Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
    • Massive issues from Scottish Power I wonder if someone could advise next steps. Tennant moved out I changed the electric into my name I was out the country at the time so I hadn't been to the flat. During sign up process they tried to hijack my gas supply as well which I made it clear I didn't want duel fuel from them but they still went ahead with it. Phoned them up again. a few days later telling them to make sure they stopped it but they said too late ? had to get my current supplier to cancel it. Paid £50 online to ensure there was money covering standing charges etc eventually got to the flat no power. Phoned Scottish Power 40 minutes to get through they state I have a pay as you go meter and that they had set me up on a credit account so they need to send an engineer out which they will pass my details onto. Phone called from engineer asking questions , found out the float is vacant so not an emergency so I have to speak to Scottish Power again. Spoke with the original person from Scottish Power who admitted a mistake (I had told her it was vacant) and now states that it will take 4 weeks to get an appointment but if I want to raise a complaint they will contact me in 48 hours and it will be looked at quicker. Raised a complaint , complaints emailed me within 24 hours to say it will take 7 days till he speaks with me. All I want is power in the property would I be better switching over to EON who supply the gas surely they could sort it out quicker? One thing is for sure I will never bother with Scottish Power ever again.    
  • 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

bought a car HPI clear now finance company want car back


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1922 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

can you provide as much info as you can please.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

i saw the car advertised in autotrader

i made arrangements to view,the day

 

i went to view i spent £20 on an RAC hpi check and it was all clear.

I also tapped the reg plate in to we buy any car just to confirm i was paying the correct price.

 

I liked the car and wit drew the cash from the bank that day to give to seller.

credit plus gave the rogue seller finance on the vehicle of which he didnt pay any of the repayments and sold it to me afterwards.

 

the finance was taken out 1 month before i bought it and it was declared stolen 2 moths later by credit plus.

 

i am refusing to give car to them as i bought in good faith with an HPI check for my own protection. i have a court date january 2019.

 

they are waiving hudson v shogun finance under my nose but im not convinced its the same type of case

Link to post
Share on other sites

can we see the claimform please minus pers details

also the defence you filed and both witness statements please

 

ENSURE you redact things properly

one multipage PDF is quite OK

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

  • 1 month later...

It is only considered 'best practice' to list cars with finance outstanding on an HPI/Experian check. There is nothing to make finance companies declare an interest in a vehicle. I know this as i was in a very similar situation and ended up paying for the car again.

 

This was 2 years after we purchased the car. The dealer had a finance agreement on the vehicle and then went bust. At the time of purchase the vehicle was 'clear' on the Experian check. I think the 'insurance' against the information will not help.

 

The finance company own the car and will win in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that appears to work against you here is the fact that the vehicle was fraudulently sold so soon after the finance had been taken out, with no payments being made. This would indicate that there was an intention to commit this crime from the start (i.e. use the finance as a means to steal the vehicle). This takes the matter into different waters than if the vehicle was being sold further into the life of a HP agreement.

 

Normally, providing you could demonstrate that you were clearly acting in good faith, you would be able to claim the rights of an innocent purchaser under s27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 however in this case the actions of the seller would suggest that good title to the (stolen) goods is unlikely to have passed to you.

 

The HPI check is a sideshow because it does not make any difference legally to either the buyer or the lender.

 

My only suggestion is to present your case as best you can in court and see what they decide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the last post makes any sense.

The op didn't take finance out, he is the innocent purchaser.

In fact he even diligently paid to check any outstanding finance on the car.

The finance company under the legislation mentioned, should go after the seller who fraudulently sold the vehicle soon after having obtained finance on it.

My money is on the op winning his car.

Anyhow, have you tried to claim through rac insurance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the last post makes any sense.

The op didn't take finance out, he is the innocent purchaser.

In fact he even diligently paid to check any outstanding finance on the car.

The finance company under the legislation mentioned, should go after the seller who fraudulently sold the vehicle soon after having obtained finance on it.

My money is on the op winning his car.

Anyhow, have you tried to claim through rac insurance?

 

Not sure what doesn't make any sense about my post? I never said the OP took finance out, I was talking about the finance that the person (the fraudster) took out immediately prior to selling the vehicle to the OP. Assuming that finance agreement was indeed a fraudulent one then the decision in Hudson v Shogun Finance may well bind the court in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the vehicle is still on finance, the company will go after the car. Then the person who took it out. If the OP has the car and cant pay the finance off himself, then they can and will take it. Then go after the original owner for the shortfall.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

the op has not ever returned...

 

8th November 2018 00:43

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

I bouight a car from a private add in autotrader .

I carried out an RAC hpi check and there were no issues.

now a finance company (credit plus) claim its theirs and are taking me to court.

 

The RAC are not interested in the £30k guarantee as they are insisting when i did the HPI check there was nothing showing as far as finance is concerned.

sorry for late reply have been on holiday.

 

Rac not interested as they say there was no finance on the car when the check was done.

Edited by dx100uk
merge
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's incorrect because the finance had already been taken out a month before if I recollect rightly.

I would insist on RAC to make good, even threatening court and at the same time defend against the finance company as you bought the car clearly not knowing about the finance.

The legislation is quite clear and the must prove that you knew about the finance to take your car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The small print only covers £1000 in cash. I drew the money out of the bank on that day after viewing car as the rogue wanted cash,should of smelt a rat then but i didnt as felt ok with RAC report that i had done.

That's incorrect because the finance had already been taken out a month before if I recollect rightly.

I would insist on RAC to make good, even threatening court and at the same time defend against the finance company as you bought the car clearly not knowing about the finance.

The legislation is quite clear and the must prove that you knew about the finance to take your car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread flagged to remove uploads

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

done

one multipage PDF ONLY PLEASE

read UPLOAD

 

dx

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

Reasonable Ron is the one here making sense.

The law is not fair and if 2 people have been affected by the same rogue then the loss should be split . Why should I loose out to a piece of common law legislation 30 years ago that obviously needs to be changed. Also any company that sells Hpi checks should be banned from doing so because they are not worth the paper they are written on if a lender is not legally a luges to register it’s interest on the system directly after monies have been lent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I know the rogue was a rogue? He could be real and in on the fraud with credit plus. It all stinks in favour of the bank again!! The lender was Raphael and sons bank who were at the time members of ccta which says in section 5.1 of its code of practice that any of its members should register their interest with the likes of Hpi etc within 24 hours of lending, this is of no use to me as their membership expired in nov 2018 .👍

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...