Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
      • 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

Seeking Advice: Partial Settlements vs Defaulted Accounts - Have I Made the Right Move?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 297 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

Hello CAG Forum Members,

I've decided to turn to this knowledgeable community to gain some insights into a situation I've been grappling with.

I am seeking your collective advice and wisdom concerning partial settlements, their value in the context of defaulted accounts, and the typical amount one should reasonably offer. I've found myself in a bit of a quandary and would greatly appreciate any guidance.

To provide some background, I have managed to negotiate partial settlements with two of my creditors thus far. However, I'm unsure if these settlements were the right course of action, especially when considering that these accounts were already defaulted. Do partial settlements offer any significant benefit after an account has been marked as defaulted?

Moreover, I am unsure if there are standard guidelines or norms about the percentage of the debt one should propose for a partial settlement. Are there any such benchmarks or is it entirely a matter of individual negotiation?

Previously, I had a thread on here about an old debt originally from Vanquis, which was subsequently passed to Arrow who then applied a default some years later.

Some of you may recall my past thread about a debt initially issued by Vanquis that later got handed over to Arrow. Arrow managed to find my contact number through a Debt Tracking service provided by Experian and began to inundate me with calls. This relentless pursuit exhausted me, leading me towards a partial settlement, which they eventually agreed to.

However, this experience has raised some concerns for me. Notably, I'm unsure about the amount I paid to settle the debt, especially since I used the same figure to settle another debt that was double the original amount. This has left me questioning the proportionality of my settlements and seeking guidance for any future situations.

Thank you in advance for your time and any advice or experiences you're willing to share. It's much appreciated.

Best,
SN

Link to post
Share on other sites

if a debt is already defaulted it will vanish from your file on the default notices' 6th b'day, never to return.

doesn't mean the debt might not still be owed, but it cant hurt you.

i've always questioned the reason behind F&F , you might as well burn the money, esp if the debts are now owned by DCA's.;

 

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

Thanks DX for the response.

Having thought about this, maybe your right, wasted money paying off Arrow Global as they are a DCA. However, at least moving forward, I wont' receive any more correspondence or waste any more of my energy dealing with them as they have now been officially eradicated from my subconscious.

I just think I paid them too much to settle the outstanding balance which wasn't that much just under £2000. Never mind...

The other debt which I managed to settle was held with the originated bank/lender and was not sold off to a DCA. I ended up paying 15% to clear the entire balance which was in the 1000's which I thought was very reasonable but I had to send in letters and really appease to their sympathetic nature in order for them to agree!

I have but one creditor remaining also held with the original lender. Upon checking I haven't made token payments for nearly 2 years. I'll leave them be for now, not a major concern. If and when they ever crop up, I'll address the issue.

I've learnt lessons in all this which is to try and avoid getting into debt in the first place and stive to "live" within ones means , if that is at all possible in this day and age.

Appreciate all the help your guys provided throughout all my posts, appreciate the valuable input you all provided especially dx100uk 

Take care

SN

Link to post
Share on other sites

ive opened the arrows vanquis card thread so you can update it to help future readers.

 

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

Just seeing this. what would you like me to update it with ?  I mean if it's deemed as may as well burn the monies as opposed to making a partial settlement deal, then why would I then update to instruct people to do the same if that makes sense?

I think personally, I've been bumped by Arrow, even if I no longer have to deal with them which is basically what I did. Paid them whatever so I now longer have to see their annoying letters.. for peace of mind purposes.. I think your advice was the best, avoid unless CCJ is issued.. which probably won't happen. Especially considering they are a DCA and not the original lender. 

Edited by SardoN
Link to post
Share on other sites

well just put an update on that thread as to what you did as readers might not come to this thread.

 

dx

 

  • 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...