Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

experto/varde now PRA Group chasing old MBNA silver nomination choice card debt


firstship
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 532 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

  • Replies 130
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 months later...

Mike, HI.. Aktiv already own the debt,Experto acting for them,so as you state Credit Management should be the next **** to start the ball rolling all over again

 

Any thoughts on when DCA sells to another DCA is the debt sold for an even smaller amount assuming it is a DCA with no connections to the original?????

 

Regards FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

This debt is still with AKTIV but collected by Experto,received a wonderful offer today from Aktiv,a letter with a Voucher attatched,worth 20% of the debt if I pay off the balance.this MBNA debt was sold to Varde Ireland,collected by Experto, Varde sold it on to Aktiv still collected by Experto. Naturally this will get filed in the usual don't waste my time bin

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Been through my files on this debt,I asked 3 years ago for a CCA,the response was an Application Form and the usual T&Cs,NO Agreement.The box on the application was ticked for PPI,This is perhaps why the offer of 80%

 

Can I pursue AKTIV for PPI refund as they own the debt or must I go back to MBNA? Getting rusty on PPI claims,as I thought I had achieved the refunds applicable from other debts,a long time ago

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi firstship , personally I wouldn't bother.

 

Even if you have a valid claim, they will only put it against the debt so you will go to a heap trouble for nothing and of course if you are going down the UE route, some people would say that you can't have it both ways.

 

On the other hand though, I would probably get a spreadsheet prepared for future reference, should any court claim be issued, at which point you could argue the balance owed.

 

Others may disagree, but that's my take on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dotty,get where you are coming from,my theory is write to Aktiv state the PPI is more than the 20% payment they require to settle the account,.

 

However they MBNA now Aktiv can only provide an Application Form, NO agreement,but Aktiv the current owner of the debt,should it go to court can confirm that I have been paying them a monthly amount for some time,not really sure which is the best route,Chase the PPI or challenge Aktiv over no Agreement

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without me going through the complete thread.

 

Are you paying Aktiv? If so, how long for?

 

If you were going to challenge them over no agreement, then why now?

 

I've not paid anything since 2009 and can't actually remember when I last heard from anyone!

 

On checking my thread, I sent a 'prove it' letter in response to a letter from them in May this year but I don't think I had a reply but will check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes paying Aktiv and have been paying MBNA/Experto/ prior to Aktiv,for the last 4 years,so as I said earlier any challenge for no agreement,I would struggle.

 

The fact that Aktiv are offering 80% discount as an F&F stinks,there is something wrong and the only thing I can come up with is the unclaimed PPI (my error)

 

Not sure of best way forward,apart from telling Aktiv happy to pay the 20% balance as a F&F but this money will come from the mis-sold PPI?

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Trying to claim back PPI from MBNA, they acknowledged receipt of the claim and said they would respond within 28 days,their response today was they have been unable to complete their investigations and they require until December 11th,seems to be standard for MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now received a 4 page form to fill in,asking for details dating back to 1999,any body else received this complicated form.which i feel is asking questions that could give MBNA the advantage.if you do not fill the form in they will use the information they already hold to assess the PPI claim

 

They want to know about savings other insurances held at the time

 

Anybody any thoughts on this

 

FS

Edited by firstship
Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a good read reference PPI.......MBNA want me to fill a 4 page form in,and they acknowledge that 1999 is the start date to help me.Problem is I have not a clue what I paid and what the PPI charges where back in 1999,and I feel if I send an SAR they will only go back 6years any idea's of the best way forward

 

They have stated if I don't fill the form in they will proceed with their investigations based on the limited information they hold

 

ANY IDEA'S PLEASE

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi firstship...responding to PM.

 

If it were me I would ignore their form if it differs from the fos one and use the one which fos have produced.

 

The form should not be asking for figures...it is for them to calculate an offer and then for you to either check it.

 

If you don't have all of the figures going back to 1999 then you won't be able to carry out a full check though and if you SAR them they are likely to say that they don't have records going back further than six years.

 

I would get the fos form into them and see what offer they come up with. You are also entitled to a full analysis of their offer and you may have to take a view as to whether to accept or not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

All has moved quite quickly MBNA have accepted the PPI claim and I am happy with their offer

 

it is close to my own calculations although I had to do a certain amount of guess work.However I am Happy with their offer.

 

What I am unhappy about is,they sold this debt to Varde Ireland who then sold it to Aktiv ,

 

in both cases Exporto Credite have collected the money for both of these DCAs through a DMP

 

 now MBNA say if we sold the amounts due under this account we may recall this debt and reduce it by the redress amount.

 

Can they really do this???????

 

FS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...