Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Debt counsellor breaches Data Protection


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6341 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

I had a debt counsellor call at my house chasing me for £1000 for car arrears plus his made up costs of £293. I live with five other people. One of them answered and said he knew nothing about it. The debt counsellor then proceeded to put an open letter through my door (potentially for all my housemates to read and discuss) then proceed to put the same letter through the neighbours door.

 

This obviously has upset me and made me paranoid to go out and affected my health and made me feel like the whole street etc know my business blah blah blah.

 

So far I have written to

 

1) his company - no reply

2)The car finance company - who have decided out of goodwill they will knock £200 off if i phone them to settle (inc his costs still) so technically still charging me £93 for him to spread my details round the village.

3) Information commisioners re data protection act - this can not result in me gaining financially can only get his company a warning or in trouble etc.

4) Credit services agency. he has broken various rules on their website that his company have agreed to. By the way this is worth a read.

 

I am currently planning to let them take me to court for this debt and there stance appears to be to bully and threaten mewith various means and long titles and threatening letters. Frankly they seem to be blowing in the wind as the letters contridict each other.

 

I have two questions. If it got to court would the debt collectors actions gain me any financial advantage eg could i offer them half.

 

Can I or do you think it is worth my while taking the debt counsellor to court for his actions towards me and the effect it has had on my happiness/health?

 

At the end of the day I may as well just pay them if there is no financial gain to this. However I am staggered that there can't be consequences for going to someones neighbours house and informing them of your debt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could try trading standards too, see what they say.

 

You may want to use this in any further letters. This isn't legally binding but holding a credit license is subject to the OFT's approval. Quote from their guidance on debt collection:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/50F06527-9FC5-4610-B385-999D6E2A8950/0/oft664.pdf

 

Page 9

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

...

i. disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless

legally entitled to do so

j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either

deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting

correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox,

thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

and 11

Charging for debt collection

2.9 Charges should not be levied unfairly.

2.10 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. claiming collection costs from a debtor in the absence of express

contractual or other legal provision

b. misleading debtors into believing they are legally liable to pay

collection charges when this is not the case, for example, when there

is no contractual provision

...

d. applying unreasonable charges, for example, charges not based on actual

and necessary costs

e. applying charges which are disproportionate to the main debt.

From a legal perspective there is the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Section 40 of the act provides that a person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under contract, he or she:

(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;

This would be a criminal offence. You could take various action for harrassment but I would seek professional advice on exactly how to take this further.

 

Good luck :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You might also want to take a look at the Harassment Act 1997 and article 8 of the Human Rights Act (right to privacy) as well as cases pertaining to Breach of Confidence. Googling these should produce some helpful information.

Gruffle Gaw vs Halifax - £1531.50: ***WON - cheque for £1966.78 received 30/09/06***:)

I'm not a legal professional and my advice is given without prejudice or liability.

If you found my post helpful, please click the scales on the left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your help I will include some of this in a letter. I have written a reply offering £500 as full and final settlement to the money I owe and agreed to pay it immediately (Haven't sent it yet). I have done my complaining to the various institutons and replies from them should enhance my case in court.

 

My real question is can I actually get money off this debt because of what they have done to me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to settle for half. If Court proceedings

have not yet started, you have got at least a couple of months breathing

space to see how your letter to Trading standards works out.

 

Although I have a feeling that in the light of the debt counsellors actions,

the chances of them taking you to Court have probably diminished.

 

However I am surprised that you were prepared to let them take you to Court

in view of you apparently being in the position of being able to offer them half.

As you would be liable to pay their Court costs, it seems an unnecessary

addition for you unless you feel that there is something else that might

be in your favour to argue your case in Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...