Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Idrww - Left UAE 2013 with a loan-Claim Form Received


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1325 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

As already said, many UAE debts dont conform to european standards as far as terms etc go so they cant be enforced via the courts.

 

UAE law doent apply in the UK so whatever they say back in Dubai doesnt count for much so they employ noisy debt collectors who break the law to try and beat you do and agree something.

 

As the methods are unlawful this only adds to the banks problems and makes it less likely they will be allowed to join the club as far as international debt enforcement goes.

 

If a bunch of chancers give someone 30 days to pay up them you wont hear a damned thing about it for more than a month because the clock hasn't run down.

 

These companies are never going to do anything in a hurry,

they rely on getting people to sweat and then make contact as they are afraid of the unknown.

 

Imagine, the debt collector sues you, it goes to court and they will but you cant pay more than £1 a month.

What sort of victory is that?

they want to make you agree terms with them rather than actually use the legal process even if they have any right to do so ( and they dont).

Risking court when they have no locus is never a good idea and they know it, they would be throwing their money away with their clients.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well until you actually receive a claim...dont worry.

 

 

Andy

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.

 

Also been sent this .....

 

There has been no assignment of your debt.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the monies are owed to our client (RAKBANK); we have been instructed to recover those monies on behalf of our client.

 

There has been no judgment or court ruling for the debt in the UAE.

Contrary to your belief (and that of others), our client is under no obligation to first issue any proceedings in the UAE.

 

Given the non-exclusive jurisdiction clause in the Credit Card Agreement, our client is entitled to commence proceedings in any jurisdiction, albeit that the courts of England & Wales will decide the claim by reference to the laws of the UAE (with reference to expert evidence where necessary).

 

It is generally considered that the English court can assume jurisdiction for any dispute either according to scope of Brussels 1 Regulation or traditional English rules.

There is ample case law of English courts having jurisdiction to hear foreign claims/law.

Inter alia, we would refer you to decision of the Privy Council in AK Investment v Kyrgyz Mobil which sets out the following requirements:

 

A serious issue; there must be a serious issue to try on the merits of the case.

A good arguable case; the claimant must show that it has a good arguable case that the claim falls within one of the jurisdictional gateways set out in CPR PD 6B, para 3.1

England is clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum

 

We would also respectfully refer you to the provisions of the Recast Brussels Regulation (no. 1215/2012) (applicable to all member states of the European Union) which applies to proceedings commenced on or after 10 January 2015 and provides that (subject to certain exceptions) both individuals and legal persons (e.g. companies) should be sued in the member state in which they are domiciled.

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

load of ole twaddle...

CWD IDRWW or whatever you want to call yourselves...

 

when your client raises such a claim, and not via the backdoor or using a paid patsy to get a fake win we'll take notice

till then...:madgrin:

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 are trying to scare you, those papers aren't worth the paper they are written on as they haven't been registered with a court as there's no claim number etc

 

How did you receive these?

 

Was there a covering letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was emailed yesterday, saying the clients have instructed CWD to start court proceeding and "papers have been sent to the court".

 

I was emailed today the attached, sent to CCMCC, no covering letter, just saying

" all money claims are required to be issued via that court. for my ref a copy of the unsealed documents are attached"

 

so i expect the sealed/stamped ones to come through in the next few days, once issued via post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bounce any emails you get straight back to them, its a free way for them to harass you

 

make them pay for postage if they want to talk to you

 

they are trying to scare you into paying and until you get sealed court papers ignore them

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are real.....they have been manually served...not through Northampton CCBC...through CCMCC Slough.

 

Refer to the other thread I have advised on on how to respond.

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?491321-CWD-PAP-Letter-re-old-UAE-debt-now-claim-form/page4

 

Andy

 

Thread moved to Financial Legal Issues Forum in view of the claim.

 

Thread title updated

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- I have been actively following the other thread.

 

I have completed the AOS, printed ready to go, Will date it when I post it. Also will email it if at all possible.

 

N244 also complete and ready to go.

 

Awaiting official documents now, but I do feel prepared.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wont get any further documents..they are the documents..the claimant manually serves in manual claims.

 

Work form the date on the claim form..... 14 ...days to AOS...dont forget to tick " Contest Jurisdiction " send submit N244 within 14 days.

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

Ah okay I didn't realise they were email copies.....but whatever else you receive will be identical

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

so if thats the way you feel why didnt you arrange repayments with the bank directly ?

 

You want to wait to get a CCJ with all the absorbitant fees and interest charges plus court fees and then you want to arrange payment ?

 

CWD are debt collectors disguised as solicitors chasing vulnerable people for amounts of money they dont actually owe. I think that is what CAG is all about .Thats why I am here to fight these DCAs

 

I dont understand why you are here if you dont want to fight these people .

 

People are following our threads to get an idea of the way forward so I dont understand your comments because its not really helping anyone and isnt that why we are here to help each other ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the bank won’t accept monthly instalments. Hopefully as I say it won’t come to that and it will be dismissed (or whatever the terminology is) but reality is I don’t know what will happen, I can only defend as much as possible. No outcomes anywhere I can see or find that tell me what has happened to others. And I follow actively.

 

I’m here for advice, and to see what other people’s experiences are, to hopefully give ma and anyone following the best chance to win

 

Never have my comments been confrontational with any type of undertone so I’m not sure why such the response

Link to post
Share on other sites

ofcourse it will be dismissed.

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

Squaddy Never have I implied that your comments were confrontational just defeatist before we have even begun to fight

 

We are setting a precedent because noone has ever seen an outcome of these claims apart from a backdoor CCJ

 

I really want to defend this claim and was hoping we could do this together if possible.

 

Thats why I dont understand your comments . If we are going to fight CWD and all that they stand for we have to be together .

 

As dx and many have said you cant use UAE ruling in the UK .

 

Hope you can defend your claim as i will following the advice on here as you know the UAE banks are dreadful to deal with

 

Regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Thanks for your support

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...