Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for letting us know about this. I'm afraid that this website is mainly bad news about companies so it's very refreshing and very decent for someone to come along and to give praise where praise is due. How about a link to their website?
    • Having a little additional think about this, I think that your interests are best protected in the following way: You inform the seller that you are obtaining the quotes which I have referred to above. Having received the quotes, you then inform them that you are proposing to have the work carried out at XXX garage and that you will expect that the seller will reimburse you for the costs and associated expenses. You can tell them though that you understand that they may want to control the work being done to the car and so you are willing to allow them to do it but as the fault has manifested itself at this point and that it is clear that the problem is their responsibility, if they wish to carry the work out themselves then they will have to organise the collection vehicle and the delivery of it to you once the work is completed. Of course this will be very expensive for them and they will either fail to respond or they will refuse. Whatever their reaction, you would then go on to say that as they have failed to respond/declined the invitation to carry out the repairs themselves, that you are now going to your preferred garage – one of the two quotations which you have supplied – and you will have the vehicle repaired there. You are giving them an opportunity to comment. I think that if you use this approach, then you will be able to demonstrate very clearly that they had a choice and therefore they will be unable to disassociate themselves from the repairs which are eventually carried out at your chosen repairer. Even though this exchange of correspondence may mean that it will take a week or so longer to have your repairs carried out, I think you should do this in order to protect yourself in the best way possible
    • Please name the dealer   I would start off by sending them a letter of rejection seeing as you are within the 30 days. This doesn't mean that you have to reject it but it reserves your position. Secondly, on the basis of what you say, I don't think that you need necessary to find the cheapest place. You should be looking at the best quality that you can find. I think the best thing to do would be to get to competing quotations for the work you propose to have carried out – and not necessarily at the cheapest place, but a couple of proper reputable garages – authorised for that kind of vehicle. Inform the dealer as to what you are doing and providing with copies of the estimates for the work before you put it in hand. Give them five days to object or to make other comments. Make it clear to them that once the work is carried out that you will be looking to them to reimburse you. Of course you are opening a can of worms here because if you get some further problems – more serious – you may find that the dealer is starting to say that because you have carried out your own work so your own repairer on the car, they cannot now say that any defects were inherent in the purchase – and that they may have been introduced by 1/3 party repairer. I'm afraid that you have certainly fallen into a trap of buying a car a long distance away from where you live. We find that people often tend to do that because they think the car they have found is the only one in the world for them. They forget to factor in the difficulties that they will be if there are defects – particularly if the car stopped altogether – the cost of transportation to the dealer, the cost of having to travel up and down the country to collect the car – and of course these difficulties could emerge several times through the initial years of your ownership of the vehicle if you are relying on your statutory rights and expect the dealer to meet those obligations. Furthermore, if you have to bring a court action against them you are now dealing with multijurisdictional claims – suing out of Scotland against the defendant in England and that adds to the complications. It's too late for you to do anything about this – unless you actually decide to reject the vehicle – but at the very least, other people who come across this thread may get some benefit from these comments. I think it's important for you to get the best quality repair you can and to make sure that the dealer is aware of what you are doing so that if later on they try to deny responsibility for further defects, that you will be able to show that they were fully appraised of what you are doing and they will have less room to manoeuvre themselves out of their statutory obligations. I'm afraid that purchasing a car from one dealer and then having it repaired by another service provider, brings into the same kinds of difficulties that somebody who purchases a central heating boiler from one supplier and then has it installed by a different supplier find themselves in. When things go wrong, the seller blames the installer. The installer blames the seller – and you, the customer, are piggy in the middle. Not a good place to be. I notice that you are doing things on the telephone. Big Fail! Read our customer services guide. In your situation you should be extremely careful to make sure that you have got a record of everything and a full paper trail
    • What information do DVLA need for a provisional licence ?   Think the ID issue needs to be looked at a bit more. Surely you have birth certificate, school information, Doctors records. School and Doctors should provide a letter to help with ID.                
    • Amex as with any creditor must help you the FOS should go with you and make them remove all interest charged from the very 1st time of asking for help. the FCA regulations actually almost dictate it, they most certainly clearly state that if the are FCA registered they must help.   it's very telling they have no marked your credit file....almost as if they know they are wrong. it's also telling that an irresponsible lending complaint might well be in order hear too, they can just keep upping the credit limit without checking you can pay. and ofcourse covid plays its part here and they've already admitted as they allowed payments holidays until october in line with the rest of the industry and they should be continuing that. you problem is you keep using the phone, no paperwork no record of things discussed. i'd get an SAR off to them. and get the comms/account log and all the statements from day one and go nail them.
  • 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, now default judgement - 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 101
  • 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,

Thanks for that dx. I agree proving the points in a set aside will be difficult given the service address is correct etc. And given that I'd save £2 even if I did win the set aside case, hardly merits

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...
  • 2 months later...

Hi folks, I've now received the attached letter from ELMS Legal suggesting a CCJ will be issued because of my non response to their apparent LBA from the court which I don't ever recall seeing here. Is this another desperate attempt to get me to cough up or can I take them at their word and assume a default judgment has been lodged against me etc. 

 

Thanks in advance

Elms legal.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • dx100uk changed the title to VCS Spycar PCN PAPLOC, now default judgement - Hire Car - me named - no stopping - Southend Airport

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...