Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • dca please.?   Barclays would have marked the A/c Defaulted on or before sale, and issued a default notice a dca debt buyer cannot issue a default notice    send Barclays an sar.   the A/c was opened whilst resident in Scotland that means the debt is statute barred and extinguished,, dead gone parrot. though that has no relevance to a credit file.    
    • scan it all up to one multipage PDF read upload carefully   I suspect its the usual stuff they troll out for vanquis card debt those  application forms are not a credit agreement    lots of previous Lowell claimform threads here to read that explains why.   dx  
    • In late 2014, I received correspondence from a DCA acting on behalf of Barclays, pursuing a student overdraft of around £1k from 2003. I hadn't used this account in many years, well over six, and it is my belief (though, in full honesty,   I can't actually remember, and can't prove anything) that it was closed a couple of years later in around 2004/2005/2006 (and it wasn't on my credit file in 2014), and the overdraft transferred to RBS (an account also closed so long ago that it is long since gone from my credit file. I certainly don't recall using it after 2004, and it was quite common then to transfer student accounts/overdrafts between banks.   I emailed the DCA, stating that I didn't acknowledge the debt, that it would be statute-barred in any case, and requested an original credit agreement. None was forthcoming,   after some back and forth, I invited them to issue proceedings if they felt they had an enforceable credit agreement. They did not respond.   I am currently looking at applying for a mortgage, and have noticed that whilst this account doesn't appear on Equifax or Experian, it is on my TransUnion file, showing as set up in 2003 and defaulted in 2015.   Does anyone have any advice as to what I should do? The 2019 Doyle case might make my contention that it was statute-barred somewhat shakier, though, equally, I haven't heard anything about it in over five years,   I cannot believe that, if the account was not closed/settled in the mid-2000s as I believe, that Barclays would not have issued a default notice before 2015. Does anyone have any advice as to what I should do?   I want this off my credit file, even if the account wasn't closed in 2004, I believe that Barclays/its DCA are trying to pull a fast one by recording a default in January 2015, but given that neither party has any records with which to validate their belief/position, it hardly seems fair that I pay out for something that either doesn't exist or ought to be statute barred? A further point is that whilst it is Barclays, the account was opened at a branch in Scotland (where I lived/studied), where I believe that the Limitation period is five years, so, even if it transpired that the default was legitimately in 2015, would the matter now be statute barred anyway? Or would it be six years given that I now live in England?
    • Hi.   Quick update. I have contacted the FOS and asked for written confirmation of the decision made so that I can take court action.   I have had my Cifas report today. It states.   Barclays Bank registered a 1st party fraud report against me on the 30th May 2019. This is the date they closed my account.   Case Type: Misuse of facility. Reasons: Multiple encashment fraud. Cifas Filing: First party fraud - (Opening an account or other facility for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an account or facility; or taking out and insurance policy for a fraudulent purpose or the fraudulent misuse of an insurance policy and/or insurance policy documentation)   So, they told the FOS early December that my credit file would be amended and any negative reports would be removed, but as of today the account is still in default with Equifax and I still have the Cifas registered against my name.
  • Our picks

hodgsoi

MET Parking Charge Notice - Declaration of Driver

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1219 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

it means that they either own or lease the land, if it comes to a clourt claim then you can look up the ownership on the land registry for £3 and if they lease it then the parking co dont have a contract-simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Honeybee 13, hopefully this copy is better. I'm not too good with technology.

 

I've done a Land Registry search and it looks like McDonald's own the land.

What happens now?

Do I have to tell MET who the driver is now?

Land Registry File.pdf

McDonald's.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

never tell them who was driving, unless that person is deceased.

 

Now, I

s mcd's real estate a subsidiary of maccyd's or the other way round or are they separate companies?

 

 

Companies house is the place to look that up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, just received another parking charge notice from MET telling me that the parking charge amount due is now £100. Do I start an appeal to them or is there some way that I can fight this based on McDonald's Real Estate LLP actually owning the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if this is an additional PCN to the one being discussed here

then yo wait for the notice to keeper


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point you are not fighting anything so there is no need to respond to MET's demands.

 

As for the company structure there are 2 holding companies for the land and Maccyd's as a separate trading co whose interests are vested in 2 directors who without looking the up I would presume are part of the limited liability partnership.

 

 

By running things this way we cant see what is really going on so impossible to tell if the MET contract is signed off by the right entity but generally one can assume that they can in cases like this.

 

However,

none of this changes any argument about the terms offered at the time nor does it mean that planning consent miraculously appears so i would be sitting tight and then telling them that there is no contractual obligation when they or their lawyers send a lba.

 

 

In the mean while you should get picture of the signage at the entrance to the land,

any signage on the land that is different and an idea of the size of the signs,

their hight above ground and the size of the writing.

 

 

I bet they will fail the legibility test and that is the first thing I would be telling them and keep the no planning argument for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dx100uk, sorry, this is a reminder for the original PCN.

 

Ericsbrother, thanks for the good advice. I'll need to see if I can get a few pics of the signage somewhere - I live in Scotland so it's a little awkward but I'm sure I'll manage something.

Should I make enquiries about planning permission with the local council. I want to try and get my ducks in a row, as it were.

 

Thanks again guys, I really appreciate the help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ask the council covering the area,

you need to state that it is an enquiry about planning permission under the advertising hoardings reg of the town and country planning act 2007 so they are clear what you are on about.

 

 

the normaL CUSTOMER SERVICES PEOPLE WONT KNOW AND PROBEBLY TELL YOU THAT IT IS DEEMED CONSENT OR NOT NEEDED FOR PRIVATE LAND BUT THIS IS NOT SO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

I sent off the planning enquiry to Hillingdon Council and got back the standard reply which I've copied below.

 

Generally parking signs on private car parks serving a restaurant or shops etc. do not need advertisement consent if they are giving details of parking restrictions, hours of operation, charges, etc. If they were of excessively large size, we may have to consider them and see if they needed consent.

 

 

If the query relates to terms of parking such as nominated users, fees, penalty charges and whether appropriate signage was displayed, this is not an issue controlled by planning legislation.

 

 

Full planning history including advert applications can be viewed on website, enter site number 45578 in the reference field using the link below -

http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/planningSearch

 

 

This does not show any planning applications for parking signs so I replied to the council asking specifically for any details under the Town and Country Planning Act 2007 as suggested by ericsbrother. I'm still awaiting an update and will pst the reply when I get it.

 

In the meantime, I have obtained some photos of the signage on site. There are two signs approx. 1200 x 800 posted at the entrance to the car park saying that there are parking restrictions in force with a maximum stay of 60 minutes and to see the details on the other signs.

 

In the car park there are 13 signs posted around the car park at approx. 15m intervals. They are 600 x 800 and sit at a height of 2m above ground. Another two signs, 800 x 1200 with the same wording are posted at the exit to the car park and these are approx. 1.2m off the ground.

 

Here's a PDF copy of the sign so that you can read the wording.

IMG_0941.jpg

IMG_0940.jpg

IMG_0938.jpg

IMG_0943.jpg

McDonald's Parking Sign.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EB, can you comment on the Council's response so we know where we stand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oddfellow, I've not received an update from Hillingdon Council as yet. When I do I will post it.

 

Cheers

 

Sorry Oddfellow, misread your post. Thought it was for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No probs. Just after general commentary on the legal position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are talking out of their backsides,

read the Mansfield thread and you will see the exact quotes of the legislation

and if Hillingdon are right why do other councils including Mansfield and Croydon force PE to obey the same law.

 

 

The problem is you have got a response from some untrained CS wonk who knows nothing.

Anyway the 1200x800 signs need permission regardless of what they say unless they are estate agents for sale signs.

 

As for the contents,

well the main sign is an invitation to treat because it refers to other signs offering the contract.

You are not barred from entering without accepting those unknowm conditions so you are able to reject the contract if you bother to read it.

 

 

Any parking event then becomes a matter of trespass if Maccy D's dont want you there and that is nowt to do with MET.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother, thanks for your assistance once again.

 

Should I wait until I hear from Hillingdon Council to see if they will do anything off their own backs regarding Section 30 of the T & C Planning Act 2007 or should I contact them again to report an offence?

 

What is the position with McDonald's now? Should I contact them as the land owner and ask if they know that there are illegally posted signs in their car park?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you now ignore MET and dont waste any more time on this as you arent going to get a straight answer from anyone.

 

No-one is interested in helping you at the council,

they dont really care about minor planning breaches

because they dotn have the resources to do anything.

 

Maccyd's have a crooked deal with MET but no-one will sue them so they carry on destrpying their customer base and MET dont give a stuff about the law or they would be in another business.

 

You know they dont have PP so that sinks any claim.

They are knackered by the wording of their signage anyway so let them do their worst.

 

Commonly, MET do nothing so unless someone else finds a new winning argument on behalf of parking co's to break the law that is unlikely to change much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ericsbrother.

 

I'll just sit tight and ignore them then

 

. if they do come back at least I have the ammunition to throw at them.

 

As you say both parties are colluding in an illegal activity so maybe they don't want to push too hard anyway.

 

Many thanks again for your invaluable assistance.

 

It really is much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dont ignore a N1 court claim though but expect a load of threatograms in the menawhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ericsbrother. Just had another "Action May Be Taken" threatogram yesterday. I'll just sit tight unless they ramp things up to a court claim as you say.

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...