Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

Smart/CST ANPR PCN PAPLOC - Airport Pub, Manchester - LBA - ***THEN CANCELLED BY SMART***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1280 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

CST law are just a new kid on the block

use our search top right 

 

BW PCN snotty letter ericsbrother

 

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

As the others say, you need to reply to a Letter Before Claim as it's a formal notice of intention to start legal proceedings.  You need to show them you've sussed their claim is pants and they would have a real battle on in court.

 

You can either ridicule their claim as it is ...

 

... or else name the driver. 

 

If he was in the UK they would then leave you in peace and hassle the BiL.

 

However, as he's in Italy there is very little they can do to him (I know, I live in Italy too!) so, as dx hints, they are likely to try to invent some stupid reason to continue hassling you.  It'll be "too late" to name the driver.  Or they "are unable" to accept an address in Italy as they can't work out how to use the Royal Mail site and buy the correct postage stamp.  Or some such rubbish.

 

You need to decide about the BiL.

 

 

  • 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 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

EB style snotty letter probably best bet at the moment.

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Smart/CST ANPR PCN PAPLOC - Airport Pub, Manchester.

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

The forum is pretty sussed about legal procedure, tactics to take on the fleecers, etc.  But when it comes to internal family matters it's up to the family members to decide!

 

If the keeper of the vehicle tells the PPC the identity of the driver, then the PPC will usually leave the keeper in peace and then hassle the driver.  Do you want to put your brother in this position?

 

It's also to be considered that the idiots would probably not accept an Italian address and would probably still harass your OH although they're not supposed to.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not to bothered about the grief they would give us, it's easier to deal with knowing they can't do anything, tad used to it now.

 

If a letter to them now can also deal with it without naming the BIL, then that would be good to. The OH has said she doesn't want to go anywhere near a court as that is not her thing, so need to avoid that too. Obviously she shouldn't need to go through that as she wasn't driving.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, then use the letter dx mentions in post 34 as your starting point.  It obviously needs to be tweaked and bits cut out that are different from your case.  I would also add:

 

"Your clients know full well I was not the driver, so as I was nowhere near the Airport Pub I couldn't enter into any contract with your clients, even someone with GCSE grade 1 in law could work that out.  No keeper liability has been established and to boot the signage is a prohibition.

 

I'm sure you read DDJ Harvey's judgement in Lewes on 24 April.  Not very happy with the Unicorn Food Tax companies like your clients make up, was he?

 

Your clients can either drop this foolishness now or get a good hiding in court, both are fine by me.  A juicy unreasonable costs order under CPR27.14(2)(g) would do nicely to finance my winter holiday.

 

COPIED TO SMART PARKING"

 

Put the ideas together then please put up a draft of what you propose to send.

  • 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 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question about the letter below... How is the LBC they sent shoddy or badly put together? Did they miss something? Just so I know what I am writing about! :)  I added the bit about 'keeper liability section 9' which I found on another thread about Smart parking. Is that relevant?

 

Thanks all.

 

----------------------------------------

 

Dear CST Law,

 

I am in receipt of your letter dated the 22nd September 2020 and have noted its contents. 

 

Unfortunately for you I cannot accept this shoddily thrown together piece of tripe to be a LBC as it fails miserably to come anywhere near a LBC as required under the revised Civil Procedure Regulations and so would expect a court to summarily dismiss any claim later made by you or your client on that basis.

 

Your clients know full well that I was not the driver, so as I was not at the Airport Pub I couldn't enter into any contract with your clients, even someone with GCSE grade 1 in law could work that out.  No keeper liability has been established and to boot the signage is a prohibition.

 

You have also failed to comply with the requirements of Schedule 4 of The Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012 namely, but not limited to, failing to give notice of keeper liability as prescribed by section 9 (2) (f) of the Act. You cannot, therefore, transfer liability for the alleged charge from the driver at the time to me, the keeper.

 

So, to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, I deny that any monies are owed to your client by myself as there is precedent case law that your clients' greed has blinded them to.

 

Even the British Parking Association have given in and changed their stance. The same applies to the inflated amount of the claim, the POFA and contract law are very clear on this point and again plenty of examples of dismissed claims are in the public domain. 

 

Remember DDJ Harvey at Lewes in May? It would be wise if you took your obligations you signed up to when being entered onto the SRA roll and advised your clients it is not in their interests to continue with this matter as they have no cause for action and I shall seek a full costs  recovery order under CPR 27.14.2.(g). for any civil claim made under the unreasonableness criteria.

 

Yours Sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

a solicitor cannot issue a LBA on behalf of a DCA

they can only do so on behalf of the PPC.

 

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

Looks damn good to me - well done!

 

Just three little tweaks.  In the third paragraph cut out "No keeper liability has been established and" as you deal with keeper liability and POFA in the next paragraph.

 

Also cut out the bit about the British Parking Association.  That was connected to inputting an incorrect registration number and doesn't apply to your OH's case.

 

Tack on the bit about DDJ Harvey to the end of the previous paragraph, all that has to do with invented charges the fleecers have made up.

  • 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 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't send to DRP as they're just a powerless third party.

 

Personally I would send to Smart though, and I'd write on the bottom of CST Law's copy "Copied to Smart Parking".  That is because all this thieving is not just limited to PPCs against motorists, unscrupulous solicitors love their clients to start court cases they have no hope of winning, after after it's all cash for the solicitors.  Let Smart know if they go to court they'll end up severely out of pocket.

  • 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 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Great news!

 

Is it Smart that have written and given in?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • FTMDave changed the title to Smart/CST ANPR PCN PAPLOC - Airport Pub, Manchester - LBA - ***THEN CANCELLED BY SMART***

Well done on your victory!  👏

 

You must have taken Smart's hair off with your reply to the LBA!  Although they often crawl back under their stone after a suitable snotty reply to an LBA, they never admit to having given up and in theory can resurrect the claim any time within the next six years.

 

But not with you, compliments on forcing them to formally give in.

  • 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 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, NotsoSmart fail again😃

  • 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 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

Interesting that Smart (and the other PPCs) always say they "can't" cancel a PCN once the deadline for their appeals procedure has passed.

 

Yet they were magically able to cancel this one.

 

Couldn't have been the prospect of a financial kicking in court by any chance, could it?  😉

 

 

  • Haha 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 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...