Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 the 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. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before 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.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • 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

Inter-Credit International South Staffs Water?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3171 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

My OH has recently been contacted by these clowns regarding a water rates debt from 2003. There is nothing on her credit file relating to this and it is quite obviously over 6 years old. No contact has been made before now and no acknowledgement or payment has been made.

 

Question is, will a standard statute barred letter be sufficient for this or not? Of course, being SSW they will have taken the matter to court back then and obtained a judgement but can they claim that it isn't statute barred because of an old CCJ?

 

Any advice appreciated as these type of things really do stress her out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with a CCJ they only have 6 years from the judgement date to enforce the debt. They can ask court for more time, but is not normally given.

 

Inter-credit international i think are at the very bottom of bottom feeders. A signal that there is little chance of getting payment for such an old debt.

 

Ignore them and they will probably give up. If they don't send them a letter stating the matter is statute barred and no communications will be entered into.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest letter is threatening legal action if we don't respond within 7 days from the date of the letter. I know this is just scare tactics as the debt is so old but it really does freak the missus out.

 

She is constantly thinking they are going to turn up on the doorstep or something.

 

Oh thanks for the reply BTW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

May take legal action is standard, even though they know they can't.

 

If it makes her happier, send the statute barred letter.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

phishing letter trying to find a mug.

 

 

intercredit are extremely low life

 

 

ignore them

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

intercredit are extremely low life

 

Is there a DCA that isn't????

 

Worst thing about it is I am wondering where they have got their figures from.

 

 

The property we were living at back then was a small rented flat so the water rates were not exactly high

and we only lived there for 2 years but they are demanding over £900!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

wel just remember a water bill is just like a credit card debt

its not subject to back biling etc

but is also not subject to the things that gas/electric can do to you.

 

 

so inter have it as its just a std 'debt'

and they think as these DCA's always do, that sa its a supposed 'util bill' it gives them extra powers..

well as you know it don't!

 

 

pers I'd ignore them totally.

 

 

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

Just received the statutory, "Despite previous reminders this account remains seriously overdue" letter.

 

It goes on to state that they may inform their client to issue proceedings against me and if a judgement is awarded it could seriously harm our ability to obtain credit for up to 6 years. They also state that if defaulted they can apply for a warrant of execution.

 

I know it's just scare tactics because as it is SSW they would have obtained a judgement for the debt within a couple of months of defaulted payments. (Been there, done that)

 

Are they overstepping the mark at all yet, or are these tactics allowed? I'm just waiting for them to step out of line, then I can have some fun with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Standard letter. You could send the statute barred letter and see if they respond.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pushy sods aren't they this Inter credit place.

 

Latest letter below.

 

PRE ACTION NOTICE

RE SOUTH STAFFS WATER

 

Dear Mrs sturose

 

I note that despite previous reminders the above outstanding balance remains seriously overdue for payment.

 

If payment is not received within 7 days from the date of this letter, we may recommend our client to issue proceedings against you.

 

We would like to mention 2 further points.

 

If our client chooses to proceed with this action and a judgement is awarded and registered against you, the judgement will remain on your credit profile for a maximum of six years which may affect your ability to obtain credit in the future.

 

In the event of a default on the judgement order our client may apply for a warrant of execution. This would enable recovery action by a court bailiff who could attend your property to recover the amount outstanding or goods to the value of the amount claimed.

 

Should you wish to avoid the potential of additional costs and the further consequences of legal action, it is essential you contact the above number to confirm your intention to pay.

 

Blahblahblah (Office opening time etc)

 

Yours sincerely

 

K King

 

Now I suggested that I send the statute barred letter but she seems to believe that this will in some way admit something. Cannot convince her otherwise.

 

I assume that continuing to ignore these parasites will suffice and they will eventually get tired of making empty threats?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore

 

They don't own the debt

Can do nothing

 

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

Ok thanks,

 

she just keeps getting frustrated whenever a letter from them pops through the door and it frustrates me that she won't allow me to toy with them a bit.

 

Her name on the letter, her rules though!:!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...