Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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

Lowell/Overdale 3xPAPLOC Now claimform - old Vanquis Debt ***Claim Discontinued***


just_jue
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 585 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

Thanks Both of you.

 

Bob - Lowells took over the debt from Moorcroft in 2019 who if I remember rightly were acting on their behalf.

 

DX how is it best to play this as payments were made via step change until 2018 but the default note I had here is July 2017

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure how many more times we need to explain debts to you..

 

lowells did not 'take over' from moorcroft.

 

moorcroft dont buy debts, they were merely chasing on behalf of their client-  lowells i expect if you read their letter

 

yours is not the next move.

 

the default issue is sadly pretty immaterial, doesn't matter when it was registered as long as the debt buyer doesn't change the defaulted date registered by the original creditor. now if the OC took months or even years since last payment to register it, then there is an argument there that might play a part should they be brave enough to start a court claim, but at the end of the day the debt is nowhere near statute barring.

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

pretty much the stuff they have supplied in various lowell vanquis claimform threads here already..

that they have either lost in court or discontinued before a hearing 

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

go ahead with what?

 

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

Depends how brave they feel that the docs are enforceable, which going by time after time, they have lost/folded claims on...they are not.

 

it also depends upon how they feel you might respond and if you might be a wet yourself and cough up or panic and make mistakes during the process....

 

by reading up carefully, most of those will vanish.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

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 weeks later...

Repeat rewash.. Yes

  • Like 1

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

  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...

They have now sent a claim form:

 

Name of the Claimant ? Lowell -

Overdales sols

 

Date of issue –  21st April

 

Particulars of Claim

 

What is the claim for –

 

1.The claim is for the sum of £2649.23 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Vanquis Account reference 4023xxxxxx.

 

2.The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been complied with.

 

3.The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on xx-xx-xx, notice of which has been given to the defendant.

 

4.The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of these proceedings in the sum of £211.94.

 

The claimant claims the sum of £2861.17

 

What is the total value of the claim? £3056.17
 

Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes and replied twice
 

Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No
 

 

Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card
 

When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? 2009
 

Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? online
 

Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? yes
 

Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. debt purchaser

 

Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? not sure
 

Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? no only seen after SAR OC
 

Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not sure
 

Why did you cease payments? lose of job
 

What was the date of your last payment? 2018
 

Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? no
 

Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? was with step change till 2018 then no payments after closed DMP down.
 

 

 

a.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Lowell/Overdale 3xPAPLOC Now claimform - old Vanquis Debt

pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform.
[if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time]
.
 register as an individual on the Gov't Gateway Site
Go to HMRC's login page.
Click the GREEN sign in button.
Click “Create sign in details”
Enter your email address where asked.
You will now be emailed a confirmation code. ...
You will now be issued with a User ID for your government gateway account.
 note down your details inc the long gateway number given, you might need it later.
 then log in to the MCOL Website
.
 select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box.
.
 then using the details required from the claimform
.
 defend all
 leave jurisdiction unticked
 you DO NOT file a defence at this time
[BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ]
click thru to the end
confirm and exit MCOL.


..get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant]
.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/

.

 type your name ONLY
Do Not sign anything
.
you DO NOT await the return of ANY paperwork 
you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

..............


 

  • Like 1

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 weeks later...

Had a reply from Overdales, and they have sent the same documents as before from the PAP request as uploaded in #31.

 

Am I right that my defence has to be in by the 24th?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 25/04/2022 at 12:06, dx100uk said:

 

you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]

..............


 

 

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

Quote

Am I right that my defence has to be in by the 24th?

 

 

Monday 23rd by 4.00pm

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am working through my defence and looking at the statements amount and the default notice the amounts are different amounts.

 

As I put earlier the paperwork they sent through is the same as before so no IP address on the CCA or the terms .

 

Have they fulfilled their part?

 

I did have ROP to start with along with the Identity theft cover they recommended that was quickly stopped after I had paid for it. They did refund the ROP interest later but not what I had paid, and I have been self employed all the time so I wouldn't of been able to claim at all.

 

Thanks

 

JJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

ROP etc plays no part sadly, the debt has been sold on.

 

the differing amounts might play a part to point out if this ever gets to the disclosure stage, for now, keep that up your sleeve.

 

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

1st draft if anyone can look over it please:

 

Particulars Of Claim

 

1.       The claim is for the sum of £xxxx.xx due to the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Vanquis account with an account reference of 4023xxx

2.       The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been complied with.

3.       The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on xx-xx-xx, notice of which has been given to the Defendant.

4.       The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the of these proceedings in the sum of £xxx.xx

5.       The Claimant claims the sum of £2861.17.

 

 

Defence:

 

The Defendant contends that the  particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement; the claimant has since provided various screenshots taken from the originators software of the application and also confirms on their covering letter the relative legislation The Electronic Communications Act 2000 with regards to wet signatures and the requirement of a tick box to validate the application. The screenshots are devoid of any tick box or any authenticity of IP address conformation check. Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78  6 a of the CCA1974  the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.

 

2. Paragraph 2 is noted but I do not recall the original creditor providing either Notice of Default or Default Notice or Notice of Sums in Arrears pursuant to the CCA1974.The claimant has since provided copies of a Notice of default and Default Notice by way of my CPR 31.14 request but until it can provide a copy of the executed credit agreement pursuant to sec 78 CCA1974 the provisions of section 87/88 of the CCA1974 are irrelevant until such compliance.

 

3. Paragraph 3 is noted. I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

4.  It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears,

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine...although you appear to have missed off the ending ?

 

5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.

6. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...