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.
        • 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

idealworld in administration goods not received but Moorcroft now asking for the money


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 242 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 all 

at the end of june i  purchased an item from idealworld  ,  just   a week before they went out off air and now in administration 

  i had paid  the first payment  , but  of cause never received the goods   - and the only contact  you can now make with them is an email to  the administrators   and it bounces back saying due to high demand  they could be a delay in answering  

i had paid via debit card  - so  i told by bank who stopped any further payments and issued a chargeback  , so i thought that was the end of it.

well on Saturday  i got a debt collection letter from a company called Moorcroft   asking for a balance of  72 pounds  and to contact them   to now pay them 

and im not sure what to do now  , cos last thing i want is a bailiff  turning up  at my door    but as ive never had the good s , won't get them now , and cant contact anyone  can  someone advise pls what to do as i guessing they have bought the debt 

and will these  people coming knocking at my door for the money      when i never even  got the goods  in the first place 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please tell us how much you are talking about. It will help us to know the value at stake.

However, don't worry. I would suggest that you write to morecroft and tell them that you won't be paying and that for whatever reason the suppliers and breach of contracts and that's what you will tell the judge as well if they want to bother to take it to court.

 

And by the way, nobody will come knocking at your door. They would have to get a court judgement against you first before they could possibly instruct enforcement agents.

What is the total value?

After you have sent the letter which I have suggested, ignore all other correspondence unless you get a court claim in which case let us know

Link to post
Share on other sites

woe slow down

a DCA IS NOT A BAILIFF!!

and never ever can be.

a DCA also has ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type.

totally ignore moorcroft, they dont buy debts either. only operate for their client...

whom are their stated client on this letter?

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

Hello and ty for replying  

  itdx100uk  it  says the client is Ideal World Ltd  

and your correct it says

my account details have been passed to us  by IDEAL WORLD LTD  to act as a collection agent  and we will now be dealing with your account 

and then goes on to say they offer a flexible approach  to repaying my account have have various options  to suit  

and to pls get in Contact as soon as possible  

and then it says the ways to get in touch with them  giving their phone number   email address etc  and  the methods i can pay by. 

 

so should and can i safely ignore  this  , as i don't want to contact them if i don't have to .

 

Or what is the best way to now deal with this pls

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, treextree said:

so should and can i safely ignore  this  , as i don't want to contact them if i don't have to .

You don't have to write to them at all; however, not doing so will result in your letter box filling with half the amazon rainforest in the hope they eventually get some money from you. Writing to them with the letter BankFodder suggested may put a stop to that right from the off.

If you choose to ignore, you should continue to open any correspondence you get from them, just in case they ever did try to raise a claim against you. It would be easily defensible, you just don't want them to do it without your knowledge, which could result in a default judgement in their favour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as you've not moved since ordering from ideal world you are very safe to simply ignore everyone

until or unless you ever get a letter of claim from a solicitor who's client is idealworld

a Notice of Assignment for a DCA stating they have now purchased the debt.

or

and a very very big or 

a county court claimform pack.

which as with 99.9% scam debt none of the above ever ever happen

go enjoy your life and stop panicking about a bunch of powerless letter writers whom make themselves out to be BAILIFFS.

they are not and cant do anything on any dent

a dca has no more legal rights than you or i or your cat.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...