Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi T911 and welcome to CAG. As you say, an interesting screw up. So much for quality control! Anyway, our regular advice is to ignore all of their increasingly threatening missives... UNLESS you get a letter of claim, then come back here and we'll help you write a "snotty letter" to help them decide whether to take it any further with their stoopid pics. If you get mail you're unsure of, just upload it for the team to have a look.
    • Thanks @lolerzthat's an extremely helpful post. There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in. I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm. VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert. Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months? I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park?  Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?
    • That is so very tempting.   They are doing my annual review as we speak and I'm waiting for their response once I have it I will consider my next steps.    The debt camel website mentioned above is amzing and helping to. Education me alot    
    • Sending you a big hug. I’m sorry your going through this. The letters they send sound aweful, and the waiting game for them to stop. But these guys seem so knowledgable and these letters should stop. Hang in there, and keep in touch. Don’t feel alone 
    • In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA. Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Not saying it doesn't happen mind. I've done some more digging on this: Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system. Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that. Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding. At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place. I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord). It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.  
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Do any of these debts actually exist


Rhia
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6343 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

Now a couple of us have had what we consider to be a lightbulb moment and would like thoughts/opinions as to if there is any merit in our musings.

 

There is a long thread re what happens when either DCA or original lender cannot produce the full signed agreement and it seems that many lenders and DCAs are attempting to pass off application forms as agreements so we won't go into that again (although it does have a bearing obviously) but this is our scenario but only when they "sell" the debt not hand it over for management.

 

We started to ask why, if we owe the banks/credit cards, they don't make proper attempts to recover over and above the telephone harrassemnt and computer generated letters. Even if they don't have an inhouse legal them they could outsource the work to lawyers and professional fees can be set against tax. If they write off the debt this also means they can offset it against corporation tax too so their loss is virtually wiped out.

 

They have deliberately allowed sloppy credit agreements (i.e. just the card application) in their frantic race to win customers over. They will employ actuaries/stats experts to come up with figures that show that the majority of agreements don't default. Those that do get into difficulties through health or employment reasons then a high number will have insurance from which they have made a huge profit. The rest will just default. The law of averages now tells them that it doesn't matter as during the lifetime of the agreements they have made so much profit in penalty charges, insurance and interest that the number that does default is justifiable and anyway can be reclaimed.

 

So are the Banks etc selling the DCAs a non-existant debt? Hence the flimsy agreements (these guys can afford top lawyers it doesn't make sense that they send out shoddy agreements unless someone high up has just said soddit we write it off, we've made a heap of cash and it will cost us far more to chase...dump it) If it has been written off surely it doesn't exist to sell on to DCAs. Answers/opinions please

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very interesting question Rhia - similar but rather more eloquently put than the thread I started below about DCA's suing. I strongly suspect;) that if you simply deny these debts they are in most cases unenforceable. The exceptions are vehicle HP agreements which are indubitably tied to a car and it's registered keeper. I had about £70k of card/finance debts and have only been taken to court once - over an HP agreement. Make of that what you will.

"Why CCJ when you can CCA!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some months ago I had a not dissimilar debate with Andrew. Couple of points.

Corporation tax is 40 -50% so the most that can be written off is half the

unpaid debt and half their legal costs.

 

Also, the fact that a debt is written off does not absolve the debtor from

their legal responsibility. In addition, bear in mind that many solicitors charge in excess of £100 for sending debt repayment letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this disastrous phrasing in letters issued by a clueless DCA on behalf of Cr*pital1:

 

"If you do not pay the amount in full within 7 days, the full amount on your account will written off as a bad debt and passed to GrottyDebtWholesale Ltd."

 

If I employed a debt collector to get money in for me and they used wording like "written off" I'd be looking for a refund + damages.

Number of times I've asked 1st Credit for information that I stil haven't recieved... 55 as at 02/05/07 :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

if a debt being written off doesnt absolve the debtor from responsibility, what does the debt 'being written off' actually mean?

 

im sorry, only trying to learn, not try your patience - lol

 

they group the debts together it's called securisation and someone buys them cabot pay about 10 %

 

 

 

European Business Law Review 39 - 42

 

(Vol. 11, No. 1, January 2000)

 

Legal Developments in Debt Securisation

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

so the one who buys them starts pursuing the money?

yeh check the "form " out and rule out the "non runners" but please don't base any decision until we get a general conclusive opinion.

Tam Wing Chuen -v- Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong Ltd [1996] 2 BCLC 69

 

1996

PC

Lord Mustill Commonwealth,

 

Lord Mustill discussed the need to construe a contract contra preferentem: "the basis of the contra proferentem principle is that the person who puts forward the wording of a proposed agreement may be assumed to have looked after his own interests, so that if words leave room for doubt about whether he is intended to have a particular benefit there is reason to suppose that he is not."

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...