Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do you think I should send the CCA request now then instead of waiting? I really can do without the stress. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you for responding.
    • How was the "receiver" appointed and what is their role? Appointed by the lender under the terms of their security on the loan (sometimes referred to as "LPA Receiver")? Or are they acting for you in insolveny? What's the current role of the agent?
    • Wait for more replies, but that letter to me can be interpreted as a letter before action. Ignoring it can have consequences. The court to impose sanctions for failure in responding to a letter of claim.
    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
  • 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

Link Parking PCN n- ow gladstone letter of claim - used Incorrect machine for area - Llynfi Court, Llynfi Lane, Bridgend ***Claim Discontinued***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1034 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

block their email addy and set any response to bounce back.

Now as they have decided that you are liable then let this one run and run, if they take you to court you can prove that they are vexatious litigants  and earn a few quid out of them..

 

If you have sent them anything since consulting this forum please tell us what as the advice we always give is to wait for specific advice on the what and when and it will nevr be before they ahve wasted their money chasing you for a good while.

So you keep quiet from now on as far as they are concerned and let us knwo what they send next, probably a threatogram from a useless dca.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ANY correspondence is bad, the appeals removes protections that you have in law against presumption or liability unless specific requirements are met so we always say dont appeal u8nless there are very good reasons for doing so and generally that is only around the grace period not being considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi All

 

I have received a letter from BW Legal regarding the PCN.  Its addressed to me even though my wife is registered keeper and stated this in the appeal she submitted as well as stating she was the driver.  They have also said that we have failed to make a payment (true) or raised an appeal within 28 days of the PCN (false).

 

They are demanding £100 for PCN and £60 in legal costs.  The letter states that these charges are detailed in the car park signage terms and conditions that are clearly displayed in the client signage - there is no such signage - during the appeal they sent a jpeg image of what a sign looks like there isnt one in the car park.

 

Shall I respond to this letter pointing out the flaws in their findings - could someone please advise - many thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't  respond to anything yet until the regulars here have come back to you

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

as they are chasing the wrong person and you have proof that you have already told them this I would do nothing and let them sue you as they will automatically lose and it will then cost them the same to sue your wife and they will still lose if they are minded to do so. Your combined expenses claim for the day at court will put an end to that.

 

So you and your wife do nothing until they actually issue a court summons and then you have to respond. Anyhting before that and you will invite them to correct themselves and actually stand a chance of winning a claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

now time for an ericsbrothers snotty / insulting letter.

you must reply within 30days.

plenty in threads here already.

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 Link Parking PCN n- ow gladstone letter of claim - used Incorrect machine for area - Llynfi Court, Llynfi Lane, Bridgend
  • 2 weeks later...

so

Dear sirs,

It is apparent that your clients cant read or they would know that there isnt a sign at the location they are referring to for people who can read to peruse.

Obviously as Will and John of the IPC have personally approved every sign used by your clients soemone has read out to Link what it should say but that doesnt excuse them for not putting the damed things up. I look forward to your clients next move, I could do with a day out in Pontypridd so 5 minutes in court will pay for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

posts moved town thread

 

 

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

  • 6 months later...

begging letter..where does it say they are fining you 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

  • 4 months later...

Hi All

Thought this had gone but have received yet another letter of claim from BW legal.

 

I sent a SAR to Link when I received the last letter and replied to BW stating this.  Received the SAR last September and not heard anything since.

 

Is it worth replying to these muppets or just wait for the claim to drop?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You must reply

Time for the ericsbrother snooth/insulting letter

 

Lots of examples here

Use our search top right

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

Yes as insulting as possible possibly referring to any you sent last time they tried it, so a

"Despite my correspondence outlining your lack of grasp that I know and you know that you have a case founded on sand...

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if they left it alone after first letter, then thought its been a year, lets have another try?

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

After I sent a reply to the last letter before claim, I heard nothing from them until the latest one.

 

Link send some documents etc in the SAR but what they sent was just photos etc pretty poor to be honest.

 

I am going to respond stating that this will be the last correspondence I will be sending and for them to issue a claim if they feel they have a case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As they didn't respond, I would be inclined to resend your first response to their LoC just so they can't sat that they never received the first one. 

I would also point out that as this is the second LoC you could ask if this another one of a series or are they so useless that they don't even know that they sent you one last year.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

   So I refer you to my previous reply to your other LOC, which I copy below for your info with date of original on they can't say never had it then.  If they do try court it will be disclosed to the court making them look silly.

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...