Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I just found a couple abandoned traffic cones locally by some bins.   A bit squished but free!  So have placed them on the land.  Will wait to see if the cones get moved and signs ignored again this week before I consider rocks/ boulders.
    • 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.
      • 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

DCA enforcement of supposed 'debts' (only purchased debts)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2888 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

I have recently been doing some research into legalities of purchasing debts and enforcing them..

From what i've read online and social media sites

When a DCA purchases your debt you do not have a contract with them.

 

you run up a bill with BT avoid paying for 3-4 years then lowell/cabot etc crawl out of the woodwork

and decide to chase you for said debt....

 

however technically you never entered into a contract with lowell/cabot etc only the original creditor

when you ask for documentation regarding your contract with said DCA

they can only provide you with copies of the original contract with the original creditor

which is no longer your debt as the DCA has purchased said debt.

 

in effect the DCA has paid your debt off for you you have no contract with the DCA therefor do you have to pay?..

 

.. i challenged Lowell a few weeks back and guess what they agreed that my account was indeed paid off

and no longer worth them chasing me for it,

it wasn't statute barred by any means just me challenging them..

 

 

I can post the letter I received from Lowell to show you how i did it

and if someone could give me their input on what i've done

or simply remove my post if moderators do not agree with it :madgrin:

Cabot Financial they came they didn't stay and they left rather quickly

 

Lloyds Tsb - bye bye

 

Lowell Financial - bye bye

 

:whoo::whoo::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

think you were just lucky for other reasons

not for following the freeman of the land twaddle.

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

yes, statutory legislation ie re assignment.

and, 'buyers' sometimes return a debt to the original creditor. either themselves, or under instruction from the fos for eg.

but of course if any of that can be challenged in any way, please say so. help us all. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont start following freeman of the land crap. Youll end up in MUCH more trouble if you do.

 

under the law of property act 1925, a creditor can sell and transfer all rights and obligations to a new owner. The new owner inherits ALL rights and obligations towards the debt, so they can chase you as if they were the original creditor.

 

FOTL arguments fall back upon an 1800's law which was rescinded and replaced by the 1925 act.

 

And if those idiots start spouting magna carta rubbish, pretty much every rule under it has been overwritten since.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

.

but of course if any of that can be challenged in any way, please say so. help us all. :)

meant to say 'legitimately challenged in any way.....' :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not 'into' freeman of the land crap as you put it renegadeimp..

. this was merely using what i have learned here in CAG and researching online.

 

 

. yes companies can legally buy debt.

. but after consulting with bulk centre for ccj processing recently

they confimed as did a legal advisor that on a technicality

you can indeed challenge the legality of the purchase

(not acting on behalf of client mind you)

as you were only ever in a contract with the original creditor.

 

 

in theory Lowell/Cabot have purchased your debt from your cc company or catalogue company

and very generously paid it off for you.

 

 

I indeed have challenged this theory and have several debts returned to zero

just recently i can add photo's to show this as well as letters i sent

 

 

I was merely researching the legality of the debt purchase and contracts...

 

this was a £700+ debt to Lowell as they had purchased from Provident personal credit..

 

 

I also used this same challenge with Lowell against a relatives old talk talk account..

I'm not saying it would work on every occasion and indeed i may have been extremely lucky

I was merely challenging the legality of the purchase

IMG_4189.jpg

edited image.jpg

Cabot Financial they came they didn't stay and they left rather quickly

 

Lloyds Tsb - bye bye

 

Lowell Financial - bye bye

 

:whoo::whoo::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much better.

 

Can you say what you wrote to the Leeds Losers to elicit that reply.

 

My thinking is that they didn't have full documentation to back up any claim so did the only thing they could. Lie and close the account.

 

They did something similar to me back in 08 and a few letters back and forth saw them off.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what a legal friend and I came up with after reading lots of stuff online and questioned the legality of assigned deeds we worked on the assumption that lowell had no deed assigned to them with my permission

 

 

Reference Number:

 

Dear [Person who wrote to you],

 

 

Thank you for your recent contact dated [Date In Full], the contents of which I note, but do not accept.

 

 

I hereby request that communication from this point forward be made in writing only,

and that you do not attempt to contact me by any other method

 

For the avoidance of doubt, this notice does not constitute a complaint, and should not be treated as one.

 

I wish to verify whether any claim made against me is lawful.

I therefore request that you provide evidence of my liability.

I am happy to effect payment upon receipt of the following documents:

 

 

 

  1. The original instrument of indebtedness, or proof that said instrument still exists.
  2. Either of the following;

    1. If this is a demand for payment under the Bill of Exchange Act 1882, copies of any bi-lateral or tri-lateral contracts which create obligations on each party to perform, including any delegated Instrument of Novation, signed and sealed in a tripartite contract and a signed invoice in accordance with said act OR
    2. If this is an assignment of a legal thing in action under the Law of Property Act 1925, a Deed of Assignment (not a notice of assignment). This should be executed as a Deed, granted by the grantor or original creditor and endorsed by instrumentary witnesses in solemn form.
       
      On and for the record, I am willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to myself is apparent.
       
      Should you not be in possession of any of the aforementioned documents, or should you terminate your claim against me without first providing proof of legitimacy, then you will be deemed to be party to a fraudulent act

Cabot Financial they came they didn't stay and they left rather quickly

 

Lloyds Tsb - bye bye

 

Lowell Financial - bye bye

 

:whoo::whoo::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry that is FMoTl

 

"endorsed by instrumentary witnesses in solemn form."

 

"reading lots of stuff online and questioned the legality of assigned deeds we worked on the assumption that Lowell

had no deed assigned to them with my permission "

 

"Bill of Exchange Act 1882"

 

"a Deed of Assignment (not a notice of assignment)."

 

 

 

 

they prob dropped it because they knew they had No CCA.

prob pennies anyway

 

 

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

All readers of this thread are advised not to use or copy the above letter in post#8.

 

Regards

 

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

It was for £789 to be honest and it was through a friend who is a legal advisor that helped pen it together fmotl is not something i have read up on tbh.. He only deals with bank debts through a charity advice centre so i dont get why you would insist i have used fmotl

Cabot Financial they came they didn't stay and they left rather quickly

 

Lloyds Tsb - bye bye

 

Lowell Financial - bye bye

 

:whoo::whoo::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

no charity advice centre would ever allow such a letter to be used on their behalf

or a 'solicitor' that worked for them to use those highlighted issues in my post above..

 

anyway.

the reason why lowells decided to drop both debts

would have been because 99% of privy doorstep loans are totally unenforceable anyway

and

a mobile phone debt of that size

will either be disputed call charges

or

cost to end of contract

neither of which a court would judge upon in lowells favour.

 

 

bet they had a good giggle at the letter.

 

 

that sols want shooting.

 

 

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

no charity advice centre would ever allow such a letter to be used on their behalf

or a 'solicitor' that worked for them to use those highlighted issues in my post above..

 

anyway.

the reason why lowells decided to drop both debts

would have been because 99% of privy doorstep loans are totally unenforceable anyway

and

a mobile phone debt of that size

will either be disputed call charges

or

cost to end of contract

neither of which a court would judge upon in lowells favour.

 

 

bet they had a good giggle at the letter.

 

 

that sols want shooting.

 

 

dx

 

More like a Playground Lawyer! - dangerous!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a lawyer just a legal advisor who does thing by the book in a charity based advice centre this was something we came up with together outside of this arrangement after i read lots of stuff online using what i used here previously and just challenged the legality of the debt with the dca x my

Stance was i hadn't signed a contract with the dca and thats what i argued with them over the debt x i guess i was lucky is all x

Cabot Financial they came they didn't stay and they left rather quickly

 

Lloyds Tsb - bye bye

 

Lowell Financial - bye bye

 

:whoo::whoo::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

AAAHHHH!!! A DCA is an admin company usually only been appointed to chase and collect monies Alleged owed & act on behalf of Owner, A debt purchaser buys an alledged debt and becomes the owner, therefore your idea that a DCA needs a contract with you to chase is void, as they act on behalf of the originator.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

AAAHHHH!!! A DCA is an admin company usually only been appointed to chase and collect monies Alleged owed & act on behalf of Owner, A debt purchaser buys an alledged debt and becomes the owner, therefore your idea that a DCA needs a contract with you to chase is void, as they act on behalf of the originator.

 

Like i said i did some reading online and with some help challenged i'm not saying its correct and maybe like someone else mentioned they didn't have a cca to begin with, hence i got lucky..

Cabot Financial they came they didn't stay and they left rather quickly

 

Lloyds Tsb - bye bye

 

Lowell Financial - bye bye

 

:whoo::whoo::lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Much better.

 

Can you say what you wrote to the Leeds Losers to elicit that reply.

 

My thinking is that they didn't have full documentation to back up any claim so did the only thing they could. Lie and close the account.

 

They did something similar to me back in 08 and a few letters back and forth saw them off.

 

Sounds about right.

 

I asked for a copy of original agreements for one of the accounts they held. Was told they didn't have it and they closed the account and wrote to me saying they would not chase me for that or any other debt they held (total of 3).

 

Makes me wonder if they hold any documentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

no they never do

all they get in the portfolios they buy and sell

[we call them phishing lists]

is one line in a spreadsheet

 

 

that's put in the computer

and it sends out automatic threat-o-grams

to see if they can spoof mugs into coughing up.

 

 

sadly 99% of people do

hence these lists are potentially worth £M's

 

 

the day people realise that a DCA has no more powers than you or I

- can only try for a CCJ - as that's all we can do on debt

the UK will be a far wealthier place.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...