Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes typed it, how would I input it any other way, probably timed out took over half hour. H
    • You typed it in? actually typed it all out? if so, maybe you took too long or something, like session timed out. Does the status show defence filed or no change?
    • Hi just typed all defence clicked next and it's deleted all. Any help
    • I forgot to say, there is one last possibility and that is that they will receive your letter of rejection and simply fold, accept the rejection and refund you. Don't wait too long for this. Seven days maximum – but in that seven days you could send your letter of claim anyway and when that you don't hear from them or when they start mucking around at least you are seven days closer to beginning the legal action – and they will know it (which is the important thing).
    • Okay that is excellent that you have an email between the garage and the warranty company confirming that there is a serious problem with the gearbox. That is very powerful evidence. I think the situation is this: you have sent them a letter of rejection but the reputation of big motoring world is that they won't take a lot of notice and they will try to prevaricate and maybe even blame you. Clearly you don't want the car any more and anyway it sounds as if the cost of repairs is going to be enormous. You don't know if the warranty company is going to step up to the mark but the whole thing is going to take a long time and I understand that you have lost confidence in big motoring world because of this event and also their reputation which you are now discovering on Facebook and on this forum and no doubt elsewhere. On the basis that you don't want the car any more and you want your money back, you need to hurry things along. I think the first thing is that you need to decide if you are prepared to bring a claim in the County Court. Even without the warranty money, the claim is worth more than £10,000. For actions less than £10,000, you bring a "small claim" and this means that even if you lose the case you won't be liable for the other side's costs. If you win the case then not only will you get your money plus interest but also you will recover all of the costs of the action. For actions more than £10,000, you go to something called the "fast track" and in the event that you lose the case, then you could be liable to reimburse the winner some of the costs. This means that in addition to not recovering your own money, you would lose your own court fees and also you would have to to bear the costs of the other side probably something less than £5000 – but as a rough guess. If you bring your court claim then your chances of success are almost 100%. Frankly if you brought a court claim then I can imagine that big motoring world will put their hands up and pay you out rather than face go to court and losing and getting a judgement against them. However, it you need to consider that this is a risk factor – although my view it is a negligible risk factor. If you did bring a court case, it wouldn't be instant. If they put their hands up then it would probably happen very quickly. If they didn't put their hands up then you could take anything up to a year for the matter to be resolved and during that time you would be without your car and without your money and in the middle of litigation. I'm explaining this to you say that you understand how it works. Bring a court case would be really the last resort when everything else has failed. However, I'm quite certain that you would win and it would be stupid of big motoring world to try to resist. In order to bring a court case you would have to send a letter of claim giving them 14 days to accept rejection and organise the refund otherwise you would begin the claim. Don't imagine that you could bluff this. If you did send a letter of claim then you would have to go through with it otherwise you lose all credibility and you might as well pack up and go home. So with this in mind, here are possible courses of action you could take. You can simply wait and see what their reaction to your letter of rejection will be. However they may not reply or else they may find some other reason to delay and of course during that time you will be without your car and without your money blah blah blah, not knowing if big motoring world were going eventually to start acting sensibly and respectfully towards you. The second thing you can do – and I think this has been suggested on Facebook – is that you can go along there and simply make yourself present and talk to other customers and generally speaking make a nuisance of yourself and embarrass them to the point where you would be explaining to other potential customers to be careful, to look on Facebook, and to do some careful research before they put their business to big motoring world. This has a reasonable chance of success although you would have to be careful. You should go accompanied by a friend and there should be no anger, no arguments, nothing that could be considered as being overly aggressive so that big motoring world would have no justification in kicking you out or even worse, calling the police. If you did this, then I would suggest that you record everything on the telephone carried in a pocket. A fully charged battery will probably keep a voice recorder and a telephone going for more than 20 hours or 30 hours. The other person can video any incidents so that everything is clear and you can inform big motoring world then it will be going up on the Internet. If you did this, my favourite option would be to issue the letter of claim giving them 14 days, and then going along to big motoring world with a copy of your letter of rejection and a copy of the exchange between the mechanic and the warranty company and a copy of your letter of claim – all settled together – and probably about 20 or 30 copies in all and I would start handing them out to any customers who came in. Big motoring world will soon get the picture and they will either move your the premises in which case you stand outside and carry on doing it or they will finally give in. Of course there is a chance that they won't give in and they will simply call your bluff – but in that case I think you have no choice other than to follow through with your 14 day threat in the letter of claim and to begin the legal action. At the same time you should be putting up reviews on Google and also trust pilot explaining exactly what has happened and also explaining that the mechanic has confirmed to the warranty company that there is the serious problem, that you have asserted the right to reject and that this is been ignored by big motoring world and that you have now sent a letter of claim and that you will be starting a legal action in 14 days. Once again, don't bluff about the legal action. If you threaten it – then you must mean it – and on day 15 you click of the claim. You don't need a solicitor for any of this. It's all fairly straightforward and of course we will help you all the way that it the decision is yours to make and I think you need to make it fairly quickly. I think the cost of starting an action for about £13,000 is 5% and then also if it goes to trial which I would say is almost impossible – there would be an additional fee. You would claim interest at 8%. A judge might award a lower figure but frankly if you can show that big motoring world is attempting to ride roughshod over your very clear statutory consumer rights, I can imagine that the judge will want to show displeasure by awarding the full 8% which is a pretty good rate – even though it's not compensation for the hassle and the distress you are going through. If you decide to get solicitor, then if you win the case, because it is over £10,000 you will recover some of your costs but you won't recover all of them. If the solicitor begins by having exchanges of letters then I doubt whether you will be up to recover the cost of those and you could easily find that you're chalking up 500 quid or even a thousand simply on initial exchanges of correspondence. Also you need to bear in mind that if after having exchanges with a solicitor, big motoring world cave in – then you definitely won't get those costs back because you won't have gone to court and therefore a judge will not have made the order for payment of those costs. I suggest very strongly that you avoid paying any money for a solicitor and that you do it yourself. It's not a big deal – although you will have to you react quickly to the help we offer on this forum. Also, an additional benefit is that you will learn a lot and you will gain confidence and eventually you will feel good about suing anybody else who gets in your way. Nothing not to like! If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must take control of the solicitor. Most of them prefer to sit in an office writing letters on the clock. If you do decide to instruct a solicitor then you must instruct the solicitor very firmly that they should send one letter of complaint giving seven days. A second letter – a letter of claim giving 14 days and that they must then begin the action. If you don't do this. If you don't take control then it will simply cost you money, you will be without your car even longer and of course without your money. The whole thing is a nightmare. I think I've laid out the options but please do ask questions. I hope you can see that this is the kind of advice that you won't be getting on Facebook. Nothing against Facebook. It's good as a meeting place and to make people realise that they aren't on their own – but after that the advice given is weak and confusing.  
  • 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

KBT/Armtrac/BW Windscreen PCN Claimform - blown away ticket- Lusty Glaze car park, Newquay - Advice Please


Recommended Posts

 

The NTD which was placed on your car is not compliant with PoFA. It is supposed to show the period of parking when the alleged breach occurred. Instead it shows your arrival and leaving times only and as that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot, parking then leaving the parking spot and driving out of the car park which is not parking, the parking period is wrongly timed and therefore does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms 2012. Nor does it say that  Armtrac is the creditor.

 

When you appealed you must have revealed that you were the driver as they don't appear to have sent you a Notice to keeper. They cannot therefore pursue you as the keeper-only the driver, which they think is you, is liable. 

 

When you appealed, if you said for example that I purchased the ticket instead of the driver purchased the ticket, that would be proof enough  that you were the driver. And once you have admitted that, there is no need for an NTK.

 

Signage

You should mention that the entrance sign does not offer a contract only an invitation to treat since it does not exhibit all the T&CS-they are inside the car park.

Their signage does not comply with PoFA. There is a minimum ten minute consideration period yet their notices require payment to be made within ten minutes which is against the Act especially as it can take several minutes to make the phone call not only when the phone is engaged. That renders the whole sign and their T&CS  unenforceable. And even worse is the Just Park pay machine which demands that payment is required on arrival.

 

The new Act reinforces the original PoFA regarding planning permission for signs and cameras under the Town and Country  [Advertisements] Regulations.

14.1

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs   "

Link to post
Share on other sites

And here I was calling your a Night Owl LFI 🤣

 

39 minutes ago, lookinforinfo said:

When you appealed, if you said for example that I purchased the ticket instead of the driver purchased the ticket, that would be proof enough  that you were the driver. And once you have admitted that, there is no need for an NTK.

IIRC this is exactly what the OP did, so I was wrong, the POFA argument goes in the bin.

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

 

That is why our advice is not to appeal.

 

I am trying to get to bed at a decent hour Dave  but after midnight my daughter and I have races to see who can win at Wordle, and Quordle.  Sometimes we also do Hexordle and Octordle  just for the hell of it.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, sorry for the delayed reply.

 

At the beginning of all this I stupidly contacted them direct to say I had a valid ticket and explained I bought the ticket thinking common sense would prevail and I was dealing with decent people..... So they have in an email that 'I bought the ticket' but at no point have I said I was the driver.

 

Thank you for letting me know that sending the documents by email is ok as it gives me a little more time to add to the WS, regarding sending this to the fleecers does this also have to be sent before 4pm on the 6th ? Should I send it by post or email which they have anyway.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the urgency and the fact the fleecers have your e-mail address anyway I would simply e-mail the court on Friday as near to 4pm as possible and copy to the fleecers.

 

Obviously put the claim number in the subject field, and the names of the parties.

 

The judge seems to be playing some game here with such a strict deadline months before the hearing date, and it might work out very badly for the fleecers.

 

Long term we need to stop KBT having access to your e-mail address, but we can cross that bridge after 6 May.

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

Regarding the PCN it states the observed time and then 19 minutes later the time of issuing the pcn that 's all, can I use the points that this isn't compliant, it does say Armtrac Security on the front but does this ticket specifically have to state creditor on it? I just want to make sure I don't trip up on myself if this is used.

 

Also they have now changed / updated their signage from when I went 6 months ago to take pictures of the car park having no marked bays, in 2020 they didn't have a Just Park machine I don't think (picture attached) . I have attached a copy of their signage from Jan 2020.

Lusty Glaze signage.pdf Lusty Glaze Pay Machine.pdf

 

meant to read ' their signage has changed / updated from the original in 2020, I went 6 months ago to take pictures of the car park...'

 

There witness statement has just landed, please find attached. Any help is very much appreciated

KBT Witness statement.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not respecting POFA doesn't mean the fleecers' claim isn't valid, what it does mean is that, not knowing who was driving the vehicle, they cannot transfer liability to the keeper.

 

But you told them you purchased a ticket which, according to two Caggers on your thread who are POFA experts (unlike me!) means you have admitted to being the driver.  So all the stuff about POFA needs to be forgotten about.

 

Also cut out the paragraph I suggested "I would have liked to expand on some legal points but I have reduced this Witness Statement to respect the Court's 5-page limit and deadline" as the fleecers too have, incredibly, respected the judge's order.

 

What you have prepared is superb and already good enough to put up an excellent case in court.  It's likely that the judge will rule on whether displaying the ticket was "de minimis".  Obviously if your WS can be tweaked after reading the fleecers' WS, even better.  I have a full day at work now until 20:45 UK time but promise to look in straight away afterwards.

 

A very, very quick scroll through the fleecers' bilge leads me to think a quick paragraph in your DOUBLE RECOVERY section is in order - It is irrelevant (Claimant's point 10) what the IAS - a biased, breakaway parking association - considers reasonable.  Point 9 of the government's Code of Practice (Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019) is crystal clear "The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued".

 

If you end up going over the five pages there are bits which can easily be pruned from your various sections.

 

After boasting about the IAS, in their "contract" with the landowner it's stated the fleecers must follow the BPA code of practice!  So the contract is clearly out of date.

 

More later.

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

Very quickly as I have two minutes.  Your points 6 & 7 need to be changed completely.  Delete what you'd prepared as they have finally produced a contract.  Instead point out that the contract is ancient, dating back to 2012.  There is no proof it is still valid.  indeed its point 1 one states that Armtrac are members of the BPA yet their own WS point 10 states they are members of the IPC.  The contract point 3 c gives Armtrac the right to sue for trespass, yet their claim is not for trespass.

 

More later.

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

Hi FTMDave, can't thank you all enough for the help and spending your own time on this.

 

I have attached a new draft of the ws taking into account some new points, let me know what you think / what to add when you get chance, I appreciate you are busy with your own work.

WS.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reading their rubbish WS but have noticed that you have not posted up their signage. There are often problems with the signage that can blow the case out of the water before the Judge even gets to the  fluttering ticket.. In fact can you please upload all they sent-I take it planning permission was not included?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's deal with their WS first.

 

There's not a lot there, they do what the PPCs always do, go on & on & on & on & on about you breaking one of their rules, of course without any discussion about if the rule made any sense or had any basis in law in the real world.  You've already dealt with most of their repetitive bilge.

 

I know you have already attacked their signage but on top what they have sent is a glorious own goal.  You can refer to their photo of the signage which shows the T&Cs in tiny font compared to the car park charges, and on top of the that the part about displaying a ticket is in even smaller font on a red background which makes it nigh-on impossible to read.

 

Onto your WS in a minute ...

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

Not of vital importance, but I would put your NO LOCUS STANDI title above para 6.  I think it's more logical that way.

 

Through changes this afternoon you haven't got a para 7.  So let's make this 7!  7.  The contract in point 3 c authorises the Defendant to take legal action only for trespass, yet their claim is not for trespass.

 

In para 12, again not vitally important, but I would remove "KBT Cornwall Ltd are claiming £258.54".  They are allowed to claim some of these costs, we have to highlight what they have no right to claim.

 

I think it might be useful here to include the government's CoP as an exhibit, as it is new, and the judge may not be aware of it.  I don't think you need to include the whole thing, maybe the title, weblink and part 9.

 

Para 14 needs to go completely.  They are allowed to claim this £50.  To state otherwise is an own goal.

 

Change the start of para 16.  16.  In para 11 of their Witness Statement the Claimant is being somewhat disingenuous when they mention one persuasive argument that went in a parking company's favour, while ignoring the many persuasive cases which did not.  In Claim numbers F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia vs Crosby ...

 

Between your current (4) and (5) stick in: 

 

INSUFFICIENT SIGNAGE

 

5.  The Claimant's own photos of their signage shows the Terms and Conditions in tiny font compared to the car park charges, and futhermore the condition about displaying the ticket is in even smaller font on a red background which makes it nigh-on impossible to read.

 

Make those changes, then please come back with a new version and we can see if you're still within the five pages or if something needs to be pruned.

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 would make the following observations to their WS in no particular order.

 

At point 22 DCB Legal finally admit that the driver did purchase a ticket.  The placing of the receipt on the windscreen is the proof that the ticket has been paid for. Any reasonable company would drop the case after receiving proof of payment. Especially as on the day it was an extremely windy day and the car would have rocked quite violently as a result and KBT should have provided sticky receipts. On top of that under the new Private Parking Code of Practice that came into force in 2019 recommended that operators should look inside the car for fallen tickets before issuing a PCN. Obviously that was not done in this case and nor was it the only time that KBT failed with regards to the new Act.

 

The entrance sign is what determines whether motorists are being offered a contract. The one at Lusty Glaze does not. It only provides an offer to treat. The bulk of the signs have too small a font size and the photographs shown on the WS are virtually unreadable. Nor do any photographs actually show where the car was parked.

 

In the contract no. 3c at the final section it allows those who are not exhibiting their receipt on the windscreen are Authorised to be taken to Court and be sued for trespass. You paid your money so you were not a trespasser and therefore  KBT do not have the permission to take you to Court.   Very important. You could probably make this your first point.

 

At point 12 they complain about motorists using the web. 

When the parking companies lie in their Witness Statements-  one Judge said about Parking Eye that "their WS was tantamount to perjury":  they  lie in court eg  they do not need pp for their signs and cameras or  pp can be obtained retrospectively and they  lie about additional charges which have been described by a Government minister as "a rip off" then motorists have to go somewhere to counteract the rapacity and greed of many parking companies. So bad has their behaviour  become that the Government brought out the new Act to curb the excesses of the" rogue companies".

 

Point 13. 

Far from the Defendant having escalated the matter disproportionally  s a bit rich from a company that is unlawfully 

overcharging the Defendant by almost double the legal amount. 

 

In Schedule 4 s7[2] 

(c)inform the driver that the parking charges relating to the specified period of parking have not been paid in full and specify the total amount of the unpaid parking charges relating to that period, as at a time which is—

(i)specified in the notice;

 it is quite clear that Parliament regarded the amount on the Sign as the maximum amount to be charged. The new Act that came out in 2019  s9

The parking operator must not levy additional costs over and above the level of a parking charge or parking tariff as originally issued.

 

It beggars belief that DCB Legal have not advised their client to remove such spurious extra charges and they must surely be aware of the new Act. They must know that the decision by HHJ Saffman was an outlier spoken by a Judge who does not often get involved in PoFA cases whereas the majority of District Judges who are regularly dealing with these unlawful claims throw them out. 

 

In the light of PoFA and the new Act it would appear that KBT are one of the companies depicted as one of the rogues the Government  are rightly targeting.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick alteration. The Private parking Act came partly into force in February 2022.

 

Also their Supplementary WS should be challenged as they are trying to get round the Judge's request.

In any event it is a load of b..........s.

 

They are trying hard to justify the extra costs over £100. I have already pointed out in my previous post  what the will of Parliament is. No more than £100. Also bad to use an unreported case as we cannot refute what was said

 

HHJ Saffman is wrong. He has admitted that many of his District Judges did not agree with him and his judgement was not obiter. Like Simkiss, they had not seen the confirmation from the new Act that reinforces what PoFA has always said.

 

The extra charges are not allowed-they are against the Law. The IPC Code of Conduct breaks the Law.

 

Why can they break the law by not having planning permission but they expect you to pay when you didn't break the Law and actually paid for your ticket.

 

Ask the Judge to dismiss their case as having no merit. Plus their signs break the law by allowing debt recovery charges

 

Sorry to give you extra work but it will pay dividends. If you word it right, Armtrac might withdraw before the case is heard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thank you again for the help with this, been working on it all morning and managed to get down to the 5 pages. If you get chance please have a look and then I can get this emailed over to the court before the deadline.

WS.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

In para (6) change the sentence "In the contract no. 3c at the final section it allows those who are not exhibiting their receipt on the windscreen are authorised to be taken to Court and be sued for trespass" to "In the contract no. 3c at the final section it allows those who are not exhibiting their receipt on the windscreen to be sued for trespass, yet this claim is not for trespass".

 

Read your last page word for word.  You'll see at a certain point it goes wonky and there are extra paragraphs inserted into para (12).

 

Point 9 of the government's CoP would have been useful but I understand you've limited for space.

 

Well done on challenging the fleecers' attempts to get round the 5-page limit limit.

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

Thanks FTMDave,  I have made the changes you have suggested, in my exhibits I have attached CoP, weblink and point 9 for it to be referred to, couldn't get it on due to the 5 pages.

 

Shall I get this emailed over now?

Ive not attached it as I have added my details, etc. so its ready to be emailed over, conscious of the time limit

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Hi FTMDave, 

 

The court cancelled the hearing the day before due to Judicial availability, so the date is now change to December.

 

Caused quite a few issues for myself and cost but have to wait for a few months now to get this resolved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about the further delay.

 

However, I've just reread your thread from the start and the WS you have prepared to battle these charlatans is superb.

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

  • 1 year later...

what happened here?

 

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

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...