Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Holding my hands up I was a naughty boy driving a transit van along the A55 in Wales in February and exceeded 60mph in what I thought was a 70mph zone. ( all to do with the weight of the van). When I realised the error of my way I took the fine and sent my licence off by Royal Mail. Yesterday I received a letter from North Wales Police saying that I was now being prosecuted in court for failing to surrender my licence. I paid the fine as soon as I received the £100 penalty letter and carefully read the form ( which is confusing to say the least) and immediately took a walk to the post box and sent my licence off. In hindsight I’m a fool for believing that the licence would get to the HMCS in Loughborough without the need to track and trace the letter. I still believe that Royal Mail hasn’t lost the letter with my licence in it as I have never had any other letter go astray. I believe the licence is with HMCS it’s just not yet been processed probably due to Covid backlog. Seems Covid is to blame for everything these days. How can I avoid this going to court? I’ve never had a speeding ticket in over thirty years of driving or any other ticket hence why I was keen to comply with the ticket and send my licence off as instructed.
    • Rejection letter to be sent to the FOS   I am declining your decision of 13th April for the following reason:   Much of your decision is predicated on your view that Aviva had a “process” in place and that they follow this process and as a result the decision to enter an insurance contract in 2015 was fair. 1.      Nowhere in your decision have you explained what the process was and whether in fact the process was fair. Clearly your view is that regards of the process, all that was needed was for Aviva apparently to follow this process and any outcome would be fair.   2.      On 2 June 2021 I received a telephone call from the Aviva complaint team. During the conversation, they informed me that in fact that in 2015 the call handler had been wrong and had not followed the correct process. The Aviva caller told me that it was not part of the process for the call handler in 2015 to refer her suspicions to her manager. Clearly, if the call handler in 2015 had adhered to the correct process and allowed herself to be guided by her own suspicions then Aviva would not have agreed to provide the insurance cover and they would not have become the victim of fraud. In fact that we find is that the correct process at the very serious suspicions of the call handler were overridden by a manager. It seems evident that either Aviva has misled you as to the nature of the process or else they have not disclosed their process to you. It may even be that they do not have a written “process”. They only have “a way of doing things”. If it is correct that you have not seen the Aviva process but have simply taken their word for it, then it is clear that your investigation and your decision has for the short of any reasonable standards. If on the other hand Aviva has misled you as to the nature of the process, then I think you have a very serious issue with Aviva. I believe that you have ever seen the “process” upon which you are purporting to rely on your decision. You may be interested to know that the man who defrauded Aviva also attempted to use my identity to defraud a number of loan companies. I’m pleased to say that all of them exercise sufficient diligence that they did not become victims of the fraud. Only Aviva failed to exercise proper care and allowed themselves to be defrauded. You may also be interested to know that the police have interviewed me and they have interviewed my brother and they are preparing to charge my brother in respect of his fraudulent activity. I am under no suspicion whatsoever. The police have informed me that they will be speaking with Aviva facing fairly soon. There are many other reasons why I am refusing to accept your decision. All the other reasons turn on the fairness of your decision that the reasons above, go to the heart of your own process and the quality of your investigation. I think it’s not insignificant that I have submitted a Freedom of Information Act request and also a Data Protection Subject Access Request to you and so far you have failed to respond within statutory deadlines. I have also sent Aviva a Subject Access Request and they have extended the deadline for compliance by a full two months for spurious reasons which I do not believe. I have also asked Aviva for sight of their policies and procedures in respect of the rules that they apply to their customers for the setting up of new business and I have received no response. The Aviva website makes a show of being aware of the dangers of domestic financial abuse and they trumpet their association with the organisation Surviving Economic Abuse and they say that their staff are all trained in spotting the signs. I have asked to see their abuse policy and I have received no response. None of this is surprising.    It is clear that Aviva have acted carelessly. They were suspicious but preferred to get the new business. It is Aviva which is the victim of fraud but they prefer to try and avoid their responsibility and pass the buck onto me. I’m pointing out that it is Aviva which is the victim of fraud because I can state categorically now that I have no intention of paying any of the money which Aviva is demanding of me. I notice that Aviva prefers to harass me for an alleged debt rather than simply bring a claim in the County Court where an impartial judge would look at all the evidence including information which so far Aviva has declined to disclose.   This letter is intended to decline to accept your decision but also is intended to be my formal complaint which I wish to be escalated to the Independent Assessor. Please confirm receipt of this complaint, provide me with any policies and guidelines the Independent Assessor route and also let me know the timescales involved.   Yours faithfully
    • The G7 hasn't gone to plan, has it?   Rather than showing the UK off as a potential global leader, Johnson has probably started a trade war with the EU and is being told that other nations don't trust him.
    • Hi   I assume this mattress was the Tenants own property?   So after moving out the Tenants provided an attachment showing a stained mattress and wanting full deposit back and threatening to claim against you for this.   1. Tenants failed to notify you of this stained mattress issue until the end of tenancy after they had vacated the property.   2. You have no evidence that this was the actual mattress used in that property nor evidence to back up there claim the staining caused this mattress damage.  (i.e. one of them could have had an accident and wet the bed or done this when they moved from the property).     3. Ask them that you wish the mattress independently inspected. (which you are fully entitled to do and if it proves this claim is false it will be added to the deposit claim by you the landlord for damages as well as the Garden if you need to get landscapers in to carry out the work that should have been carried out by Tenants as per Tenacy Agreement and raised  by yourself (Landlord) on a few occasions which Tenants failed to rectify even at end of tenancy.   4. Ask them to provide you with the contact details of there Contents Insurance Company (tenants whether Private or Social Housing should always take out and have Contents Insurance but is up to that tenant) bet they don't provide it Big question is the Deposit protected in a Tenancy Deposit Scheme (TDS) and those Tenants that have left were given a copy of the Prescribed Terms for that TDS? (Bear in mind you may need to tell TDS that you are in dispute with the Tenant about damages i.e. mattress and Garden)    
    • plenty of time to research and calm down. nothing much to do until the end of june.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

PCM/Gladstones Backdoor CCJ re BP Station ANPR PCN never got anything till Equita DCA letters


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 218 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

Hi, new to the forum here.

Need help please!

 

My mum has had 2 letters from a firm called Equita who seems to be debt collectors.

A debt was passed onto them by Gladstone solicitors in regards to an unpaid CCJ.

After asking what was the fine for, they said it was for a PCN.

 

Back story,

around March last year 2019,

she was in London and was on her way home where she got lost.

 

She stopped by a BP petrol station to ask for directions.

It seems the private firm PCM manages their parking.

 

To assume, although not confirmed, they may have issued a PCN, but nothing has been seen, nor the CCJ sent my her current address or even previous address since.

 

To top this off, she has been stuck abroad since January with no way of getting home since 3 weeks ago and letters from Equita were first sent on 9/10 and 28/10. Note that i do not live with her and she was stuck shielding for 2 weeks.

 

I have contacted Equita to gain information, but threatened with incurring costs and not have reached out to PCM or Gladstone yet.

 

Can anyone help or provide advice?

 

Thanks and stay safe, Q

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post up the letters you have received – redacted and in PDF format

Link to post
Share on other sites

so a backdoor CCJ by a private parking company for a speculative invoice 

it is NOT a fine

 

scan up the letter from Equita as i suspect they are ONLY operating as a debt collectot here NOT a bailiff.

 

why did she not receive numerous letters from PCM, gladstones and the court before these fleecers from equita wrote?

 

has she moved in recent times and failed to update the DVLA V5C for her car registration?

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

read our upload guide CAREFULLY

pdf only please

 

 

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
  • dx100uk changed the title to PCM/Gladstones Backdoor CCJ re BP Station ANPR PCN never got anything till Equita DCA letters

Hi everyone,

 

Thanks for the super quick replies!

 

@BankFodder redacted PDF added for the 2 letters received.

@dx100uk Her car at the time was registered at my brothers address as she was living there. Her house was rented out last year and she always goes to check for letters. Nothing sent to both addresses. If a CCJ was sent, or even the PCN, she would have been on my case ASAP so i doubt she would have ingored them, especially a CCJ!

 

 

equita letters .pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have redacted reference numbers. It's just vaguely possible that one of them might be a County Court claim number and we would prefer to see it

 

It also says that the money is owed to Gladstone's – which other solicitors and it is highly unlikely that they are the claimant – assuming that there has been a claim issued.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't look like one to me. Let's see what my colleague @dx100uk has to say about it

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

magistrates liability order attained by gladstones ...yea OK 

solicitors can't get a liability order 

who's secretary cant write properly at equita..

 

go get her credit file 

i bet you'll find a CCJ number on it.

 

if this is the case then equita DCA are in VERY serious trouble here for claiming a CCJ can magically be turned into a magistrates Liability order and be enforced by bailiffs 

 

 

 

 

 

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
4 hours ago, Qmaru said:

 and not have reached out to PCM or Gladstone yet.

For goodness sake don't "reach out" to them.

 

They are the crooks who have sued your mum although they knew she didn't owe a bean (there is a 10-minute grace period when parking on private land) and obtained the CCJ.  They are the enemy.  Don't communicate with them at all. 

 

With patience there is a solution to this.

 

Thanks for uploading in PDF format, but you left your mum's name showing.  I've deleted your attachment.  Can you please redact and upload again?  Thanks.

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

ive done the PDF for you.

 

 

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 everyone,

 

Really appreciate the guidance. So ive done a lot of calls today to the other parties (CCBC & Gladstone) to get more info.

 

Original PCN letters was apparently sent to my mums previous address March 19, although she doesnt recall seeing any. She moved back into her original home which she rented out towards near end of year, which then she declared her car off road as she no longer needed her car as she was retiring. That address has now been rented out but tenants have not advised of any letters sent for last year/this year.

 

Her PCN appeared down as "non patron parking". PCM have said thats for continued parking even after you have already paid for petrol/goods. Called CCBC who said the CCJ was sent to the same address as the PCN this April 2020 with a follow up not long after. Advised of situation as she was stuck abroad, there was no way for her to respond to it and gave the same answer as Gladstone and Equita, "sorry but you are going to have to make payment arrangements".

 

I realise the situation is pretty crap right now and it doesnt sound like she may have a leg to stand on as according to both CCBC and PCM, they used data from DVLA which is where they sent the details to. I'm hoping there is somewhere in there that we are able to use the fact that she could not respond to any high court jundgements due to her being stuck abroad.

 

If you need the CCJ number, its G9GF983X.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your mum has an important decision to make, depending on how much the CCJ might muck up her life.

 

1.  She can ignore Equita & co.  Although there would be a lot of bluster, at the end of the day there's not much they could do.  However, she would have a trashed credit file for six years.

 

2.  She can apply to have the judgement set aside.  Given COVID this would probably be done over the phone in 10 minutes with a judge.  She would have to explain why she didn't defend the original claim (easy, it went to an old address) and how she proposes to defend any future case (easy, she was there for less than 10 minutes which is within the grace period).  However, it costs £255 to go for a set side.

 

Stop communicating with Gladstones.  They are the enemy.  Obviously they aren't going to explain about set aside and are going to say you have no option but to pay. 

 

Send a SAR to PCM, it's free and then she'll be able to see what they're claiming.

 

The situation is anything but hopeless.  If you do a search on the site for "backdoor CCJ" you'll see we've had loads of people in the same position who were able to get the judgement set aside relatively easily.

Edited by FTMDave
  • Like 1

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

Hi Dave,

 

1. I'd doubt she'll be after any credit any time soon as shes retired and already has a mortgage.

2. £255 is cheaper than 358, but depends if she pays Equita and if she can arrange for a lower sum.

 

Gladstone passed to Equita so wont be calling them back anyway as they gave the two fingers.

 

The lady from PCM was nice over the phone and she did suggest a SAR.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been on PCM website to check what video evidence they have. She parked her car just on the entrance/exit to the forecourt on the kerb. Timestamp on photo from first picture was 13:22PM. Timestamp issued for PCN is 13:36PM.

 

The attached notice is somewhere around this garage. There is a visible one, but not the same picture as below, buts its on the right hand side on a pillar of the forecourt buidling.

GetImage.aspx.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

nothing here explains how a ccj can be turned into a magistrates order

 

magistrates liability order attained by gladstones ...yea OK 

solicitors can't get a liability order 

who's secretary cant write properly at equita..

 

if this is the case then equita DCA are in VERY serious trouble here for claiming a CCJ can magically be turned into a magistrates Liability order and be enforced by bailiffs 

 

 

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

you pay no-one if its not necessary to remove the CCJ.

 

least of all equita.

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

What happens if they send an enforcement officer as the CCJ was not responded. She wouldnt know the legal process and i dont neither cause ive seen them hound someone before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a ccj under £600 can only be enforced by county court bailiffs assigned by the county court NOT equita bailiffs

PCM as the claimant would need to return to court to ask the judge to enforce then CCJ by using county court bailiffs

of that she would get court notification it was happening 

 

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

As to Magistrates its a Civil CCJ, so magisdtrates can have nothing to do with it, good advice from DX, it would be better to set it aside than pay Equita.

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

You shouldn't even think of paying.  Even if you pay, the CCJ won't go away.

 

Get that SAR off tomorrow (with free Certificate of Posting from the post office).

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

Getting rid of the CCJ is key, as was back door, and is a good defence PPC ignored the 10 minute Grace Period to issue invoice,  to the claim its only valid option, as the CCJ affects even mobile and landline contracts, as they might refuse a switch or a new mobile due to it.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...