Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Can I just leave it as saved and not submit or do I need to delete everything?
    • don't file yet not needed till/by 4pm tomorrow   let andyorch check things over 1st    
    • well the claim is stayed so don't panic for now.   is this the ONLY payment made and how did capquest get this out of you? by phone?   explain what caused you to make the payment and how you did it please   dx                
    • Lovely stuff.    1.The claim is for the sum of £882.53 due by the Defendant under the CCA 1974 for a Shop Direct account with the account ref of ********************    2.The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the CCA 1974 which has not been complied with.   3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 08/01/18, notice of which has been given to the defendant.   4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £70.60 - The claimant claims the sum of £953.13   #####Defence######   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst it is admitted I have held various catalogue agreements in the past, I have no recollection of ever entering into an agreement with Shop Direct and do not recognise the specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied I have not been served with a Default Notice pursuant to sec87(1) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of a legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1)   4. On receipt of this claim form I, the Defendant, sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of the said request.   5. A further request made via CPR 31.14 to the claimant’s solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The claimant has not complied.   6. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim   7. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed   8. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   I will get this put into the defence section. Thank you again.
    • just remove the 2nd part where you mention some reply.
  • Our picks

Epic67

dca chasing glasgow bus lane fine - I'd sold car weeks before

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1488 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

with that logic, what contract binds me to there terms?

 

This is not contractual law its a statute, The Bus Lane Contraventions (Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (Scotland) Regulations 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't even an offence the OP committed.

 

The new owner of the vehicle committed the offence, the OP has the evidence from the DVLA to say that they were not the RK at the time of the event.

 

Therefore, the OP cannot be liable as the OP was not physically able to have committed the offence, and has the evidence to prove, which the LA has so far ignored, so yes starting the LA's complaints procedure, and informing their local MP/councillors is IMO the right way to get their incompetence cleared up.


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't even an offence the OP committed.

 

The new owner of the vehicle committed the offence, the OP has the evidence from the DVLA to say that they were not the RK at the time of the event.

 

Therefore, the OP cannot be liable as the OP was not physically able to have committed the offence, and has the evidence to prove, which the LA has so far ignored, so yes starting the LA's complaints procedure, and informing their local MP/councillors is IMO the right way to get their incompetence cleared up.

 

Who committed the contravention is nothing to do with it as its decriminalised and the keeper is liable. The person who is believed to be the keeper is served with a PCN and they have 28 days to contest the allegation using the statutory grounds of appeal one of which is not being the keeper at the time of the contravention. The OP has failed to do so within the prescribed period and is therefore still liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only phrase that has not been used yet, and that includes from you, G&M, is, "Commons sense"

 

Even the fundraisers who sent this ticket out, are allowed to be sensible, and they are not being, to their great shame.

 

I am quite sure that the taxpayers of Glasgow are pleased to see their money being spent this way!


All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the OP isn't the RK? :doh:

And has the proof that has been shown to the LA who are ignoring it.

 

And after giving it another thought G&M, I believe I'm seeing what you're saying......

 

Epic67, did you appeal this ticket when you first received it with the time scales laid down?


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the OP isn't the RK? :doh:

And has the proof that has been shown to the LA who are ignoring it.

 

And after giving it another thought G&M, I believe I'm seeing what you're saying......

 

Epic67, did you appeal this ticket when you first received it with the time scales laid down?

 

 

I wasn't in the country at the time, i used the money from sale to see family abroad, when i came back and seen the notice i contacted them immediately and they kept referring to the 28days thing and that iam liable and would not entertain any other questions or explanations. The DVLA wont contact council directly and vice versa, even when i have proof that there information is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup sent DCA and Council the documents, there response is that because i never appealed within 28 days then i'am liable for the debt :roll: i wasn't in the country during the appeal period so i was none the wiser.

 

Exactly how long after the PCN was served did you appeal??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't in the country at the time, i used the money from sale to see family abroad, when i came back and seen the notice i contacted them immediately and they kept referring to the 28days thing and that iam liable and would not entertain any other questions or explanations..

 

This is where your local MP will step in.


Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

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...