Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 02/01/2023 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 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
  • 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 2135 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

Hi CAG.

 

I recently got a ticket for driving in a pedestrian zone at Barking

It's a disgustingly confusing section of road that the council seem to be making a lot of money from.

I am tempted just to pay the discounted rate but lately have been floored by PCN's.

On discussing it with collegues and other law abiding decent motorist I learned I'm not alone.

 

How on Earth did it come to this where the councils are acting so despicable..?

I want to appeal this one so I can help others fight back against this robbery.

 

I turned right at the corner in the image Barking1,

there is no sign not to turn right but by the time you have they've got you.

 

the second set of signs further in (Barking3) is confused by the arrows on top telling us we have priority over oncoming traffic.

I also find the pedestiran zone sign a confusing one by itself!

 

A circle with a car and motorbike in it.

If it had a red line through it it would comunicate its meaning in a second.

But they don's want that do they :evil:

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

R

Barking2.jpg

Barking1.jpg

Barking3.jpg

BarkingPCN.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the one. I've only been driving a few years so I'm not familiar with it. If it's in the Highway code I still think it's a poor sign at signifying that the area is for pedestrians.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that junction well. Personally I think the 'No Vehicles' sign is clear - it has 'Pedestrian Zone' written above the red circle as well. It's prominently shown on both sides of the road in your photos. The reason there isn't a 'No Right Turn' sign is because right turns are not prohibited if you are a vehicle permitted to drive in the pedestrian zone. From memory that's buses and vehicles needing access to businesses in the pedestrian zone, shop deliveries etc.

 

 

Those who live there think the Pedestrian Zone is an excellent idea and would not agree with you that it's "despicable" of the council to enforce it. If you've been driving a few years I can't see that's a reason to say "...so I'm not familiar with ..[the No Vehicles sign]…". I've been driving a lot longer than that and sign has always been there in the Highway Code, and it's not uncommon on the streets either. The council couldn't put a line through it even if they wanted to. The design of the sign is decided by the Department for Transport and specified in law. I also remember that the Highway Code says most round red signs prohibit something, and most of them don't have a line through them.

 

Whether you've any grounds to appeal it I don't know. Others may have an idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think their (the councils) approach is heavy handed, and others I have talked to are as disgusted as me. Other opinions always taken on board for consideration, though £800000 off the one area means I’m not the only one who has accidently driven there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think their (the councils) approach is heavy handed, and others I have talked to are as disgusted as me. Other opinions always taken on board for consideration, though £800000 off the one area means I’m not the only one who has accidently driven there.

 

 

I don't see why enforcing a prohibition on motor vehicles is 'heavy handed' but no doubt your perspective (as the person with the PCN) and mine (as the shopper not wanting to have to dodge cars in a Pedestrian Zone) are going to be different. I was curious the source of the £800,000 the council has charged in PCNs. Where did the number come from, and what period of time does that cover?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why enforcing a prohibition on motor vehicles is 'heavy handed' but no doubt your perspective (as the person with the PCN) and mine (as the shopper not wanting to have to dodge cars in a Pedestrian Zone) are going to be different. I was curious the source of the £800,000 the council has charged in PCNs. Where did the number come from, and what period of time does that cover?

 

 

Well it’s heavy handed because £65 is lot of money to me. I’m not against pedestrian zones, I’m against so called honey traps which this has been described in some forums.

 

 

 

Some other people feel the same http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/3-600-motorists-caught-out-in-barking-pedestrian-zone-1-4892354

 

 

 

The figure came from this http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t66422.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think someone posting on a discussion forum in 2012 that "...I read somewhere Barking made £800k on this spot..." qualifies as a reliable source of evidence. If you put in an FOI request they'd tell you, although personally I wouldn't bother as I can't see how it would help you much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think someone posting on a discussion forum in 2012 that "...I read somewhere Barking made £800k on this spot..." qualifies as a reliable source of evidence. If you put in an FOI request they'd tell you, although personally I wouldn't bother as I can't see how it would help you much.

 

 

Oh dear. Well I did read somewhere and I'm sorry it doesn't pass your rigorous referencing requirements. They've probably made a lot more money by now.

Luckily the article was from 2017 http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/3-600-motorists-caught-out-in-barking-pedestrian-zone-1-4892354

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear. Well I did read somewhere and I'm sorry it doesn't pass your rigorous referencing requirements. They've probably made a lot more money by now.

Luckily the article was from 2017 http://www.barkinganddagenhampost.co.uk/news/3-600-motorists-caught-out-in-barking-pedestrian-zone-1-4892354

 

 

Sorry I didn't realise the poster you were quoting from 2012 was you under a different name.

 

 

Good luck with your attempt to avoid paying the PCN. It doesn't matter how many PCNs the Council have issued, it won't help you get yours cancelled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't realise the poster you were quoting from 2012 was you under a different name.

 

 

Good luck with your attempt to avoid paying the PCN. It doesn't matter how many PCNs the Council have issued, it won't help you get yours cancelled.

 

 

Thanks for your help. (Edited)

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites

Take it that all round signs with a red ring on the outside are prohibitive in nature. and all signs with a blue border are compulsory in nature and you wont go far wrong.

 

 

That's the one. I've only been driving a few years so I'm not familiar with it. If it's in the Highway code I still think it's a poor sign at signifying that the area is for pedestrians.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...