Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in he clear. So you do not need to worry about is  any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
    • Thanks so much dx. I really am grateful for your advice Billy  
    • voluntary termination then. have a read of this thread CAREFULLY everything is there in good detail. MoneyBarn - Voluntary Termination - Moneybarn Issues - Consumer Action Group thread title updated and moved to the Blackhorse forum dx
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

NatWest/RBS mortgage PPI **WON £12k**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1925 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

Well, here we go again! After successfully reclaiming ALL my mis-sold PPI's, taking 8+ years, or so I thought, another one has surfaced.

 

This time, it's an odd one. Out of the blue, I received an 'Annual Review of your optional PPI'. Addressed to me, with an insufficient address, which the post office delivered. There was a ref. no. so I contacted the sender. They had no record of it! But someone must be paying a DD of £49.66/pm. Certainly not me.

 

We knew it related to a mortgage we used to have but paid off about 5 years ago. My husband checked his bank statements and....yes.....he's paying £49.66/pm. He queried it after paying off the mortgage then (and reducing all unnecessary payments) but his bank told him it was a Buildings Insurance and that it could be used for any property he lived in!!! (He never told me that one!!). Of course, he stupidly believed them and left it thinking he had to have it.

 

How low can these banks sink??? Obviously, we will reclaim, but it has to be through my husband which does make it a bit more complicated.

 

My thoughts are, that not only did they take out a policy on ME (I would have refused point blank to pay it), but I'm guessing the salesman then pressured my husband to pay it on my behalf. Don't get me wrong, my husband is far from stupid (!) but he runs his own business and these 'trivial' matters get dealt with then forgotten! Me? I know every penny I pay out!!

 

The next 'odd' thing is they have my personal details, mainly correct, except it says current employment status: employed 16+ hrs/wk. Wrong! I have been self-employed for 35+ years! That, in itself, means I was mis-sold since I could never claim. Sure, it says, if self-employed, that the business must 'fail' or 'voluntarily cease trading'. I've argued that one every time, since the business is 'me'.....what am I supposed to do??!!

 

I have a feeling we could tackle them from various angles but would love to hear from anyone else who might have been in a similar situation? I think this is a mis-selling mis-selling!!...and they have walked right into a trap.

 

I'm hoping my husband can find the relevant paperwork, otherwise we'll have to request it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

prob an advisor somewhere filled it out and faked a sig to gain the commission

it was rife at that period in time.

 

 

find the demands and needs sheet for the mortgage application

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

  • 1 year later...

well done

 

please consider a donation too keep us here

 

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

I was trying to conclude this oldish thread! ...loose ends and all....husband got the money!!

 

It still beggars belief how all these lending institutions can act so deviously. And for so long. If I hadn't spotted it (something sent to our other address out of the blue) and queried it, it'd still be being paid, no doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you already told us 2 posts up

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...