Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • 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

control debt solutions and an IVA - owe more now then when i started.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4123 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 171
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just had some good news in the post .

No reply from Belmont Mmmm.

 

"you indicate that you do not accept our redress offer

because in the offer letter it is stated that we will set off this amount against the alleged outstanding balance on your barclaycard account.

You consent that our decision to set off as detailed on our final response letter is incorrect.

 

We have reinvestigated your complaint and we have established that the terms as they are detailed in our final response letter should not have been applied in your circumstancees.

 

Please accept our apologies for any confusion this error may have caused you.

 

As a result we have decided to issue you with a correct revised offer letter

which does not include the desision to set off the redress offer against any outstanding balance on your barclaycard account.

 

Yada yada yada we are upholding your complaint "

 

Then a form to sign and details to pay me.

 

If anyone would like te email i used let me know.

 

Now as for Belmont there not getting a penny. Thu can take me to court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

great news!!

 

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

complaint to MOJ then me thinks

 

they have failed to carry out your requests

 

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

  • 2 months later...

Had this today:

 

 

We have been instructed by our above named client to recover the above outstanding debt. We now demand immediate repayment of £47.23. Unless full payment is sent directly to us within 7 days we will take final recovery action through the Courts, which may lead to:-

 

- You having to pay legal fees and court costs

- Judgment being awarded against you in Court

- Debt details being registered affecting your ability to obtain credit in future

- Bailiffs calling at your premises

 

Please telephone our office immediately on 0151 222 6702 to discuss further.

 

YOU NOW HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO REPAY IN FULL. ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU THROUGH THE COURTS IF YOU FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS DEMAND.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you've had since october to blow this out the water.

 

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

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

Hi All

 

I would like to say that not all claims management companies are the same,

I used an excellent company and it is unfair to class all business the same,

 

I admit there are companies out there that think about their profit before the clients

but if we are going to generalize this assumption can be applied to doctors, solicitors, builders etc.

 

Legally Barclaycard out of the PPI compensation claim can only deduct any arrears owed,

so if you compensation for example was £1000 and on the account you had arrears of £200

Barclaycard can legally deduct the £200 from the compensation amount but have to pay you £800.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

I would like to say that not all claims management companies are the same,

I used an excellent company and it is unfair to class all business the same,

 

I admit there are companies out there that think about their profit before the clients

but if we are going to generalize this assumption can be applied to doctors, solicitors, builders etc.

 

Legally Barclaycard out of the PPI compensation claim can only deduct any arrears owed,

so if you compensation for example was £1000 and on the account you had arrears of £200

Barclaycard can legally deduct the £200 from the compensation amount but have to pay you £800.

 

Hope this helps.

 

I am afraid it is beyond me why anyone would want to pay a claims company 30% plus of any award for doing nothing that a claimant cannot do for themselves, and probably do it better.

 

Might as well do it yourself and keep all of the award (less any lawful set-off).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warham Collections Team

 

 

 

Monday, 07 January 2013

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

 

 

Re:- Our Client Belmont Thornton Ltd

 

Outstanding Balance £47.23

 

 

 

We refer to previous correspondence with regards to your outstanding balance due to our client, any money that was awarded to yourself in relation to your PPI claim or return of card charges will firstly be deducted from your outstanding balance.

 

Belmont Thornton are unable to dictate how a lender pays the compensation offered to a customer. If a debt is outstanding with the lender they are entitled to use the refund to reduce the amount owed. This was detailed in the documentation provided to you at the outset.

 

Our clients terms and conditions state that payment is due within 28 days once an offer is made regardless of whether payment has been received or not. As payment was not received within this timescale your details were passed on for collection

 

You have signed a contractual agreement asking Belmont Thornton to pursue a claim and Belmont Thornton has undertaken work in respect of that claim; you are legally obliged to pay the fees as per the agreement made.

 

The terms and conditions of the agreement you entered in to can be found at: http://www.ppiclaimcompany.co.uk/terms-and-conditions

 

Please provide us with a copy of all your complaints raised with our client and details of the steps taken following their internal complaint procedure prior to raising your complaint with the OFT, as these are the steps you will have needed to have taken before having them look at your case.

 

Failure to provide this will result in the relevant action path being continued if not received within 10 days.

 

Please be advised that we are governed by the Financial Ombudsman and all of our letters are within their given guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your email.

 

In light of the email which you have sent, I will refer this matter through to my Principal Officer for his attention. He may decide upon review of the information supplied to refer this matter onto a Claims Management Officer for further work

 

If you have any queries, in the interim, please contact us on x and quote reference X. iI would also suggest collating all of the paperwork you have concerning this matter in case it is required.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Duty Officer| Claims Management Officer | Claims Management Regulation Unit| 57-60 High Street, Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire DE14 1JS |

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ims21 you have actually answered your own question,

 

the fact is that not all people want or have the time or knowledge to do a claim themselves

and that is why they would prefer for a company to do it for them.

 

I personally do not have the time and I certainly did not pay a 30% commission fee.

 

I think it is up to each individual to make their own decisions about who they want to act on their behalf,

and I also note that now a majority of PPI claims are actually not being upheld although they should be upheld.

 

For those of us who were extremely fortunate to receive compensation when the lenders were upholding complaints

it is great but for those people whose claims are not being upheld it is a different scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to reply to Hacked Off regarding my post being irrelevant.

 

If you had in fact read the T&C of the company you would not be in the position you are now in.

 

As you have I assume signed the T&C it means that you accepted the T&C prior to Belmont Thornton acting on your behalf.

 

Belmont Thornton have every legal right to enforce further action if you do not pay the amount stated as owed.

 

It is a little late to cry wolf after the company has won the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...