Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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

Hoist Portfolio 2/? claimform - old Barclaycard 'debt' ***Claim Still Struck Out ***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2579 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

  • Replies 349
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please elaborate on "mediation will then ask you their set q's prior"?

mediation will contact you first, asking some questions. there was a good post on it in a thread, cant recall which one atm, will try find it just now. unless one of the guys recalls it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it

they simply try and continue the bluff till the last minute

and then prob discontinue

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

You have to laugh at this crew...most of their claims they add section 69 interest to the debt and push it to Fast Track and on this were the debt is genuinely over 10K they ask for it to be small claims track.

 

J. Directions

1. Pursuant to CPR 26.7(2), the claim be allocated to the small claims track

 

Just so you aware which CPR they are relying on

 

26.7

 

(2) The court will allocate a claim which has no financial value to the track which it considers most suitable having regard to the matters mentioned in rule 26.8(1).

 

 

:madgrin:

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well maybe as its SB it has no monetary value!

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well maybe as its SB it has no monetary value!

 

:-) If only...it means that they are varying from the prescribed limits normally used to allocate to track...so in reality although they accept its over 10K and should be FT...its a simple claim that can be dealt with in SCT....not that the cost of it being in FT what have anything to do with their request:-)

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that, this is for £16k ....

re allocation, when considering the 'value', the court shld 'disregard' any claims for interest.

which puts it at the 11k, which as said can be dealt with in smalls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Court issues the directions anyway in Small Claim Track

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi guys,

 

I've now received the court order stating the claim has been allocated to the fast track, In summary:

 

Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court offices, copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing, no later than 1st August and the hearing fee is payable by the claimant by the 8th August.

 

What paperwork am I filing in respect of my SB defence? I have a copy of my very last payment and the default, the rest I've never managed to receive from Barclays and this includes the agreement, if I receive nothing from the claimant, I'm assuming this alone stops the whole case.

 

By the 1st August this agreement will also have been deleted from my credit file, it should have been 3 months ago, the actual default was in May, but they are using a false date and refuse to change it, despite me being the only one that appears to have a true copy of the default.

 

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the court decided Fast Track....ouch that will hit their pocket.Disclosure will be anything in support of your statute barred defence...you may wish to disclose that default notice also.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes £600 and its not going to court until 1st December, I'll pull a few things together and let you review what I've provided, its nothing complex.

 

I've been attempting to get any form of paperwork, especially a confirmation on the default date they have and obviously a copy of the agreement, we shall see as they're now legally obliged to produce everything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you might not get their disclosure list until 1st August

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Form N265 is used to list all disclosures...its part of the Fast Track process.

 

See the legal library

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Each party must deliver to the other party and to the court offices, copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing, no later than 1st August and the hearing fee is payable by the claimant by the 8th August.

thats good, at least.

no worries atm re fast track, see how things develop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Sorry to chip in , this is potentially the most interesting case on CAG for a long while if the SB issue comes to trial,

although I suspect they may fall on the s78 issue as Barclays are notorious for not finding documents.

 

 

I have some old Barclaycard terms and conditions and they clearly state that legal action will only be taken after the statutory process has been completed and I'm afraid that means BMW v Hart may come into play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been pressuring both Hoist and BarclaryCard via Equifax to prove the default notice,

Barclaycard on Friday decided not to do that and simply deleted the agreement.

 

 

Hoist who purchased the debt have yet to provide any paperwork, and have continually deflected my requests other than to raise this claim against me and I have defended it each time.

 

They must provide the paperwork (default, agreement etc) within a few weeks, if not then I assume the case is over and it will no longer be pursuant anyway.

 

Only time will tell, I'm providing my defence this week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The real default notice was dated in May 16, none of the agreements should even exist on Equifax, they would have now been deleted after the 6 year period.

 

They are using on the claim a default date of July 29th and have been unable to prove that date, i.e where are the facts, the paperwork. I'm defending using SB but I ultimately want them to prove there is not only an agreement, but a valid agreement and supporting legal paperwork.

 

I understand SB comes from the last payment date, but all immaterial if they cannot even prove there is even an agreement to enforce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...