Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'd appreciate a bit more advice on this complaint. After the non budge phone call they've actually emailed me this morning which I've copied below.  I have now complained to the fos but haven't heard anything from them yet. Should I respo d now to this email, and if so what should I write? Or just leave it now to the ombudsman?  Thanks again   Good afternoon   Further to your recent email, I have reviewed your comments about why you didn’t complain about your loans until now, and I need some more information from you. Please be aware that without speaking with you I may not have enough information to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the 3 year exception applies to your circumstances.   Please can you provide more information to help us understand what led you to make your complaint. Was there anything specific that triggered you to make your complaint? Please provide as much information as you can.
    • Considering the wear was on the inside tyre wall and not having a ramp or lift in my back pocket I unfortunately did not want to crawl under a car in a showroom. By the way no tyre kicker here, I did my research on the car I wanted and price I wanted to pay, found a dealer with good customer feedback and took the car for a test drive. All I did wrong was trust a car dealership and as you say maybe if they valued a customer they would offer to pay for the tyres, but I suppose we can put dealerships in the same boat as estate agents....blunt truth!
    • Vast improvement...couldn't have drafted it better myself     just requires a few tweaks and a little polish and a good conclusion which I will draft for you in the next couple of days.   Regards   Andy
    • just a quick update on my witness statement. all advice appreciated   In The *******County Court   Claim No. *********    ************** Claimant and *************** Defendant     I am the defendant in this case and make this Witness statement in support of my defence in this claim. The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary.   1. 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 written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Idem Capital securities issue claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.     2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchase’s 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. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   3. I accept I have in the past had financial dealings with HSBC. That being a Loan Agreement and a Current Account with overdraft facility, neither of which had a credit limit to the value the claimant purports to be allegedly outstanding. I do not recall the precise details of the agreements but do recall it was on or about the year 1998.   4. I had been paying regular monthly payments via a debt management company (************) up until xx/xx/2017, I ceased payments once I realised that I was being charged a fee to use they services.   5. After seeking advice this led me to check all paperwork I held with creditors, from this I could not find any Credit Agreement relating to the account the claimant is referring to.   6. I have therefore sought clarification and requested copies of the agreements from the claimant by way of a section 77 request and a request pursuant to sec 61 B of the CCA1974 for the amalgamated alleged amount.   (EXHIBIT 1)   7. A CPR 31.14 request pursuant to sec 61 B of the CCA1974 was sent 27/11/2018 via Royal Mail signed for and shows as received 29/11/2018. A Request for the following documents was made:   ·         The Demand/Termination Notice (Notice served under section 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA 1974. ·         Notices of sums in arrears under running account credit CCA 2006 sec 86C.  ·         Notice of assignment  ·         A statement of account   (EXHIBIT 1A)   The documents that were finally received do not meet the criteria set out in section 61 B of the CCA 1974 To date No Demand/Termination Notice has ever been produced, no Notices of Sums in arrears has ever been produced. The notice of assignment does not appear to be an original, but a reconstruction of the original and no original has ever been received, the statement of account appears to be a generic copy and only start from 2007.   (EXHIBIT 2)   8. A Section 77 request was sent on 27/11/2018 via royal mail signed for and shows as received 28/11/2018. The claimant to date has failed to comply to my Section 77 request.   (EXHIBIT 2A)   The Claimant acknowledged by letter dated 13/12/2017 they were unable to supply a copy of the Credit agreement and have acknowledged that they are unable to enforce litigation action.   9.The defendant claims to have issued a Default Notice, and failed to mention a date that this was issued. I would like to point out that the claimant could not have possibly issued a Default Notice as they only bought the debt in xx/xx/2016 and as far as I can recall any breach with the original creditor would have been on or around 2009. The claimant as an assignee would not be able to legally issue a Default Notice as the debt would have already been terminated before assignment.   (EXHIBIT C)   I sought clarity of any Default Notice by the way of a CPR 31.14 request, sent via Royal mail signed for on 27/11/2018 and shows as received signed for 28/11/2018.The claimant has still yet to comply to my CPR 31.14 request with regard to clarity of any valid default notice issued, as yet I have never received an original or seen a copy of a valid default notice from the defendant.   10. This claim bought by the claimant is without merit and an abuse of court  process.   The claimant holds no valid documentation that can substantiate their claim this being:-   ·         No Termination Notice ·         No Credit agreement and acknowledge they cannot supply one, and acknowledge that they are unable to enforce. ·         No valid default Notice ·         A Reconstituted Notice of assignment   It would be far gracious and forthright for the claimant to admit that all the paperwork is a collection of copy and pastes in an attempt to convince the court that the claimant can disclose the legal valid documents on which its claim relies on.       11. I contest that the documents I have received do not meet the requirements and prescribed terms of a legal binding credit agreement, and that the claimant has acknowledged that they are unable to produce an agreement and are unable to enforce.   Having regard to the above it is respectfully requested that the claimants application is denied.     I believe that the that the facts stated in the witness state are true   Signed........   Dated.......      
    • Yes Ron, I did know that in the MOT it said near the limit and yes I was going to replace but........as I keep saying the garage that did the service said there was no way that in 2 weeks and 2 days to be precise and not being driven for around 90 miles could they possible so far under the legal limit. When you buy a car and keep it in good mechanical order yes you know that bills are “imminent” but not when it should have been picked up by the dealership if they had done all the checks that they said they did.
  • Our picks

    • My personal experiences of Future Comms 
      Don't touch them owe me £500 since January 2019 make excuse after excuse. Seem they always have software problems sending money out. Keep saying they will call back or email nothing been chasing it now for 6 mths the phone staff always have the same banter we will chase it up and get back to you then nothing!
      • 0 replies
    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies

Recommended Posts

My father parked on a road near his home in a parking bay which he has been doing for a number of weeks. 

He has seen the warden past his mini bus and other vehicles on the same road on a number of occasions and not issue any tickets.


However on 30th April, my father parked in the same place he always does and saw the warden again who walked passed his and other vehicles on the road, then returned and placed a ticket on his mini bus.


My father confronted him about this and was told that he could not park in this place.

This was despite there not being any signs stating that there was no parking or any permits were required. 

My father was then sent a PCN ticket with a 12R violation:-


'Parked in a residents or shared use parking place without clearly displaying either ... or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place – Contravention Code 12. ... 12R means no residents'


Obviously my father was very angry about this and contested the PCN as my father's mini bus was the only vehicle that had a ticket and the vehicle in front did not. 

My father received a response stating that he had parked in a bay that was for residents and they were not concerned that a ticket was not placed on other vehicles only that it was placed on his.


They also sent a picture of a parking sign on the other side of the road near a bay which was not where my father parked. 

Despite this they still want him to pay the fine. 


Who is in the right, my father or the Local council? (Pictures are attached)


Picture from Local council.jpg

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the exact  location? Post a google streetview link

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although my father lives in the area, he is not allowed to park there 2 hours out of the day hence the reason why he parks elsewhere along with other residents who live on this road.  As a pension, he does not think that it is right that he should pay £120 for the year not to park for 2 hours a day for 5 days on his road.  Himself and other residents have written to complain to the local council about this. 


However, as stated previously although there are signs elsewhere on the road such as across the road and further up the road, there is no sign where he parked.  This is the reason why he parked there. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having made an informal challenge and been refused, he has 2 choices - pay the discount or wait for the NtO and make formal representations on the grounds of missing/inadequate signage at which point the full penaltyof £130 is in play.  The council will almost certainly refuse it.


He can then appeal to an adjudicator where if it becomes apparent that  he is a resident in the adjoining CPZ and is refusing to buy a resident permit on principle, but is knowingly parking  in contravention somewhere else, even with the missing sign I can quite easily see an adjudicator refusing an appeal.


If he continues to park there, he's likely to get more pcns, which will end up costing more than £120 a year. But it's his principle and his money.


How did the last PCN end up?


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply.


Unfortunately he ended up having to pay for that one although there was not a sign anywhere near where he parked yet again including a pole, there was one which I did notice at the beginning of the road where he parked but high up.  


I will relay this information to him as I do understand your point in this matter.


Many thanks 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a CPZ each bay wont need a plate but if each marked bay is listed separately as resident parking ( you will find the wording in the Traffic Order somehting like "for 26m north of the junction with anyroad to 33m north of the same and for 11m north of that junction to 135m from the same there will be marked bays where the following restrictions apply") the marked bit is the point here as they will need the signs to denote the restrictions in each bay if the wording doesnt create a zone, esp where there are yellow lines between them, which must have their own plates if SYL.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ericsbrother said:

If it is a CPZ each bay wont need a plate but if each marked bay is listed separately as resident parking ( you will find the wording in the Traffic Order somehting like "for 26m north of the junction with anyroad to 33m north of the same and for 11m north of that junction to 135m from the same there will be marked bays where the following restrictions apply") the marked bit is the point here as they will need the signs to denote the restrictions in each bay if the wording doesnt create a zone, esp where there are yellow lines between them, which must have their own plates if SYL.



 The CPZ restriction times apply to SYL's  within that zone and not parking bays, so SYL's do not require their own timeplates.  Each parking bay within the zone must have it's own timeplate, even if, as is often the case, the restricted times are the same as the CPZtimes

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...