Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

PRA Claimform - old MBNA Credit card debt ***Claim Dismissed no DN***


Betty55
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2109 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

Thanks dx I get it now.

 

I know on the POC they say the ‘debt’ was assigned from MBNA to PRA May 2013.

Their WS says assigned form MBNA to Activ kapital May 2013.

 

The DOA says it was assigned to AK in October 2012.

The NOA is from May 2013.

 

Their WS says the assignment form MBNA to AK took place under a 9 month forward flow whatever that means.

that is the explanation for the 7 months between the DOA being made and the date they say they sent the NOA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi I am working on my WS and will post up tomorrow if anyone would be kind enough to check I would be grateful.

 

Before I include this info in it I wanted some advice to see if relevant.

 

The claimant says I was sent a DN by MBNA and I dispute this.

The DN the claimant sent is dated February 2013.

 

At the bottom footer it’s says that MBNA is regulated and authorised by the Financial conduct Authority but I may be wrong but having checked the FCA was not formed until 1st April 2013.

 

us they did not take over responsibility for regulating the consumer credit industry from the OFT until April 2014.

How then can a DN from feb 2013 refer to the FCA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was a quasi-judicial body responsible for the regulation of the financial services industry in the United Kingdom between 2001 and 2013. It was founded as the Securities and Investments Board (SIB) in 1985. Its board was appointed by the Treasury, although it operated independently of government. It was structured as a company limited by guarantee and was funded entirely by fees charged to the financial services industry.

 

Due to perceived regulatory failure of the banks during the financial crisis of 2007–2008, the UK government decided to restructure financial regulation and abolish the FSA. On 19 December 2012, the Financial Services Act 2012 received royal assent, abolishing the FSA with effect from 1 April 2013. Its responsibilities were then split between two new agencies: the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority of the Bank of England.

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

Thank you for your replies.

on that basis would it be enough to prove the DN provided by the claimant cannot be a valid document?

 

I already thought it was dodgy as it refers to breaches of clauses 1 & 8 of the CA and while the CA they sent me is missing the first 2 conditions so I don’t know what clause 1 is. It does have a condition 8

 

. Apparently I am alleged to have breached MBNA from debiting the account of any transactions and interest the payment system notified them of or of adding any refunds to the account. I’d be interested to see what clause 1 is

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which post have you uploaded it to ?

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 is no Default Notice ...witness statement T&Cs and NoAs yes.

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 was no DN in the claimant WS scans I got

though it lists it was there

 

the one above is from earlier in the thread

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

They have FCA on all the letters pre dated April 13.....so thats nothing of use...with regards to the T&Cs I cant find 1 or 8 ...it gets to 7 .6 c and then jumps to 11.5 ?

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

Oh no I have spent all day on WS an have harped on about the FCA thing as I have stuff predating April 13 an all of it is footed FSA and OFT.

They are definitely not copies of the original.

The DN is definitely a made up one

 

The t& c have no clause 1 or 2. They begin at 3

 

The WS has to be posted tomorrow an I'm in work all day so will have to finish tonight.

I'm doing it on my phone too as internet not working.

 

I'm worried I've messed it up now.

Can I post it up for help please

 

I'm panicking plus directions say no more than 5 sides 12 font double lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be that they were aware of the changes coming into force and for whatever reason used new stationary pre 1 April 2013...the court wont want to know when there is an alleged debt of 18K in the balance.

 

Your WS can be as long or short as required to argue your points...Im sure you cant fill 5 sides.

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

But the FCA did not take over the regulation of consumer credit until April 2014 an all prior was OFT which is on all 2013 stuff I have. I was trying to prove that the DN not only refers to clause 1that doesn’t exist in the ca and clause 8 that is irrelevant but that it has been put together much later than feb 13 an more like 2014. I think the DCA made the DN from its cabinet

 

I’ve put my WS but think I’ve messed it up and focused on wrong things

In the Xxxx County Court.pdf

 

Can anyone please check my WS to see if Any of it is ok.

 

I fear I've been sidetracked clutching at straws that aren't even there and have ended up making a pigs ear of my WS that I have to post tomorrow and will end up getting ripped a new one by the DJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry - crossed posts.

 

Will get back to you later.

 

Betty - is the agreement "properly executed"??

 

Have you read the content in the link I posted previously? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2007/299.html

 

See Point 9 in that link. In your case, an improperly executed agreement is irredeemably unenforceable by virtue of s.127(3) of the CCA.

 

See the famous case of Carey v HSBC here - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html

 

Take note of the paragraphs referring to s.61(1) and also the "prescribed terms

 

 

This case focuses primarily on s.77/78 requests, and really only agrees what creditors need to do so as to fulfill their obligations to the debtor when a request is made under s.77/78.

 

 

Be careful, as the likes of PRA/Aktiv Kapital and their ilk will twist the findings of this case, but in essence you need to make "positive assertions" as to the breaches of the CCA that make the agreement improperly executed.

 

You have a strong case in asserting that the agreement is not properly executed, so I think you need to get some content into your WS.

right, some of the stuff in your WS will come across as straw-clutching, but at this stage you need to load it with as many compelling arguments as you can.

 

 

Try to state why your points are fatal to the claim - don't rely on the judge to interpret the points for you, because it's very unlikely that they will give you much help in that respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Shamrock.

 

think I will need to start again with it really as most of it now seems irrelevant.

Would the court allow me to submit late or is the deadline set in stone?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, don't start again. Just add in a new p.10 to argue that the agreement is not properly executed in accordance with s.61(1). The consequences of such breach are contained in s.65(1), but the court is prevented from enforcing an improperly executed agreement due to s.127(3).

 

s.127(3) was repealed in April 2007, so agreements entered into after this date don't benefit from it. Your agreement is pre-2007, so it applies to you.

 

I'm really busy so am struggling to help too much, but the above points should offer you something quite strong if you can put it into words.

 

If you have any questions, please post them up as quickly as you can so that Andy and DX can have a chance to offer input before it is too late. Time is of the essence.

 

P.S. Obviously, you have to state why the agreement does not comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Shamrock I really appreciate your help and know you are all busy

It’s my own fault I’m in this position as I wasted my time on the wrong things.

 

I will fix it the best I can and either way will have to post the thing tomorrow otherwise it’s over anyway.

I’ve come this far might as well carry on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sometime in early August, date TBC.

 

I just have to get my WS in the post tomorrow to arrive by Monday.

Hopefully by August my obsession with footnotes in documents will have passed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes due Monday but I'm not sure that there is guaranteed next day delivery if you post on Saturdays.

The directions were very clear that the WS had to be provided to the court an the other party by 4pm Monday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...