Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Cabot/Nolans SPC - newday Aqua Card **withdrawn by nolans!**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1480 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

Yes....

 

9.10 How can a party ask the sheriff to make any other orders?

(1) A party may ask the sheriff to make any other orders by sending an Incidental Orders Application to the other party.

(2) That party must at the same time send the court a copy of the Incidental Orders Application with evidence that it was sent to the other party (for example a postal receipt or a copy of an email).

  • Like 1

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

wasn't always that way

changed with the spc rules of 2016.

also, staple a copy of the cabot no cca letter to the courts copy.

dx

  • Like 1

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

  • 2 weeks later...

It's been just over a week since I re-submitted my Incidental Application, this time using the official form.


I also stapled a copy of the cabot no cca letter to the courts copy as suggested above.

Will check on Monday that all is ok.

In the meantime Nolans have sent me some more  credit card statements.

 

Will keep you advised, and once again many thanks for your help and guidance on this one.

 

Best regards,

 

Pete

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ofcourse they'll object

in a way its all they 'can' do.

 

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi dx,

 

Latest info is:

 

"The court has received an Incidental Application from the respondant". That will be my letter from Cabot advising that they cannot legally proceed with the case.

"The Sheriff has received an objection from the claiment to the Incidental Application".

 

I have now received notification that the sheriff has ordered the case to be restarted.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

claimant not ent...

 

can I confirm the following was included in your initial response form

 

 

The Signed Consumer Credit Agreement

The Notice Of Assignment

The Default Notice Issued By The Original Creditor Under CCA 1974 Section 87/8

 

A detailed statement of the account and how, with specific reference toward additional interest added because of late/no payment, and any additional penalty fees or interest added, have resulted in the balance now claimed.

 

The court will be aware that penalty charges and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009).

I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.

 

in D2 enter:

. The claimant avers in its particulars that they hold the signed agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 dated XXXXX

 

A CCA Request section 7? was sent recorded delivery on [date].

To date the claimant has failed to comply & is in default of said request.

 

2. The respondent is unaware of any default notice served under the consumer credit act by either the original creditor or the claimant in the last XX years

 

 

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

claimant not ent...

can I confirm the following was included in your initial response form

None of the below were received by me.

The Signed Consumer Credit Agreement

The Notice Of Assignment

The Default Notice Issued By The Original Creditor Under CCA 1974 Section 87/8

Nolans have sent a number of statements, but not the complete set.

A detailed statement of the account and how, with specific reference toward additional interest added because of late/no payment, and any additional penalty fees or interest added, have resulted in the balance now claimed.

 

The court will be aware that penalty charges and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009).

I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.

 

in D2 enter:

. The claimant avers in its particulars that they hold the signed agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 dated XXXXX

Can I re-submit my D2 form again?   Section 77 request was sent to Cabot and they advised that they couldn't fulfill it.

A CCA Request section 7? was sent recorded delivery on [date].

To date the claimant has failed to comply & is in default of said request.

 

2. The respondent is unaware of any default notice served under the consumer credit act by either the original creditor or the claimant in the last XX years

 

Many thanks for your help re this. It is much appreciated :-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked if you had sent all of what I copied

so the answer is yes?

 

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

Hi dx,

 

I double-checked and none of the below has ever been received by me:

The Signed Consumer Credit Agreement

The Notice Of Assignment

The Default Notice Issued By The Original Creditor Under CCA 1974 Section 87/8

 

When I submitted the Incidental Application, I enclosed a copy of the letter from Cabot advising that they couldn't comply with the Section 77 request. I also requested the sheriff to issue an "decree absolvitor" as a result.

Nolans have ojected to this application.

 

Still hoping that Nolans give up :-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3rd time..

you are missing what i am asking..

 

Was the text in post 59 included in your original reply form to the claim??

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

Hi dx,

 

Apologies - I misunderstood what you are asking.

The answer is "YES".

 

in D2 enter:

. The claimant avers in its particulars that they hold the signed agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 dated XXXXX

 

A CCA Request section 7? was sent recorded delivery on [date].

To date the claimant has failed to comply & is in default of said request.

 

2. The respondent is unaware of any default notice served under the consumer credit act by either the original creditor or the claimant in the last XX years

 

I actually copied the info from a previous link you supplied.

i.e. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/402263-what-to-do-simple-prodedure-rule-claims-scotland/

 

in D1 enter the following : [by copy and paste from here]

 

As a respondent i specifically make reference to the Simple Procedure Rules 2016 in so far as my understanding is that:

 

1.4(2)

The Sheriff must ensure that parties who are not represented, or parties who do not have legal representation, are not unfairly disadvantaged...

 

... i represent myself and are totally at a loss upon how to respond to such a claim & welcome any assistance the sheriff can give me.

 

1.6(9)

When appearing against a party who is not represented, or who is not legally represented, representatives must not take advntage of the party.

 

1.6(10)

 

When appearing against a party who is not represented, or who is not legally represented, representatives must help the court to allow that person to argue a case fairly.

 

..i expect the claimants' representative to employ the above.

..........

 

The Claimant is a well known Debt Buyer or Debt Collection Agency that purchases large debt portfolio 'En-Masse' for a discounted Pence to Pound reduced value.

 

These debt portfolios, be them direct from the Original Creditors or exchanged under sales between like Debt Buying Organisations, were placed for sale because the Original Creditor neither wished to litigate against their customer themselves due to bad publicity or are typically related to issues of enforceability under the Consumer Credit Act or are as a result of inflated sums due to penalties and or interest levied upon them that are unfair & unlawful under FCA regulations.

 

It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. They then issue claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.

 

According to s.189 of the consumer creditlink3.gif Act 1974 when an assignee purchases debts [or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement] it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements, such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information. The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement, thereby ensuring that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.

 

It is admitted with regards to the respondent once having financial dealings with [original Creditor] in the past.

I do not recall any precise details or agreements and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.

 

The Respondent puts the Claimant to strict proof to provide copies of all documentation they must produce under Scottish law that confirms they are able, legally, to enforce and bring this claim to court .

 

The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-

.

(a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.

(b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand/Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.

© Provide a breakdown of the excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.

(d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.

(e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.

(f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.

 

The court will be aware that penalty charges and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.

 

in D2 enter:

. The claimant has averred on their Claim Form that they hold the signed agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 dated XXXXX

 

A CCA request section 7? was sent recorded delivery on [date].

To date the claimant has failed to comply & is in default of said request.

 

2. The respondent is unaware of any default notice served under the consumer credit act by either the original creditor or the claimant in the last XX years.

..................

 

Obviously, I inserted the dates, etc where applicable.

 

Hope this makes sense.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just received a 20+ page document fron Nolans as part of their submission arguing that that "the evidence contained within the First List Evidence, the respondant should not be entitled to absolvitor".

 

The remaining document is simply a copy of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the act?

thats huge

do you mean the cca response or lack of it they already sent?

 

scan it up one pdf file only please

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

oh well whatever quoting all that that is going to help them im clueless ...

but then that's nolans second name anyway

  • Like 1

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

who's this from?

 

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

  • 1 month later...

have you a date?

 

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

  • 5 months later...

so what happened ..please update us

 

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

  • 1 month later...

what do you mean by withdrawn?

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Cabot/Nolans SPC - newday Aqua Card **withdrawn by nolans!**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...