Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oh sorry, it is Overdales. Apologies.
    • Hi everyone, I has the pleasure this morning of receiving the attached NTK from "MET Parking Services Ltd" regarding the now infamous Starbucks car park near Stansted Airport. Obviously it is not compliant with Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it was sent more than 14 days after the alleged contravention.  I have seen on various other forums that people have been successfully appealing these via POPLA (https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6507793/challanging-parking-ticket-issed-by-med-parking-in-stansted-mcdonalds-starbucks-southgate-park) -- is this worth doing or should I just ignore and keep an eye out for any subsequent letter of claim?   Date of the infringement 02/03/2024 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 09/04/2024  Date received 12/04/2024 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Yes Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] No Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up N/A - not appealed Who is the parking company? MET Parking Services Where exactly [carpark name and town] (346) Southgate Park, Stansted, CM24 1PY For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. BPA/POPLA Thank you in advance for your help. Met Parking Services NTK 09-04-2024.pdf
    • Just wondering if someone can offer some advice. Before I knew about this forum I ended up with a CCJ. I agreed a payment of X per month with the Court and it was agreed and that payment has been kept up to date, except for a period last year from Sep to Dec whereby I was held on suspicion of a crime in Norway (later acquitted I might add) but for 3 months and as such had no way of maintaining the payments each month with no access to be able to make the transfers to them. When I returned, I paid the 3 months I was behind and have since continued to maintain the payments that was agreed by the Court originally. I have never received any notification or demand from the Court regarding the period I was unable to pay and haven't to date. However, I received this below by email today - not sure how they got my email but perhaps from this original debt as the Original creditor may have passed it on to them. Any thoughts on this please? "The County Court Judgment (CCJ) granted on 11-2018 remains unpaid therefore our client is considering enforcement action. Despite sending you previous reminders, you have failed to engage with us and set up an affordable payment plan for £2444.21 which means our client could instruct us to take further action in the next 14 days. If our client instructs us to apply for a Warrant of Control, a County Court Bailiff could visit you at home to discuss payment of the outstanding balance. Alternatively, our client may instruct us to enforce by way of a Charging Order which will result in the Court securing the outstanding debt against any beneficial interest you hold in a property. This means our client will recover the debt when you come to sell or remortgage your property. Our client may also request an Attachment of Earnings which will result in the Court ordering your employer to deduct payment directly from your wages. In order to avoid this, you must either make a one-off payment of £2444.21 or set up a payment plan with us within 14 days."  
    • Actually you making me go back and double check the Arnold Clark thing rang a bell and the trust took all the payments off my wages. 2 months £111 & 2 months at £115. Im fairly sure that means its paid off?
  • 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

Guidance pls: CC debt of v elderly relative now entirely incapable through dementia and in permanent residential care.


Hannay100
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1873 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

My Mother is 96 and has had a M&S CC for many years, used for phone and online shopping which also gave her a feeling of independence as she rarely left the house.

 

She began displaying signs of dementia late last year following a stroke, then fell at Christmas suffering a v serious head injury and was not expected to survive. She was eventually stabilised, though only after two scary doubt-filled relapses.

 

It was then immediately clear that her dementia had deepened v substantially, and to make a long and very evil story short my Mother has in just a few weeks been replaced by someone who looks like her but has no memories, doesn't retain anything she is told conversationally for longer than 30-60 seconds, has no retained awareness therefore of her circumstances or where she is, who never has a yesterday to help her understand today, is confused on a good day and distressed on a bad one, doesn't recognise friends/some-family, and only occasionally recognises me when I tell her who I am.

 

She is now in permanent residential dementia care where we continue to visit a very frail stranger unable to look after herself and needing help with all aspects of daily life, and that we love very much but can do nothing to help, only ... observe.

 

Anyway ...

 

I am dealing with her personal affairs.

 

I would like to know please whether a card-issuer - M&S in this case - has legitimate recourse to family if the card-holder is neither competent nor capable and is unable to settle an outstanding balance, in this case just under £2K.

 

Today the State takes all of Mum's pension and benefits to offset some of the £900+ p.w. cost of her Care, with the exception of a few pounds as so-called pocket-money to provide "personal treats" like toothpaste and replacement clothes/undies etc. Treats?

 

There is no longer any possibility of the outstanding balance being settled by Mum from any source at all, she has no assets and had been getting by just okay on her State Pension+ small benefits whilst in a sheltered-housing bungalow since my Father died.

 

I have been far too preoccupied to bother with the M&S reminder-letters over the past three months, but should take control before things escalate. I don't have any problem ignoring DCs if M&S moves it along, however I'd rather put the brakes on with M&S before that stage.

 

So, to repeat my question ...

 

I assume that in Law M&S would have recourse to income or assets, however there are none and I am wanting to know if In Law there is then permitted-recourse to family for the debt?

 

If they try to make noise instead of writing the balance off, I am perfectly capable of berating M&S very robustly about pursuing a 96 year old woman in residential care with dementia! However, before then I want to be clear in my mind about the legitimacy of any other channels they may claim to be entitled to pursue for recovery.

 

In reality they would actually be unsuccessful that way also as I am 71, retired with no assets and only state pension income, and with debts and obligations of my own already after a past business-collapse. I'm not concerned with that just now however, just in knowing whether M&S would be on solid ground if they should respond by saying that in these circumstances the debt becomes the responsibility of someone's family to settle if their assets/estate isn't able to cover it.

 

So can someone advise on that one point please? Thanks!

 

Howard

Edited by Hannay100
Link to post
Share on other sites

short answer is NO.

 

write them a letter

inc evidence, and you might be surprised they could well write the whole thing off.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...