Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

Agreement Enforceable?


warner0708
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5107 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

can anyone plz help?? have cap1 credit card and sent 3 letters requesting CCA.More than 30 day s elapsed in time and still they keep writing to request a signature(which i have been advised not to give!!!) Is debt now unenforcable???? shall i proceed with next stage??? Any help would be really appreciated :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly won't be unenforceable if you continue to refuse to provide your confirmation of identity (signature). This is a basic requirement - and to refuse to do so in the mistaken belief that it could be misused will disadvantage you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

You place yourself in a situation that disadvantages you, and you object to me pointing this out? I've pointed this out before - and it looks as though, for you, I have to do it again.

 

Since the reason put forward NOT for providing said signature is to 'prevent it being copied' (misused), shows a naive disregard for how this works, making the complainant appear (at best) ill-advised, and (at worst) a nutter.

 

Even if you believe the signature will be copied - the legal term for this is 'forged' and is a crime punishable in the criminal courts, wouldn't it be great if the offending firm did this? Not only can you involve the police, it makes the matter a criminal one whereas before it was only you Vs them. If you think a firm is going to risk everything simply to defraud the OP, you've lost your grip on reality.

 

No two signatures are the same, but it becomes VERY easy to modify your signature in a way that is distinctive to you (if copied) especially as all you have to do is retain a copy and refer to it to 'prove' that it was done,

Indeed, of the 7 times I have done this as part of a dispute process, I got the information I required and nobody attempted to misrepresent my signature (shame, as I wanted it to happen).

 

So, thanks for your vote of no-confidence. Coming from you it gives me all the vindication I need. And I don't need to be as disrespectful as you were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that there is no legal reason why you have to sign a s.78 request.

 

Therefore, a company is not acting reasonably in using this as an excuse to fail to comply with your statutory request.

 

They clearly dont want to or cant comply.

 

Nothing to do with forging sigs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And how would you convince the company you are apply to, that you are indeed the person stated in the letter? It is more than just a courtesy to sign, it signifies (!) that the person signing is requesting the information. To type such a signature, or not do so because there 'is no requirement' means that as there is no verification that the requestor is who they say it is, anyone - a private investigator, nosey neighbour could no the same, and following your premise - get the info without fear or favour.

 

Since the DPA provides safeguards additional to the S78 request, the firms must be satisfied that the requestor is the data subject, and to provide a signature is the way this is done.

 

On a tangent. I have in the last week been asked to provide my date of birth three times in order to purchase products. Previously, a statement of 'Over 21' (then 'Over 18') was enough. Not now. No valid reason is provided, but usually 1/1/01 is enough.... Tried to sign up for a mobile phone contract? No DoB, no phone. Yes there's no legal requirement, other than to be 'of age' to enter into such an agreement.

 

Of course, the REAL reason is so that they can correctly allocate your data to your credit reference file so mistakes are minimised. Therefore their reason for the additional data has nothing to do with the use of the handset or the purchased services. But folk happily give a DoB on request. Are they mad, or just desperate for a phone?

 

As to the topic at hand - if a firm does not satisfy itself that the s78 request id from the data subject, they are in breach. Why you want to make so much of NOT providing same is still incomprehensible, and results in the needless refusal to supply - and a perfect excuse not to comply with their terms of supply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not being funny, but don't they already have your signed application forms for the credit card?

 

I mean you must have signed something taking out the card? why are you worried about sending your signature to a company that probably already has a copy of your signature on file?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

hi there very useful info thanks, know thread is quite old now but have had the same rubbish sent through by cap1!!!! have sent letter shown above but in addition have had a photocopied sheet of paper with heading credit agreement reg by cca 1974 saying this agreement between ......(name) of.......(address)and a letter from cap1 saying that they are currently in the process of retrieving a copy of my current agreement and will send it shortly!!! A statement s78 is also enclosed and set out at end of letter!!!they also say they will not be entering into anymore correspondence regarding provision of copy agreements and agreement is enforceable??????They also say to look at Carey v HSBC (2009) 3417(QB)??? Any help would be very much appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have recently received some paperwork from crap 1 titled credit agreement regulated by cca 1974......the first papragraph states terms and conditions as says this is an agreement between........of(address).........etc.It states no credit limit by says we will notify you of this, it does state apr but is just a couple of printed pages with no sig???? Is this enforceable????Can anyone help or know what next step will be??/Letter sent with it says its a reconstituted agreement of orginal.The card was taken out in 2001 but the date is smudged on accompanying letter so you cant read it???

 

It also says refer to Carey v HSBC(no requirement to send photocopy of original agreement)

 

they will not be entering into further correspondence with me

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI Warner

Unsigned ts and cs are not enforceable in a court! Letterl a load of cobblers!:D

I would send them this letter --

 

 

Re: my request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Thank you for your recent letter sent to me, the contents of which are noted. I appreciate your quick response to my original letter. However, the reply received by me does not fulfill your requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Act demands that I be supplied with a true copy of any properly executed credit agreement that exists in relation to the above account. I may ask for this on demand providing that a fee of £1.00 is paid. This fee was sent with my original letter.

My request remains outstanding. An unsigned credit agreement with no personal details on it, like the one you sent in your reply, does not constitute a true copy of any credit agreement that may or may not have been signed by me on the opening of this account. A blank agreement neither confirms that I am liable for any alleged debt to you, nor gives me any chance to evaluate whether any original agreement was ‘properly executed’.[/font]

I still require you to send me a true copy of the original credit agreement that you allege exists. As you will know, under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, a judge is not permitted to make any enforcement order unless the creditor can provide a true signed copy of the original credit agreement. This means that unless you can produce such an agreement, this alleged debt is not enforceable in law.

You had until ??/??.2009 (12+2 working days after the request was made) to provide me with the true copy I requested. You are now in default of my request. Any account I hold with you is now in legal dispute. Whilst the account remains in dispute, you are not permitted to ask for any payment, nor am I obliged to offer any payment to you. Furthermore, whilst the dispute remains, you are not entitled to charge any interestlink3.gif on the account, nor make any further charges to the account. Additionally, you are not entitled to register any information on this account with any credit reference agency.

To register information with a credit reference agency, you must have written consent from the customer to collate and share such information. This consent is given in the form of a signed credit agreement, so until you produce such an agreement, you may not do this.

The requirement for consent to share data is a clear requirement of the Data Protection Act 1998. Any such attempts to share my data without my consent will be met with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office the time limits, which are laid down in the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 are clear. You must supply an executed credit agreement within 12 + 2 working days of a proper CCA request. If you fail to comply with a legitimate request the account enters a default situation.

To sum up, I will not be making any further payments to you until you provide me with the document I have requested. Whilst you remain in default of my request, you are not permitted to take any action against this account. This includes adding further charges and passing any information to the credit information industry.[/font]

I expect you to write to me confirming that the account has been closed and no further action will be taken.

I look forward to your reply.

Im happy to help with support and my own opinions but as i have no legal qualifications If I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action,

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

CrapOne don't answer letters -and that is a fact from one of their ex-employees. They shipped their call centre to India, paid off their admin staff and put what had been their call centre staff into admin. they haven't a clue about anything. They just push buttons that produce templates and add irrelevancies. So no Crap One letter makes sense. Ignore them and they will eventually go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...