Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
  • 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

Guido T v Lloyds TSB ***DEFENCE STRUCK OUT - WON****


GuidoT
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6140 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

Gary, penalties do not come up that much, it is usually quite clear if something is a penalty.

 

I have stumbled across the Dunlop v New Garage case before but we do not argue much about the penalty point as it is reasonably settled law. Probably why the banks are not prepared to test their cloaked charges in court.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I was doing a search for other solicitors and thought I would see what kind of standing SCM have. I now see that SCM are part of Lloyds TSB Asset Finance owned by Lloyds TSB.

 

Effectively they are Lloyds' in-house lawyers - that probably comes as no surprise to most.

 

Therefore, if you speak to them once the litigation is in progress, they are (unsurprisingly) about as helpful as the staff at Lloyds, as they are indeed Lloyds staff.

 

This just reinforces my view about speaking to them, there is little point, indeed speaking to them may dissuade you from continuing if they are difficult or rude on the phone.

 

I do appreciate that sometimes, claimant's obtain settlements quicker if they speak to them, but I suspect that the settlement would have come anyways.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, they're pretty much an extension of LTSB's collections department. They aren't even listed in directory enquiries, plus Breadline did a land registry search a while ago and Lloyds own their site!

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guido T,

 

You're thread is getting quite busy now, glad to help you on the way to page three (no sniggering please!) :p

 

I think you're wise to proceed with the new AQ directions prior to any outcome on the kazzaw thread. I'm in a similar boat with my AQ due on the 17th, so although I'm tempted to draw the courts attention to the Lincoln order, without any outcome, I'd feel a bit uncomfortable....

 

As has been mentioned previously, the banks are not muppets and know what they are doing, it will only cause them to adopt a different approach with these claims... :|

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks agonynine, do you have a thread setting down the progress of your claim, I could not find it?

 

We are only two days apart, the last day for returning my AQ is the 15 January 2007 (I returned it early) - it would be good to follow your progress.

 

After reading your post again, I got it and sniggered, i.e. the page 3 part.

  • Haha 1

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agonynine - nice work, opened your new Natwest thread with a long one.

 

You will see I just opened in Natwest today too, but on that one I have some way to go.

 

Claim started in Watford (I know not London but near enough) and still remains there, for a court they have been very efficient.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Every claim so far in which the draft directions have been proposed they have been ordered, so yes, I think you could call that success! See this page of the new strategy thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/53570-new-strategy-allocation-questionaires-8.html#post481560

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Buzzbaa, no response yet, but you should still use the New Strategy in any event. I do not expect further direction for another month or so.

 

You may want to hold on responding until we see the outcome of Kazzaw, see my posts above in particular 17.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received offer in the last few days for all the 6 years charges, statutory interest and court fees. However, no mention of deducting the previous goodwill payment.

 

For most people this would be all of their claim, however I am claiming back 10 or so years and contractual interest.

 

I think this is a change in strategy for Lloyds. Now making proper offers before even the AQ have been returned.

 

I will post the full letter here later.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi GuidoT

 

What was the closing date for your AQ?

 

So do you think they will pay your claim for the 10 yrs?

 

Sent my AQ off today, along with the Strategy Attatched, and copy to Lloyds Monkey's. Closing date 27/1/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Buzzbaa - AQ latest date was I think 17 January 2007.

 

I am thinking if the judge makes the order as the new strategy and SCM do not produce the evidence (which is likely) their defence will be struck out and then by default I will obtain the 10 years going back.

 

I will just wait and see.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just subscribin :)

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are most welcome Photoman. I was to scared to get involved with your thread, after I saw BF's posts. I did not think that you deserved such a vehement lambasting.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guido Hi, Thanks for that. I had a few problems with my threading and knowing you are quite techie I thought of you, but it transpires I am not alone.

 

I was looking for Photoman's thread to see what his lambasting (which you mentioned) was about, but I can't find it.

 

Paula

Link to post
Share on other sites

...........as I'm now subscribed I can hear the whispers behind my back ;)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/54548-could-biggest-claim-site.html

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to be more careful, do not tell me off, you know what happens if you misbehave here (your post 104)!

 

I posted the link on Upton11's thread for ease.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guido, please forgive the highjack. Photoman there was no gossip - merely the need to see what Guido was talking about. More nosey parker than wilful gossip!

 

PS Guido, every time I come on line, you are here or have recently been - honey, like me, you need to get out more!

 

Paula

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Paula - highjack all you like, nothing happens with my claim anyway.

 

I know I need to get out more - Friday night too; how sad. At work I am always on line and when I get bored I do a few posts. I usually work in the evening a little too and respond to a few posts then too.

 

Anyway I am having a day off tomorrow - I am allowed out - all day.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...