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 
        • 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

Stat Barred - Credit File searched - Letter received


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2612 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 touched on this in a recent post but very recently a letter received by my Aunt sort of confirms my thoughts.

 

Debt with a bank, no payment/acknowledgement for some 10 years now, the debt is most certainly stat barred.

 

However, due to a recent restructuring on her finances she was able to sort a small loan out to consilidate her outgoings (no DCA's as there are none left in the pool)

 

The loan was obtained and the outstanding bits and pieces all paid off as part of the loan (paid by her not the bank)

 

3 weeks later in a letter dated 17th February a well known bottom feeding DCA sent her a letter quoting ' (wording may vary)

 

'Recent activity on your credit file suggests you may have made a significant payment to one of your financial accounts, In view of this contact is requested from yourself to us to agree an payment plan and where your financial circumstances can be discussed'

 

This is just so wrong, no fincancial relationship with this DCA exists, they have over the years tried to collect on the alleged debt but where no payment/acknowledgment exists and now some 15 years since anything was heard from the OC.

 

Course of action? Yes to ignore but why are these miscreants allowed to continually scour credit files on debts that have long since gone past the stat barred and at the same time as this they quite obviously have software linked to the CRA's that flag individuals activity

 

Just so very wrong.

I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Deb

 

Yes to ignore......with regards to the snooping...not a lot you can do as the Credit Agencies the DCAs and the Legislation in part are all part and parcel and in bed together..rigged to keep a corrupt industry rolling and making profits inflicting harassment and misery on the less fortunate...to feed the few who control it.

 

Rant over :-D

 

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

There could be a DPA breach here – over processing – but you have to be prepared to make trouble about it. Whatever debt they are chasing, I would have thought that the authority to access your file would be in relation to that debt – and not to new matters. As AO says above, probably not a lot you can do about it.

 

You could treat yourself to a written complaint to the ICO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll write to the ICO, there is nothing the DCA can do regarding the debt so there are no concerns on that score and as such any letter to the ICO can only be a positive step.

 

I'm guessing there isn't a template for a letter re these circumstances but any pointer would be much appreicated.

I reside in Dawlish Warren but am not a rabbit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until you send the SB letter mentioning the FCA conc rule

They are quite entitled to ask for payment in England &Wales

The debt still exists

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'm with BF on this one ICO for sure but it will get tricky for DCA and CRAs after May 2018, they will probably find themselves in breach of the GDPR rules , if they use their usual MO and the fines for unlawful processing of data under that one are humungous.

 

"Key areas for companies to watch out for, said Ustaran, are the basic principles for processing, including conditions for consent, the data subjects’ rights and the conditions for lawful international data transfers. Large-scale risk to people’s privacy is likely to be a major factor in deciding who to fine and how much, he said."

 

DCA's and CRA's breach the informed consent part daily

 

http://www.computerweekly.com/news/450401190/UK-firms-could-face-122bn-in-data-breach-fines-in-2018

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debt hasnt gone away, it just cant be enforced.

 

Some DCA's trawl through old debtors files and then when they find something like a new credit agreement on your file they assume that you have money to spend so they ask you for some.

Whilst they are doing this they also ask the creditor permission to act on their behalf and earn a fee for anything they get as a result.

 

A similar thing is with the firms of lawyers who act as "heir hunters".

They scour the govt intestacy announcements and find potential inheritors and get them to sign a contract that hands over a slice of the estate before they tell the likely recipient who it was who died and how much the estate is.

That way it makes it harder for the distant relative to work it out for themselves and make a claim directly.

 

With the DCA though it means they are retaining personal date way beyond any time that they could lawfully process it and actively nose into people's credit files.

 

Now this has to be unfair and excessive as the DCA will have obtained the details for a fixed purpose and now they use it for something else.

 

As said,

the simplest thing would be to bar them access to the credit files without explicit permission from either the creditor or the individual

 

Now the creditor isnt going to be interested after 6 years as they know that it is dead in the water so this would stop them from noseying around but as the CRA's get a couple of quid every time someone goes fishing they arent going to voluntarily introduce such a scheme.

 

It really needs the ICO to demand sight of the DCA's records in the case of a complaint and then hammer them for keeping things beyond their use by date and improper processing

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ericsbrother "It really needs the ICOlink3.gif to demand sight of the DCA's records in the case of a complaint and then hammer them for keeping things beyond their use by date and improper processing"

 

They might have a surprise next May when GDPR is implemented.

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...