Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • yes sorry i was confused that you had managed to get anything out of the administrators. we've not seen that and was surprised by it read that way.   your credit file is clear Conexus Recovery and Field Services Ltd - can be totally ignored. 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..
    • An online news and information service for the UK’s commercial and consumer credit industry. View the full article
    • They are very nonsensical aren’t they? As far as I can tell they have no proof of ownership of debt whatsoever - it feels like they’re just hoping I cave in 🙈   I’ll get onto the CRA’s now - thank you 😊 
    • Thanks ...okay well as you are already aware you will get more sense out of your bin than talking to Arrow...so I would now escalate it by informing the Credit Reference agencies and submit a Notice of Correction ( each CRA has its own instruction's on how  to submit) and they will contact Arrow asking for details of the debt....if that fails you can contact the ICO (information Commissioner's Office) and raise a complaint re false data reporting.     See how you get on.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

CEL - Rejected my appeal, final notice before action


Recommended Posts

Thanks all, Ill get that off today!

 

Got an email from the store, they aren't surprised at any of this as they've had far too many people complain about the carpark and raised it with their MP aswell.  They wish me well but nothing they can do as its privately owned land, with a dogey app.

 

Should i reiterate any of this?

Should i also describe why the app is so shocking ly rubbish or is the above letter enough?

 

cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No short and sweet best, the uselessness of the app would be part of a short defence if they did issue a claimform, as in   "No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach

please complete this:    

Posted Images

No short and sweet best, the uselessness of the app would be part of a short defence if they did issue a claimform, as in

 

"No Contract could be formed for any action to be taken for breach of a Contract Frustrated from the start, due to inability to pass consideration as in fee to park due to inability of the App, the sole method of payment offered to process any payment. Therefore NO Actionable  Contract can be  deemed to exist."

 

That would be for later if they are silly enough to try court

  • Like 2

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

I’d add (just in case the DJ says “but if you couldn’t pay, you shouldn’t have parked”):

“The situation being compounded by the app appearing to allow payment, with a countdown timer for the period ‘paid for’ appearing”.

 

Have you offered to pay the fee the app should have taken but didn’t?

 

If they were stupid enough to take it to court I’d invite the judge to find that they were entitled to that fee, and only that fee, but [contrary to the usual guideline of costs ‘in the case’] you were entitled to the {limited} costs available in the small claims track.

They’d ‘win’ : but only for the parking fee, you’d win : by them being the ones an order of judgment was made against!

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...