Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Don't bother with what Trading Standards tell you about this - we've had far more experience in dealing with gym m/ships over the years.   1. Have you cancelled the DD mandate - if so, when ?   2. When did you last use the gym, approximately.
    • I sent them their quote which outlined the 8-10 weeks start to finish.  Their response is also below.  I placed the order 1st Sept and would have been ok with a couple of weeks here or there as I know delays can be experienced due to others in the chain/weather etc but Feb was too much. I hadn't thought to contact the council re the Building Regs, will do that tomorrow.  At this stage I've only paid the deposit on credit card but it's £2k. The next payments are in stages and they will not accept cards.  Their advice re delays on 29/9 was in response to me asking if we had an install date.  The same day they were advertising for fitters. Their refusal to get their director to call me or make an appointment is making me nervous of continuing.  I woke this morning thinking I would go ahead as we hit it off when he came round but if his administrator has enough clout to stop me talking to him she must be a member of the family as well.     "We did advise a 8 – 10 week installation process from survey which was on the 07/09/2020 so working on this lead time your installation date is due on the week commencing 16/11/2020.   We then advised on 29/09/2020 there is unfortunate delays and I gave you a worst case scenario date as depending on the delivery times this could well be brought forward but we also have to consider we have a 2 week festive holidays.   You still have not been able to provide me with written confirmation that Collin, Davina or Lisa have stated this installation will happen before Christmas. So the delay is unfortunately 8 weeks with the potential of being sooner than this, I just can’t give you an exact installation date hence why I gave a worst case scenario."
    • Quick update -  Good news is that I have been told the car is complete and ready for pickup.  It ran a bit over so we agreed the swap is now tomorrow as I would never make it there before closing time with rush-hour traffic.   Bad news is I have potentially now found out the gearbox and brake fluid service has not been carried out.  We went through this yesterday, got a printout too suggesting it has been done but having just looked more into it, it didnt look right with 2 things standing out. For example:  Part Number: G060175A2, Description : Gear Oil, Qty: 1  This just kept standing out to me given my own Audi had 7 litres of it and they sell them in 1L bottles.   Looked up the part number and sure enough, its not gear oil but Haldex oil (part of the Quatro system).   Other thing that stood out was no filter on the sheet which is part of the service.     Have just dropped them an email so lets see what comes out of it but again sheet I have which is a PDI Requirements sheet (pre-delivery inspection) states:   Carried out MPC & oil service Haldex Reqs gear oil service Brake fluid change   I'm trying to remain calm
    • Hi.   Please don't hijack this thread, it's for advising the OP.   The best thing is to start a new thread of your own and then we'll advise you.   HB
    • Hey Andy, Dx,   With the deadline approaching to enter this defence i have amended as best i can. Can either of you help with it or point me in the direction of a similar case so i can get some ideas for myself? Or is the below ok? Considering i could of nearly perjured myself i would really appreciate it if you guys could take a look.   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is noted.   5. Paragraph 3 is noted.   6. Paragraph 4 is noted.   7. Paragraph 5 is noted. As i can't recall entering in to this financial agreement with Halifax i have asked them to prove that i had entered in to this agreement. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1244 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

We live in a parking blackspot in Basingstoke.

We have lived here for over 30 years and parking has become a nightmare for my husband and myself.

 

If we drive anywhere during the day we have to make sure we return by 4.00pm at the latest and not at all at weekends or we are unable to park.

It probably sounds over the top but it is having an effect on our lives.

 

We have a residential parking permit for our car and a visitors permit, which is pointless because we can never invite visitors because they cannot park.

 

It would seem that the "visitors" permit has become a 2nd car permit.

Many cars sit in the street, day after day displaying the visitors permit, some are sellotaped to the dashboard.

 

I have contacted the council for a definition of "visitor" but was sent a generic letter giving details of the permit with costs and application form.

 

Is there anything we can do other than move house?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not, to be honest.

 

With parking permits the issue is whether there is a valid permit on display.

If there is, they can park there.

 

The only alternative would be a review of the whole parking scheme at council level, and the number and types of permits they issue.

 

The outcome would be unknowable, but as an individual you are unlikely to have much clout.

 

You'd have a stronger hand if you and your neighbours lobbied the council collectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

depends on the order given by the council to introduce the scheme.

 

Some councils have a charge for a visitors permit by the day,

other charge a fee for one on an annual basis,

some issue a book of them with scratch off panels for the date they are used.

Your council has tried to be nice but actually created a problem because of that.

 

This is a problem that occurs when people lobby the council to introduce a resident parking scheme but don't actually make sure the scheme is one that best suits the neighbourhood.

 

For example,

many schemes have very small zones but in Clapham, London your permit covers a number of roads in a block so you don't get to park near your house unless you are very lucky and most people commute by tube so once a car is parked in a space it often doesn't move for a week because the owner knows the problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The permits are issued on a n annual basis,

simply a piece of card with "visitors permit' on front.

 

 

We didnt lobby the council for the scheme,

it has been in operation for over 10 years.

 

 

It has been tinkered with until it now covers a block of roads.

The roads include several with their own drives etc.

All a bit of a mess really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your problem is not the misuse of permits but the lack of parking facilities designed in when the estate was built.

 

You can't blame families for having more than one car - my household has 4 which rises to 5 when the boy's G/F stays over when he's back from Uni.

 

This will only be resolved when you move and buy a place with sufficient parking for all your cars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parking wasn't an issue when the houses were originally built, its a street not an estate

My issue is with people who misuse the Visitors Permit as a permit for a second vehicle. Therefore preventing other residents (who accept that only one vehicle is suitable for the area) from parking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could go back to the council and ask for the terms and conditions of use for these permits. There might be conditions which exclude what you describe. You may have a long battle on your hands to get anything done, but you could try.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Parking wasn't an issue when the houses were originally built, its a street not an estate

My issue is with people who misuse the Visitors Permit as a permit for a second vehicle. Therefore preventing other residents (who accept that only one vehicle is suitable for the area) from parking.

 

It's an estate, in this context the whole of London is made up of estates that were built at various times.

 

Of course it wasn't an issue in the 1900's as no one had a car then!

 

I think you are being unrealistic, you live in a highly populated area that was never designed for parking any cars in the street, in fact the streets were designed for the milkman's horse and cart and foot traffic, nothing else.

 

You aren't going to win this, the permit scheme is unmanageable and unfair, if you want to park outside your own home then move somewhere where you can have off street parking on property that you own.

 

A permit scheme isn't meant to guarantee you a parking place, it's just meant to generate revenue for the local council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Westminster issues twice as many permits as there are parking spaces and didnt need to charge poll tax because it made so much money from parking permits.

How they justify their revenues is impossible to tie into the law but no government of any colour will take them to task as it suits all parties to allow this for their own political ends. the tories say it keeps council tax down, the greens will claim that it limits the number of cars in inner London, labour will claim that it taxes the wealthy over the poor and no-one has ever met a Lib Dem in Westminster so their opinion is unknown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...