Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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

Backdated Tenants in Common.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2835 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

The charging order is in my name only and only on my share of the equity. despite him being present at the hearing it was never questioned why they didn't also include him. He put in an objection that it was unfair on him if the order for sale went through as it was only on my share.

It was a joint loan and bank account that was put as a charging order. They only went after me as he refused to acknowledge them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just bizarre! What do you mean by 'he refused to acknowledge them'? They get judgement by default if they make a claim and it's not acknowledged…

 

Did you not say anything to the creditors about it being a joint loan? What about at court… did you remind the court that it was a joint debt? I'm not really getting my head round this.. is there something missing? Did you agree with your partner to take on his share of the debt? TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it was all pointed out but because he didn't respond to them they just took me to court instead. i told the solicitors at the time and all they kept saying was that they can take either of us to court or both and it was up to them. They said it didn't matter that the loan was joint or the bank account.

As far as i know they never sent any court documents to him at all. just debt collection letters that he ignored.

I didn't agree to ever taking on his share of the debt. In fact he said in court that he would ensure that payments were made on time, on my behalf, as I wasn't working which of course he didn't.

There is nothing missing from it and I still have all the original paperwork from the court showing it was a joint debt but is only in my name. I ended up with the CCJ which then was turned into a charge. No action was taken against him at all and the judge, at the time of the order for sale, said that it would not have any impact on his equity and would only be on mine.

So i don't know where I stand with it and how I can make him pay his part of the debt now. I suppose it is a still an ongoing debt as long as the charge goes unpaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just need it clarifying as I think it should be 50/50 and also half of the charging order amount in my favour at least.

I'm trying to disassociate myself from him and have closed down 2 zero balance accounts. that only leaves the mortgage that I'm currently paying and a joint bank account that I had no access to until a month later. It only had tax credits paid into it and he continued to spend them, when he wasn't entitled to claim them, and ran up an overdraft of which he sent me a letter saying I should pay half in order to close the account!

I'm sorry, but I am not willing to pay back any money he spent in adult shops and for meals out using money he wasn't entitled after he went to great lengths to control everything and I had to jump through hoops just to find that out. He made sure I had no control or knowledge of anything past or present and has lied all his life.

He grooms people in order to gain control over them and I've found out that's the story of his life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm… it's very complicated…

 

Perhaps you should close the joint bank account which the tax credits go into if he is no longer entitled to them…especially if you are no longer in a relationship with him.

Have you tried Citizen's Advice? I know they are usually rubbish but they might be able to give you a little help… what you really need is to see a solicitor, I think most will give you an initial half an hour, free of charge…

They might be able to advise re the CO which should have been in both your names…

 

The reason he wants the house repossessed, rather than sold, is that he knows that 90% of any equity will go straight to him… and you'll be left with the debt which is still in your name only… you really should get some proper legal advice. TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't close the joint bank account as the overdraft he ran up is still outstanding although it has been blocked and nothing can go out or in.

I have seen 3 solicitors and really got nowhere. One was just telling me that i had signed and that was that. Another told me just to keep waiting to see what happens and another then acted for him after telling me i should get 70% of the equity!

None of them have addressed the fact that the debt was a joint one and only I ended up with the charging order or that I had no option to lower my share because of him and to prevent an order for sale.

None of the solicitors or advice places agree on how to proceed and every time I speak to someone new they tell me the advice I've been given so far is wrong! if they don't know what to do, when they are being paid and are supposed to be experts, then how is that supposed to help me?

the only other thing I can think of is that I have recently taken out home insurance and that has legal protection but I doubt it would help deal with the charging order or the 90% situation as it was prior to it being in place but they should be able to assist with advice and help if he does try to force a sale. Fingers crossed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I closed my joint account where there was an outstanding overdraft.. I set up a direct debit to pay it off. If it's blocked, it's closed anyway, I suppose…

 

I feel that you should have insisted that the debt was joint… but too late now. You signed things, possibly under duress, but a signature, unless it's forged, would provide evidence that you were in agreement with whatever it is you signed..

 

Yep, the insurer will have a helpline and whilst they won't cover your legal fees for a pre-existing matter, they may be able to advise… worth a try. Good luck!

 

TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just tried to close the joint account that has a balance of zero and TSB won't do it with him signing????? Apparently there is a restriction on it even though either of use can close it down as it only needs one signature. The reason they give is that he must have a another account or loan with them, solely in his name, that must be in debt. This is turning into a nightmare to get sorted.

The other joint account is with Lloyds are they are refusing to do anything other than block it for a month unless the overdraft is repaid. think the only thing left is have to have a notice registered with the credit reference agencies.

Thank you TB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...