Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Could you please show the back of the first PCN you received round about 17th January. Was there a WS included or just the PE v Beavis case?
    • Hey have filed a defence at 4pm today the day before I could request a judgement.  I thought it was last Friday but it was infact tomorrow they would have ran out of time 
    • Hello All,   My query is about the Service charge. I am leaseholder of a 3 bed flat in a purpose build block in London (Westminster) our service charge used to reflect the maintenance of the building and overall look and feel. But now not only service charge goes up every year but quality of service like general maintenance gone down. For example lifts keep breaking down, building needs refurb, walls are dirty, my windows are so old that in winter no matter how much heating you put on room still feel cold.    additionally they keep adding major works charges to service charge with this year being £1917 in addition to £1890 service charge. Don’t mind paying only if I see improvement in the block but we have only seen steady decline over many years now. So today I called them (city of Westminster) saying I don’t want to pay and cannot pay so high charges where there’s no evident results.    I came here to find if anyone has been successful in negotiations on regards to service charges complain or any advice regarding this. Charges are too for what we get    Thanks in advance  
    • this is going to be really simplistic, but have they started by talking to senior management now the bad apple has gone?
    • Hi everyone  . . .  Just an update   The CMD was this morning.  It started with cheap  manoeuvrability  by Intrum’s lawyer, but let me give you quick summery background:   The judge issued an order to us to submit evidence supporting our case such as call for witnesses or ask the court to order the original creditor to some action.  We were giving 21 days for the submission.  In my simple calculation without, allowing time to post, the final date was to be 10 March 2021, with post time 2 days later.   On the 10th March, and to be on the safe side, I send to the court the response version giving to me by DX100UK.   Then on 12th March, I send to the court the version giving to me by Andy, asking the court to replace the first document with the second  one.   On 7th of April I send Intrum lawyer the document 2 as it is our official response.   ON the 12th April I send the court the medical certificate for my niece asking to be viewed exclusively by the court.   At the start of the CMD the Judge ask Intrum lawyer to start.  So he started by claiming the following: 1.    We failed to meet the 21 days deadline set by the court. 2.    He received a response on the 7th April which is only a week ago. 3.    He admitted that he has the two version of our submission. He claimed that they were collected by colleague of his from the court’s Clark while he was in court. 4.    He said that this case has taken too long and the defendant just messing them about and keeping changing their plea.   At that time the judge announced that he does not have the two documents in the case file. He only has the medical certificate.  Then he turned to me to ask me for explanation. a)    I said that we met the deadline set by the court and submitted the required response.  Also I explained the issue with two documents. b)    I confirmed that we have received a confirmation form the court on their receipt of  my submission emails. c)    I stated that Intrum lawyer’s claim is incorrect that we failed to meet the deadline, and pointed out that he has our two documents in his possession which he obtained from the court.   Then the judge started asking Intrum lawyer on the content of the two documents, which is bizarre not to ask the author of the documents.   Intrum Lawyer stated that the two documents almost identical. He then started pointing out the negative sides in the documents such as our change of the 50% settlement.  He continued claiming that we are changing our defence without following the certain set procedure, which it seemed to confuse the judge. The lawyer  continued to ridicule the document in general without being specific.  At the end the judge turned to me  to response.   I said that the court must see the document as it is important to the case.  It is not correct to ask the lawyer to a brief the court on our document as he has been selective in what to read.  The judge came in and said that he asked the lawyer for a general summery of its content.   I continued that the full claim case is fundamentally flawed, and I continued to list why: 1.    The nature of the relation between the original creditor and defendant does not constitute the need for Financial Agreement between the two parties.  The claimant stated in their case that the defendant was in breach of a Financial Agreement. Where is this agreement? 2.    There is no Default Notice that the claimant stated in their submission there was a Default  Notice. 3.    Also has the original creditor served a notice of assignment on the defendant? 4.    The other fundamental issue is the question of the nature of the sum claimed!. .  .  .  . . .   At that time the judge stopped me asked me if I was asking for the other side to present these documents.   I responded:  Intrum are experienced organisation in this type of business.  They know very well the importance of these documents to the case, why they have not been  incorporated them in their case submission , . .  my answer Yes  . . . our missing response document put the claimant to Strict Proof to present these documents to the court.   The lawyer then announced that the Default Note was included in their submission and, he continued to quote a reference number, then he retracted his claim, which is I had a sense that he felt he has gone too far in his BS***t.   However, the judge spend most of session faltering and does not know what to say.  At the end he decided to go for another CMD. But then the funny part he asked the Claimant lawyer to send him the two missing documents.   I feel more positive now on the case but I would appreciate your views and comments.   Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC - Hire Car - me named - no stopping - Southend Airport


Recommended Posts

Yeah I deliberately put that in to be specific as to the letter from Pressdram as opposed to the letter from Arkell to private eye demanding a retraction

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Arkell v Pressdram reference is weakened by being inside the text. It should be the last sentence of the letter, as was the relevant content in that case!

Thanks EB, yeah that makes a lot of sense what you're saying. They're basically playing a numbers game, for the 1 person who bothers to find out their legal position etc and the ability to fight them,

There has recently been a case on the Parking Forum that will be woeful to the likes of Simon.  Contained within is something useful to you regarding what is parking, and stopping to picck up or drop

the quote of Arkell v Pressdram has been used thousands of times in the last 50 years, it is well known so why on earth do you think it needs explaining in such a way as to lose its effect altogether?

 

When we draft somehting we choose our words carefuly even though it doesnt look that way

 

terms such as unicorn food tax are now common parlance, the parking co's will ahve received many letters referring to their unlawful charges as such and they undersatnd the source material is here. That is what we want, we want them to know that the sender has read up on things and is now fully aware of their unlawful and sometimes criminal ways and isnt afraid to take them on. By changing a well knwon quote you show that you knowledge on such matters is limited and they will then be more likely to chance their arms than not.

 

there is a saying that goes it is better to keep silent and to be thought a fool than to open you mouth and prove it.

 

i also believ that you should smile in adversity as that way no one knows what you are really thinking. My army unarmed combat instructor used to demonstrate the technique becasue by getting the opposition to smile in response gives you the perfect opportunity to then beat the cr*p out of them whilst they are off their guard

Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple knows his rubbish POC and cut & paste WS have no legs if a nasty enough letter telling him he is a knave and charlatan onto a kicking in court he might well move on to a more compliant victim.

 

Wonder if a letter written in nadsat would confuse him?

 

 

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

Ok EB thanks for the comment. Having never had to fight anything legally before, I wasn't aware of A v P and it's common historical usage etc. I did invite comment on my letter before posting it, but didn't receive a reply on the day so went ahead and posted it anyway.

 

Sorry brassnecked, what's "nadsat"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The language used in A Clockwork Orange Even better would be Unwinese. a particular form of gobbledegook spoken by the Late prof Stanley Unwin.

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
  • 4 weeks later...

like thier court claims, it is a matter of gambling odds. They know their claims are duff but generally the peopel htey chase arent as clued up as those who read  various forums so they will get a number of easy wins and hope that by using the shotgun approach to litigation  they hit more than they miss.

 

It would be sensible of them to stop suing people who are prepared to taken them on and have a good reason to expect to beat them so whetehr they sue or not will depend on a number of factors and that will include previous results and especially widely circulated cases like the Lewes one. they will be waiting to see who drags that up before they issue too many claims where it will play a major part like the airport no stopping cases.

 

They have dozens that are held up in the quagmire at the moment so wont want to be spending money of they are onto a dead cert loser. they have 6 years to try thier luck so may sit on it until a case elsewhere gives them hope. They also lobbied parliament and were told to get lost, they may try that route again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks EB, yeah that makes a lot of sense what you're saying. They're basically playing a numbers game, for the 1 person who bothers to find out their legal position etc and the ability to fight them, there'll be 10 who simply pay up because they're frightened off by their bullshit etc.

 

I'll go to the end of the line on basic principal of not giving in to these ruthless vultures preying on the general public and their lack of knowledge etc.

 

Thanks a lot folks

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lookinforinfo said:

Give them time-amoebas are a little short on brain power to work sarcasm out. I wrote a letter similar to yours to Parking Eye and they wrote back to confirm they had received my appeal! 

Ha ha doesn't surprise me at all, these PPC idiots are simple routine cut-and-paste merchants, and like I said to EB just playing the numbers game because obviously with most folks, sadly, thats enough to keep them going. If everyone took this approach, they'd be out to grass pretty quickly, all of em!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are right but they issued 8.4 million tickets last year so nearly a billion quid at stake.

They are trying to get the law changed to create a keeper liability in all cases (inc Scotland, where the law damns them anyway but they still send out tickets) and other things but parliament wants a proper appeals scheme that is independent of the trade associatiosn and also wants minimum stanadards that would put all of the parking co's out of business  as they are at present so dont expect things to be on the statute books in a hurry.

 

Like Huawei, they have politicians in their pockets who will jump up and squeal if their vested interests get threatened too much.

Edited by ericsbrother
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Okay folks I'm back, as it seems after a few months hiatus Simple-Simon has now decided to recoup his costs by referring this speculative invoice to ELMS Legal for collection, and having another crack of the whip so to speak.

 

Advice greatly appreciated and I'll donate to the site as before. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Snotty letter time

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

Also can you advise on if I just send a letter back saying something to the effect of:

 

"this person no longer lives at this address, please remove this address from your database as I don't want any CCJ's registering against my address" - the current owner

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

repeat the same snotty letter as before.

 

CCJ's are not registered against an address but a person.

 

dx

 

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

Ok I'll send the letter again.

 

Would a polite request to stop sending letters to a person who no longer lives at an address stop them sending these out as I know bad credit ratings do affect the address though?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've left your registration number showing, you might want to remove that, best to keep the fleecers guessing.

 

Referred to as a "registration mark" (what that?) in Elms Legal's weird English.

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

They would likely ignore such a letter, the PPCs don't act fairly in any way.

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
7 minutes ago, northmonk said:

as I know bad credit ratings do affect the address though?

 

 

no they don't 

where are you getting these old wives tales from.?

 

debt and CCJ's are against a person, they can't affect anyone else in the household unless the file shows they are financially linked to the person with the CCJ., 

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
13 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

They would likely ignore such a letter, the PPCs don't act fairly in any way.

Ok fair enough I'll just resort to the snotty letter then

10 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

 

no they don't 

where are you getting these old wives tales from.?

 

debt and CCJ's are against a person, they can't affect anyone else in the household unless the file shows they are financially linked to the person with the CCJ., 

Ok I've obviously got the wrong info on that then, maybe just the shirty letter then after all

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

You've left your registration number showing, you might want to remove that, best to keep the fleecers guessing.

 

Referred to as a "registration mark" (what that?) in Elms Legal's weird English.

Oh yes I thought I'd removed all references but I see I left one in. Do the site mods need to remove my original PDF or can I do it myself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

done

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
  • 5 weeks later...
On 20/12/2020 at 12:01, northmonk said:

Ok I'll send the letter again.

 

Would a polite request to stop sending letters to a person who no longer lives at an address stop them sending these out as I know bad credit ratings do affect the address though?

 

Regards

Even if a county court case is issued against you and you loose if you pay within 28 days it dont go on your credit file and also its cheaper to go to court becasue the £60 is never allowed so it would be £200 if you loose £230 if you dont go to court.

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...