Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By Sarahswoes · Posted
Thanks, that's clear Andy! Just to check - what does hearsay mean? Is it that a layer is representing Eruidio instead of them being there themselves? -
Your points are fine but as I am late to this topic I am not aware of the finer details. Sums in Arrears Notices must be provided if the claimant wishes to enforce an agreement and claim any interest. The relevant section of the CCA1974 is sec 86B https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/VI/crossheading/sums-in-arrears-and-default-sums (2)The creditor or owner— (a)shall, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) are satisfied, give the debtor or hirer a notice under this section; and (b)after the giving of that notice, shall give him further notices under this section at intervals of not more than six months. Regards Andy . -
Hi All, PRA Group are chasing an old Barclaycard unpaid from 4 years ago. They are threatening court action - CCJ unless I respond before last Saturday. Which I did not. I'm unsure but reckon the Barclaycard was applied for about 30 years ago. What's the best next step approach ? Best, P. -
By Sarahswoes · Posted
Can you please also have a look at points 20-27? The sent me a remediation pack with not only statements but sums of arrears they haven't sent for 2 years, so I didn't know I was in arrears. Then they defaulted me after they apologised for their cca breach. I truly didn't understand what that pack was about. I thought it was some kind of a mistake they will make right later as SLC used to do this. Genuinely I thought that but I don't know if that's an OK defence? -
By lookinforinfo · Posted
Thank you for posting the full sar. So they definitely did place the PCN on your vehicle only to remove it 10 minutes later apparently because of a possible problem with the driver which seems highly unlikely [the reason for the PCN removal ]. Did the driver even see the warden at all while they were photographing the car . They did take several pictures spread over 12 minutes or so using a flash so the driver would have seen the car being photographed had they been there. Very strange. You said that you had an onboard camera -are you able to go back and see what happened? Was the warden wearing UKPC clothing? In any event that PCN has not complied with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. That should be a Notice to Driver and the follow up PCN should not be sent until 28 days AFTER the day the first PCN was given were it a postal PCN. Instead the knuckleheads have issued the follow up PCN on the 28th day of their dodgy first PCN and so totally blowing all their machinations to get over the fact that the windscreen ticket wasn't a windscreen ticket. In neither case, even if they had been sent properly, they were non compliant. neither of them showed the period of parking which is specified in the Act. Both just show a time of issue at 20.02 but no end period. Their "mistake" in not giving 29 days before issuing their keeper Liability notice, makes the PCN more than just non compliant. It means that the PCN was unlawful and probably deliberate as had UKPC waited until the correct time to send that Notice, it would have delayed it until the Monday. And as they probably knew that had not received the original windscreen PCN perhaps they thought it better to rewrite the Law. Part of that is conjecture but the basic fact is correct-the Notice was unlawful. And for that there should be repercussions. My first thought was the ICO but as it isn't really a breach of data protection it goes higher than that. Perhaps the Site Team would know. I did look at the Legal Ombudsman but they are for complaints against lawyers. I cannot imagine a decent lawyer even countenancing such a thing though were are dealing with third rate ones when involved with some parking companies. For reference PoFA Schedule 4 S8 and S9 [2][f] f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— Their PCN dated 12/04/24 states "as 28 days have now elapsed since the Notice to Keeper was given, Parking Control management [UK] Ltd. [the creditor] are now able ...........to recover the unpaid parking charge from......... the registered keeper. The original PCN was marked by them as being deemed delivered 15/03/2024 so 28 days +1 =13/04/24. Their letter was sent one day early which means they altered or ignored the law . I have never seen that "error" on any other Notice from any of the parking companies. As the Member did not receive the original PCN which was originally a Windscreen ticket but they then changed it to a postal one for some fanciful reason the whole scenario reeks of skullduggery. I am going to ask again from Hamz why their warden might have felt scared about a confrontation with the driver but even if there was a chance the PCN was placed on the windscreen and not removed for around a minute but pictures had already been taken so why remove it? And then why produce a brand new keeper Liability Notice the like of which I have not seen before.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 2016 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts