Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2362 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

whats all this got to do with Parking Eye please?

that doesn't fit with marstons bailiffs and this issue..

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

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

whats all this got to do with Parking Eye please?

that doesn't fit with marstons bailiffs and this issue..

 

The reference to Parking Eye was because it was a letter from that company that led to Seanmanarts's son first making contact with DVLA (after he sold the vehicle).

 

Reading back on the thread, I think after that particular incident, replacement forms should have been submitted to DVLA to amend the 'keeper' details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming from your post that the vehicle was not scrapped and instead, was either sold on or used by others connected with the garage. In many cases such as this, DVLA will usually agree to amend their records to remove your son as being vehicle keeper if proof can be given that road fund licence and insurance were cancelled around the time of the disposal.

 

This is what I dont understand, Ive had the same issues with DVLA, but luckily I had proof of posting so could show that I had sent off my part of the form.

They amended the details but after I had to appeal it twice.

They do lose documents and what can you do? mistakes happen but these people think you have a crystal ball and know they didnt get the documentation or the fact that you have no control over the post or even their own internal post system.

 

This is what I dont understand, Ive had the same issues with DVLA, but luckily I had proof of posting so could show that I had sent off my part of the form.

They amended the details but after I had to appeal it twice.

They do lose documents and what can you do? mistakes happen but these people think you have a crystal ball and know they didnt get the documentation or the fact that you have no control over the post or even their own internal post system.

 

The insurance was changed and proof was sent in.

 

Thank you so much for updating the forum with more background information. It helps a great deal.

 

I would suspect (but I could be wrong) that after receiving the letters from your daughter in law dated 7th and 20th March that Marston may have returned the warrant back to the court. If so, the warrant may have been reissued hence this could explain the absence of any involvement from Marston's until the weekend.

 

Can I just mention a little about 'vulnerability'. Firstly, exemption does not apply to a 'vulnerable household', instead, it is applicable to the debtor ( in this case; your son). With vulnerability, your son would need to provide evidence to outline what it is about HIS vulnerability that makes it difficult for HIM to deal with the debt.

 

 

 

Please do post back once you have spoken with Marston's.

Its my son who is disabled, they are also on benefits. They are also other issues I really dont want to place in here that are a very delicate matter. Evidence was sent in on the 7th and the 20th of March.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I dont understand, Ive had the same issues with DVLA, but luckily I had proof of posting so could show that I had sent off my part of the form.

They amended the details but after I had to appeal it twice.

 

They do lose documents and what can you do? mistakes happen but these people think you have a crystal ball and know they didnt get the documentation or the fact that you have no control over the post or even their own internal post system.

 

I have had various meetings at DVLA in Swansea and they are truly a massive organisation and as such, postal items do indeed go astray.

 

What is the current position with your son's previous vehicle? Is your son still registered as the vehicle keeper?

 

Its my son who is disabled, they are also on benefits. They are also other issues I really dont want to place in here that are a very delicate matter. Evidence was sent in on the 7th and the 20th of March.

 

In mentioned in my earlier post, I suspect that the warrant may have been returned back to the court after receiving the above letters. I suspect too that in the absence of any contact from your son that court may well have re-issued the warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In mentioned in my earlier post, I suspect that the warrant may have been returned back to the court after receiving the above letters. I suspect too that in the absence of any contact from your son that court may well have re-issued the warrant.

 

There has been nothing from any courts, they dont even know what court had dealt with it. it only mentions a HMCTS Sussex. With no response form Marstons, its just gone by without another though. Other serious issues have taken priority Im afraid. not a good excuse, however its not been a good year for any of the family. :(

Things just tend to be forgotten until something like this happens. Surely Marstons would of notified them that this was the case?

 

I have had various meetings at DVLA in Swansea and they are truly a massive organisation and as such, postal items do indeed go astray.

 

What is the current position with your son's previous vehicle? Is your son still registered as the vehicle keeper?

 

Have had nothing from the DVLA, not even a reminder of tax etc so I doubt he is registered as the keeper now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been nothing from any courts, they dont even know what court had dealt with it. it only mentions a HMCTS Sussex. With no response form Marstons, its just gone by without another though. Other serious issues have taken priority Im afraid. not a good excuse, however its not been a good year for any of the family. :(

Things just tend to be forgotten until something like this happens. Surely Marstons would of notified them that this was the case?

 

HMCTS Sussex is the relevant area that would have been administering the fine. I still tend to think that the warrant had been sent back to the court following the two letters in March. That would explain the absence of any further letters or visits.

 

With regards to the vehicle, I would suggest that your son calls DVLA to make enquiries as to whether he is still showing as the registered keeper. He could also make an online enquiry with DVLA. He will need the make and model of vehicle and the vehicle registration number. The search should show whether the vehicle is currently taxed or has been scrapped.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMCTS Sussex is the relevant area that would have been administering the fine. I still tend to think that the warrant had been sent back to the court following the two letters in March. That would explain the absence of any further letters or visits.

 

With regards to the vehicle, I would suggest that your son calls DVLA to make enquiries as to whether he is still showing as the registered keeper. He could also make an online enquiry with DVLA. He will need the make and model of vehicle and the vehicle registration number. The search should show whether the vehicle is currently taxed or has been scrapped.

 

Ive done an online search and it hasnt been taxed or insured since may 2015, which is about the time my son sold it, however and this is confusing, its been MOT'd right up until May this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive done an online search and it hasnt been taxed or insured since may 2015, which is about the time my son sold it, however and this is confusing, its been MOT'd right up until May this year.

 

It really is important to get in touch with DVLA to ensure that your son is not still on their records as being the keeper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain if your sons disabilities have an effect on him dealing with financial matters?

Disability does not necessarily mean vulnerable.

The car was untaxed and not sorn'ed so you got an automatic fine of £80.

With failure to pay it goes to court and were fined in the region of £300.

With enforcement costs it comes to around £600 with the visit. These fees are set by the court and in legislation.

 

With you saying that you got a letter in march a Stat Dec wont stand up. 21 day rule.

 

Its the sellers responsibility to inform the sale of the vehicle. You also get a letter from dvla confirming the owner is now no longer responsible.

I also think your son may of been intercepting some mail as the courts send out lots of letters before issuing a warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is important to get in touch with DVLA to ensure that your son is not still on their records as being the keeper.

 

Thats his first port of call in the morning.

 

Both complaints have now gone in with regards to the bailiffs conduct. Ive dug a little in to the background of this bailiff and it doesn't look good at all. The amount of lies she has told is outrageous, I just hope she had her camera recording. I have requested a copy of it.

 

Can you explain if your sons disabilities have an effect on him dealing with financial matters?

Disability does not necessarily mean vulnerable.

The car was untaxed and not sorn'ed so you got an automatic fine of £80.

With failure to pay it goes to court and were fined in the region of £300.

With enforcement costs it comes to around £600 with the visit. These fees are set by the court and in legislation.

 

With you saying that you got a letter in march a Stat Dec wont stand up. 21 day rule.

 

Its the sellers responsibility to inform the sale of the vehicle. You also get a letter from dvla confirming the owner is now no longer responsible.

I also think your son may of been intercepting some mail as the courts send out lots of letters before issuing a warrant.

 

first off the car was sold and the paperwork was sent off to DVLA, The first my son heard of that there was an issue with the vehicle still in his name was when a parking eye statement came through for a place over 200 miles away, we immediately contacted DVLA and told them to amend their records as he no longer had the car.

 

A few months later he received a letter from DVLA reminding him the car was not insured, again a letter was sent to state that the car was sold and the slip was sent back, they did not accept that and it went to two appeals.

 

then nothing, until marstons got in touch in february, twice in march marstons were contacted and they did not respond until yesterday.

 

im not going into detail with regards to my sons disabilities, but marstons in the past has him down as vulnerable with regards to a tv licence matter which was dealt with very swiftly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't get a copy of the recording. If the body worn camera was on, you'll will of known, on the slide own panel ( used to activate it) it is bright hello with Recording in process written.

They are predominantly used in highly emotional or confrontational circumstances.

 

In regard to the enforcement agents certificate...

Did you mention Liverpool?

More than likely then the agent is fairly local and registered at Birkenhead courts... The courts are renown to be slow to update the databases. You can request from marstons which court the agent is registered at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Its the sellers responsibility to inform the sale of the vehicle. You also get a letter from dvla confirming the owner is now no longer responsible.

I also think your son may of been intercepting some mail as the courts send out lots of letters before issuing a warrant.

 

Intercepting some mail, oh dear, have you actually read this whole thread or did you just pick out the odd bits and pieces. are you calling my son a liar by any chance, he is a 33 year old man not a child.

Link to post
Share on other sites

im not going into detail with regards to my sons disabilities, but marstons in the past has him down as vulnerable with regards to a tv licence matter which was dealt with very swiftly.

 

I wasn't asking for details, just for you to ponder over.

However as you have said he has been classed before as vunrable, vunrable can mean different things.

No assests to seize can be vulnerable... At the time of no tv licence but as he had a vehicle now he may not be classed as vulnerable. Circumstances change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't get a copy of the recording. If the body worn camera was on, you'll will of known, on the slide own panel ( used to activate it) it is bright hello with Recording in process written.

They are predominantly used in highly emotional or confrontational circumstances.

 

In regard to the enforcement agents certificate...

Did you mention Liverpool?

More than likely then the agent is fairly local and registered at Birkenhead courts... The courts are renown to be slow to update the databases. You can request from marstons which court the agent is registered at.

 

She was asked if it was recording and she said yes, she became a bailiff last year. im sure it would of come through by now. The bailiff lives in Essex and always has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that... I'm pointing out that it may of been a possibility.

 

In regards to tv licence.

That suggests that he has lived away from your home at some stage. Is it a possibility that the car was registered at that address?

As if he lived with you he wouldn't of needed a tv licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't asking for details, just for you to ponder over.

However as you have said he has been classed before as vunrable, vunrable can mean different things.

No assests to seize can be vulnerable... At the time of no tv licence but as he had a vehicle now he may not be classed as vulnerable. Circumstances change.

 

Please stop surmising its not helpful

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not suggesting that... I'm pointing out that it may of been a possibility.

 

In regards to tv licence.

That suggests that he has lived away from your home at some stage. Is it a possibility that the car was registered at that address?

As if he lived with you he wouldn't of needed a tv licence.

 

he doesnt live with me at all, i deal with all his correspondence

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 1st clue for your son is you got a letter from parking eye months after he sold the car.

Alarm bells should of rang that the process of informing the dvla had not been complied with.

 

Lets ask a key question.

What address is/was the car registered at? Yours or your sons?

2. Did your son fully complete the V5C with the name of the garage and the address on it?

Did he send this to dvla Swansea?

Did he get a conformation back stating heis no longer responsible for the car from the sale date?

Did he tear of the section off the V5C stating selling to dealership or garage

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 1st clue for your son is you got a letter from parking eye months after he sold the car.

Alarm bells should of rang that the process of informing the dvla had not been complied with.

 

Please read what has already been written. Ive said it enough times in here

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few months later he received a letter from DVLA reminding him the car was not insured, again a letter was sent to state that the car was sold and the slip was sent back, they did not accept that and it went to two appeals.

as written above

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not getting where I'm going with questions

 

The car was not unregistered from your sons name as he ...

A didn't go through the correct process

Or

B didn't chase it up after not being informed by the dvla that the car was no longer his responsibility.

 

You still have not said at what address the car was registered at.

Yours or his?

Think about it.

You cpuld of gone down the route of using the interpretations act, but your not prepared to say so I cannot help you unless you state.

 

Couple of other points.

On the other case ( mother daughter)

The V5C is the registered keepers name necessarily the owner. It states that across the front in big letters.

The car may of been in the mothers name but owned by the daughter.

Bill of sale and insurance docs could of sorted that one out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not getting where I'm going with questions

 

The car was not unregistered from your sons name as he ...

A didn't go through the correct process

Or

B didn't chase it up after not being informed by the dvla that the car was no longer his responsibility.

 

You still have not said at what address the car was registered at.

Yours or his?

Think about it.

You cpuld of gone down the route of using the interpretations act, but your not prepared to say so I cannot help you unless you state.

 

Couple of other points.

On the other case ( mother daughter)

The V5C is the registered keepers name necessarily the owner. It states that across the front in big letters.

The car may of been in the mothers name but owned by the daughter.

Bill of sale and insurance docs could of sorted that one out.

 

First off, read everything that has been written.

He DID go through the correct process, he sent back ALL that was needed, dotted the I's and crossed the T's, he has bought and sold enough cars to know what he is doing. This is the first time that this has ever happened. Unfortunately the postal service is crap but joe public can do nothing about that.

Car was registered at his address. Paper work was sent to his address. Ive been in the same situation so has another member of my family. It happens.

This was over 2 years ago, a lot has happened in those two years.

 

Mother showed her bill of sale with her full name and address on there and the name of the garage it was purchased, plus the registered keepers papers. I have copies of those

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...