Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • look at the pix on the NTK that show his car going in/out look at the drain covers .   now look at the picture in the PDF. same car park.     purley way carpark.pdf
    • https://completelyretail.co.uk/scheme/2418                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  I do think he is right about the car park.   This is the Purley Way Retail Park and the photos of the vehicle were taken in the other park.                           
    • That WS is appalling.   I got lost with all the "I", "he", there is only one person being sued.   You, personally, have been great at supporting your dad's mate, but as the mate is presumably retired I don't understand why he/she hasn't used the time to look up WSs that were successful on the forum.    
    • worthy to note on google earth that is the purley way carpark in their NTK pictures and if thats his car , the defence and that WS is not going to work.   he is looking at the WRONG carpark, in his statement, the caravan one with the bailff notice is not purley way !!
    • Having received a claim for a parking infringement in February 2020 my friend went to discover where the Purley Way Retail Park was.   He told me what the 6 shops within this complex were and I then knew that I had never been inside these shops or the car park that is situated in front of these stores.  Apparently, he had also spoken to a member of staff within one of the shops who confirmed that there was no time limit for parking in this car park.   I then replied to this with a defence claim stating the following.    "I have just received notification of a parking infringement which occurred 25/5/19." "Obviously, I can't remember where I was on that day but I have now visited the Purley Way Retail Park where the offence is alleged to have occurred and I can confirm that I have never shopped in any of these six shops in that retail park. also there doesn't appear to be any parking restrictions apart from caravans"     Perhaps I should have said that I had not parked there on that day in question 25/5/19 but that is what I meant.   I received a reply to this defence claim dated 5/3/20 rejecting my defence.   Mr then said he would help me in this matter and he returned to Purley Way Retail Park and took photographs of the entrance and the signs available at the entrance. He then emailed them to BW on the 20/4/20 as shown above after a phone conversation with them.   As requested, the 3 photos (numbered 1,2 and 3) of Purley Way Retail Park. The drive-in entrance is the only way into the units and although the 2 car parks either side of this unit only allow parking up to 3 hours, this car park has no parking restrictions which was confirmed to me by a member of staff about 2 months ago.   I suppose it's possible that a year ago parking restrictions were different and if so, can you please let me know when they changed. He received confirmation that they had been passed on to their client and would get back with a reply.   As he had not had a reply, he phoned on two more occasions but no reply had been received from TPS. Eventually he phoned on the 3/8/20 to be told that they now had a reply, after over 100 days and they would forward it on. On receiving that email, he immediately knew they were not photos of the Purley Way Retail Park (photo 4) as it was a much larger car park and he told that to BW.    On the following day further photographs were sent of my vehicle in the same car park as the previous days offering which is not the Purley Way Retail Park.   He was not completely sure what the car park was but on his return to this county he discovered they were photographs taken in the Lombard Retail Park (photo 5) which is situated over 3/4 mile (1.2km) from the Purley Way Retail Park. I have also enclosed photos of the same car park (numbered 6 and 7) in which you can clearly see the Matalan store and also the Range which replaced Homebase when it shut down.   Bearing in mind that you have shown a photo of my vehicle in this car park it could not be in the Purley Way Retail Park at the same time and I confirm it was not ever left in the Purley Way Retail Park.   I believe that the facts stated in this statement are true.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Mediator point - Hermes lost my parcel and it is offering just a partial refund of the total amount requested. What's next?. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/434633-mediator-point-hermes-lost-my-parcel-and-it-is-offering-just-a-partial-refund-of-the-total-amount-requested-whats-next/&do=findComment&comment=5109422
      • 13 replies
    • 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
      • 33 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Canadian phone bill debt enforceable in the UK?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 216 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

Hello,

 

I'll keep this short and digestible in bullet format.

  • UK born, raised, citizen etc. Worked in Canada for 3 months.
  • Had a phone SIM whilst in Canada with Rogers.
  • Before getting on the plane, I binned the SIM and never used it again - I paid each month so figured it was PAYG. 
  • With NO other communication I received an email from a Canadian debt collector offering payment solutions (instalments etc) on a debt of $800CAD to the phone company. 
  • I am now back in the UK and live here permanently.
  • I would happily pay any debts I think were reasonably deserved but this is either a mis-charging or some other payment issue. 
  • Their email briefly mentions court action.
  • The DCA that the email is from appears is Canadian. 
  • The debt is for about 500GBP after conversion - which is a lot of money for me an is not something I could pay right now.

 

And therefore, my questions are:

  1. What should I do?
  2. Do I pay the debt? I called the phone company and they said there's nothing they can do about it now as it is with the DCA
  3. If I do not pay the debt, is it enforceable?
  4. Will they go to court over it?

 

It is important to note that I'd like to maintain a good financial status in the UK as it will be/is looked at for security clearance purposes. 

 

Thanks a lot for the help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1.nothing

2.no-one

3.no

4.no.

 

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

Thanks DX.

I trust your answers as a person clearly more experienced in this field than I, but could you please provide some information as to why they won't chase - just for my peace of mind.

 

Their email mentions insolvency, court, etc - presumably as an intimidation tactic?

Below is an excerpt which has me worried.

 

Quote

your file has been assigned to our firm with the intention of filing an Application for Bankruptcy Order ("Application"), pursuant to section 43(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act

 

 

Again, thanks for your response and expertise. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

simply block and bounce their emails...problem solved.

and

read the red bits below...

 

there is absolutely nothing they a DCA can do.

 

that's down to their clients and as even with bogus UK mobile phone debts which solely comprise of supposed monthly fees till end of a supposed xx mts terms contract, they are totally unenforceable as there was no service for you to even use as it had been disconnected.

 

we call it flying a kite to see if a mug wants to line the pockets of a powerless DCA as they want free money to go down the pub with.

 

 block and bounce their emails.

do not ever respond.

 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...