court - so it is important to know whether it is a council PCN.

 

If it is, it would be best to find out:

 

1. When the PCN was issued

2. How much the PCN was at that point (not the discounted amount, the full amount)

3. How much he paid, and on what date

4. How much they are asking for now

 

Also, what is the title of the document he just received (Notice to Owner, Charge Certificate, Order for Recovery etc).

 

Can you get all this info and let us know?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies everyone,

I have managed to gather a little more info on the subject

It was on private land not council, but he could not remember the company name

The Pcn was issued on April 6th

The full amount of the fine was £100.00

He paid £60.00 on April 7th

Now thet are asking for £150.00.

As for the documentation and the company name he could not remember. I will be talking to him again in the near future, so any advice would be much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is posted on the Local Authorities Parking part of the site. The procedures for private companies are different, and there's a separate forum for those. You'd be better off posting there - look under "Motoring Subforums" and you'll find it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll move it

 

 

now in the private parking forum.

 

 

we need the company name please

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

as long as he has some kind of proof that a payment was made then the best thing would be to invite them to stop pussy footing around and pay the court fee and make complete fools of themselves when they are proven to be incompetent crooks.

Dont be nice in the wording and dont give them any proof of payment at this stage, make them spend their money being idiots.

I would bet that this is from a tame DCA anyway and not the parking company so nothing will happen because it cant. If it is from someone like Debt Recovery Plus then just ignore them, dont even reply unless you want to report them for harassment at a later stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...