Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • 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 then 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. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  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.
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2691 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 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

well then they cant ID you then can they

as the format is a temple

and if you remove you details

its a blank template sara.

 

 

I bet I have numerous copies of the sane one filed already.

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

Does the letter say anywhere on it that it is either a letter of claim or a letter before action?

 

If it does, and from what you have said it does sound like a letter before action get a cca request sent off asap , it may be enough to stop them issuing a claim.

 

I know it worked for me a few years ago when I received a LBA from a DCA for a smallish debt, purely by accident I was sending CCA requests off at the same time, it stopped them in their tracks

 

The following letter has worked for some in the past

[template removed]

 

 

Sara

 

I do agree with DX that it is highly unlikely if not impossible for a DCA to be able to identify you from a standard letter particularly if you remove all names, reference numbers and bar codes before posting.

Edited by dx100uk
dx

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally

 

You ideas on SB may be flawed as it can vary

Had the account been defaulted when you made the last payment?

 

If it was an up to date account it can take some time, often a month or two before the limitations clock starts to tick, i.e the 6 year period starts. While I would love to be able to give a definitive answer, every case is different and there is no case law to clarify exactly when it does start

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fletch, letter states "potential legal action" rather than letter of claim or letter before action. It looks like a letter before I get a letter from the solicitor. I tend to agree with the previous post warning against poking around and would probably delay sending a CCA request until the summons was received.

 

 

We have had far worse threats for larger amounts that came to nothing.

 

 

I came across another forum where they had a printed letter to all DCAs from the body that controls them saying the date of SB starts from the LAST PAYMENT. This was to clear any ambiguities from those who tried to claim it started a month after the last payment or the default date which could be many months later and they left themselves open to severe consequences unless they adhered to this. It also stated that they were certainly allowed to continue to chase SB debts, but once they received a request from the debtor they MUST stop immediately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sara

I would be interested to see that forum/letter because I know that solicitors are claiming in court that the limitations starts from the date of default which IMO is too late .

 

The thing is, even looking at it sensibly, there has to be a cause of action for the clock to start and without at least a missed payment there is no cause of action. Hence the very very minimum would be the date of the first missed payment but as i said this is still being argued about.

 

there was a case relatively recently on a S79 agreement when the cause of action was a long time after the missed payment and wasn't until the hirer had accepted the breach . That case was BMW v Hart and set case law for that sort of agreement which does blow your idea out of the water a bit.

 

I was basing my other opinion on your statement that said the letter said they would issue a claim if you did not reply

As it stands, it does not seem to make sense , a letter entitled potential legal action that goes on to say they will issue a claim

 

But if you are happy ealing with it that way, who am I to argue - just do not be surprised if you get a claim sometime soon

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

hart was HP agreements

this is a credit card

totally different

 

 

can we atleast name the DCA sara

then i'll post up a copy of the template letter you got

dx

Edited by honeybee13
Initials removed.

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

No **** sherlock!

 

I did say it was for that type of agreement

 

BUT

 

Sara didn't specify what type of agreement this alleged letter to DCA's was referring to

Edited by honeybee13
Initals removed plus argumentative sentence.

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

post 1 says card.

 

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

Dx

Please read

 

Sara says that she has been told that a letter was sent to all DCA's stating that SB clock begins on the date of the last payment, this is the point where she didn't say what sort of account the letter referred to.

 

BTW it is no one's turn, I have no idea what you are rambling on about

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honeybee, I didn't see your post until I had reposted it. I guess you are going to remove it again. I thought it was because it mentioned Legal Seagulls - is it ok to send fletch a link as he was keen to see it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. Can I paste the relevant part of the body text or does that cause a problem? Anything quoted can, I assume, be verified with the CSA.

 

Sara, you can quote up to 15% of a CSA article or similar, if that helps. And you can post a link to the CSA. :)

 

HB

Edited by honeybee13
Clarity.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

it worthy to note

the csa is a debt collectors 'association'

never believe anything they state.

 

 

but for want of clarity

after 6yrs [sB'd] they can still ASK for payment [in England & wales]

you can equeally 'ask' them to go away

they cant threaten or enforce court action

so they don't bother.

 

 

chin up

don't get spoofed.

 

 

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

Thanks Honeybee, luckily it's 85% dross, so will take the 15%. As article is not from the CSA site but a competitor site, can't really do the link,

 

Quote from the CSA:

 

The OFT have confirmed that the wording of this part of the CCP is inaccurate. The wording will be updated when the CCP as a whole is revised and we will be updated on timings in due course

 

Under the Limitation Act 1980, which applies to England and Wales, a debt is considered to be statute barred when no payments have been made against it or where it has not been acknowledged* for six years.

Edited by honeybee13
Possible pejorative remark removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we actually have some clarification.

 

Who is the DCA?

When was the default listed?

When was the final payment made?

Also have a read of the attached... But do NOT take this verbatim as the ICO loosened their thoughts on the matter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have read in several articles the SB time starts when the last payment was made and a judgement can only be obtained if it is made within six years of that date.

 

 

It makes more sense that the clock stops when the summons is first taken out - is that the case or when judgement is granted?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...