Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I’m tempted to send a letter to the company outlining the reasons why I think their PCN is illegitimate. I guess will technically be an appeal.  Their documentation states they won’t discuss over phone, I also don’t want them to have my email address.    re signage on entrance, having looked at land registry, the whole road is private, and when you turn into the road off the highway, there is a sign on the lamppost about 20m in, again not noticeable and on the other side of the road.  I feel like I am in a difficult position with this, I understand that I may have a good chance of not having to pay, but at the same token the stress this is already causing me makes me feel like it’s not worth the £60!
    • Well done with the photo. Of course the signage is insufficient.  PPM are not interested in competent management of a car park, they are interested in catching drivers out so they can issue their PCNs. For a start, according to their trade associations' Codes of Practice, they are supposed to have signage at the entrance. Any e-mail reply from the company and whether they will/won't/can/can't get the invoice cancelled?    
    • I will annotate the message I sent for the forum.  Sorry, didn't see this straight away...
    • I went back to the area, this photo is taken on entry. My vehicle was parked in the first space on the left.    Would you say there is sufficient signage ? It’s different to the street view as one sign is missing. The sign nearest to where I parked is 2.23m above ground! So even if the car had been reversed parked in front of it, I don’t think it could be seen. PCN PPM.pdf
    • Thank you. I expect that @dx100uk will be along soon to give advice. Meanwhile, I really wonder whether the default date – as being the starting point of the six years – something which has been decided in law. It has always seemed to me to be extremely unfair. According to the limitation act, the six year period begins from the date on which the cause of action accrued. This normally means that the breach of contract occurred. Section 6 of the limitation act says that in terms of loans, the cause of action begins on the date that the debt was "demanded". Over the past two years this has come to mean the date that the default notice was issued – but I have to say I don't find that very satisfactory. If you received demands for payment before then then I don't see why section 6 shouldn't refer to that date. Did you not receive any correspondence at all in 2017/2018? What was the value of the original loan – and how much you pay off? I see that there was some kind of instalment agreement. Tell us about that. See what my colleague @dx100uk says but anyway, if I were you I would send off an SAR immediately both to the claimant and also to the original creditor. It costs you nothing. There is no downside. Get in the post straightaway with some kind of utility bill establishing your identity. You can even include a copy of the claim form as well as proof of your identity
  • 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

Being chased for 3 old debts, one of which I'm not sure I even know about


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 647 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, again!

 

I've received a number of letters recently chasing small amounts:

 

1. bwlegal keep chasing for £52.75 owed to the original creditor BFSL t/a budget financial services - I don't know who that is.

 

  I'm certain that if I ask them about it then it will be something I owe, but I'm blank at the moment.  I did enter an online agreement with bwlegal a while back and agreed £5/m but I was broke so couldn't afford it, then forgot all about it - that was Oct 2020. 

 

Just this minute I logged in and it is the same account but the account is closed and is a different reference number.  they have reinstated it.  They sent me a 60% discount letter with a deadline of late August but I forgot about it. now they are saying something about recommending to their client that they should consider legal action.  I have until 15 Sept to respond.

 

2. This is a letter from Lowell regarding two old accounts - I can't remember how old they are - which they have now referred to Overdales Legal Ltd. 

 

The amounts are £130 allegedly owed to BT and £101 owed to EE. 

 

I know I disputed the BT one at the time because it was when they were hiking their prices up at the end of a contract so I cancelled yet they still added more contract time and cost, even though I had written to them to cancel. 

 

The EE one was years ago when I went abroad and someone used my phone to call the UK and I ended up getting the bill.  I disputed it with EE as it seemed way over the top.  I don't even remember when it was but it could have been as recent as 2017 - I have no idea. 

 

The person who used the phone at the time hasn't offered to pay the bill.  So Overdales want £232 off me to settle these.  They are threatening court action and say that they have been instructed by their client Lowell to request that the court issues a County Court Claim against me.

 

What shall I do? 

Should I send a SAR to BT and EE (or try and check my records) or a SAR to Lowell?  I'm confused and annoyed. 

 

My car died on me a few months ago and I've since taken out a loan to get a decent car which I need for my market stall business which has been dormant for a while.  It seems as soon as I try to do something positive these people get their claws out.

 

Thank you for any help and advice.

Edited by dx100uk
Format
Link to post
Share on other sites

stop blindly paying and responding to anyone until or unless you ever get a letter of claim.

 

if however you suspect that these accounts were taken out a a different address to where you live now, and never told the original creditors or since the debt owner (lowell) then write ONE letter to lowell stating the ref numbers concerned simply stating please note my correct address..

 

 

 

 

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. No the address is ok etc.   well I’ve missed the boat on the 60% reduction for bwlegal account. But I acknowledged it in 2020 so they can easily come after me, even though I don’t remember what it’s for. 
 

lowell will take me to court. They did so a few years ago for a house of Fraser account which was settled at mediation.  But the BT one is disputed but BT are hard cases and wouldn’t give in. It’s not the first time I’ve had issues with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you even thinking of paying a reduced settlement.:frusty:

you've won more cases than you've lost

and 

lowell typically discontinue most telecom cases if defended properly and your was in dispute, 100's of won cases here on them.

 

please dont forget BT is NOTHING to do with the debt now they've sold it on to fleecers for 10p=£1

 

stop being scared of a powerless dCA or their wolves...

 

see if you get any letter of claim from overdales

 

dx

 

  • Like 1
  • 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

Send SAR's to the original companies any debts were owed to.

 

Write back to Overdales saying that you don't have any information about any debts and can they provide more information. 

 

 

  • Thanks 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

Hit letter of claim

follow post 2

 

and inc a cca request for the loan.

 

Dx

  • 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

be mindful of post 5? too-  the mobile reply options.

 

you need to ensure you mention all 3 debts on their LOC.

 

you also need to READ their letter PROPERLY

it does not say you have 30 days to SPEAK to them.

never ever use the phone to a DCa and never ever use EMAIL.

 

 

dx

  • 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...