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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 185 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

It has been decreed by the "site team" that making payments to creditors in cash, is somehow related to the FMOTL nonsense.  As I am not legally qualified, I wonder if anyone can indicate the specific legislation that supports the links to FMOTL idiocy?

Closing threads, with no proper response being provided seems very common on here, which doesnt seem that helpful if the points raised, may well be of interest to others, who might find themselves in the same situation?

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Billy, 

Your original thread was asking for advice on a private parking company problem and you declined to follow the same process everyone goes through. It was clear that you were simply going to do your own thing, so there was no point in continuing the thread. Especially as it descended into off topic conversation. 

You have now started a topic in the Bear garden, apparently to discuss paying selective invoices in cash.

So, why not start the conversation in a constructive manner. 

1   2   3   go!

  • Like 1
  • I agree 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

its the reason as to why he is in this hell of a mess...but wont listen...

dx

  • Like 2

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

The "approved" process for dealing with the parking companies, doesn't seem to be particularly effective?  Wonder what the reason for that might be? 

@Nicky Boy

I am not sure that posting up a scan of a pro-forma, parking scammer threat letter, on here, and then bending over and waiting for whatever the companies have in mind, is the best possible course of action? 

Seems to me just the type of reaction, they would wish for?  

 

 

.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when people (as you have done) don’t engage with the site and follow the advice / “approved process”, it’s not surprising things don’t go well. That is the reason.

When you ask for advice, don’t give the details requested, don’t follow the advice, then the only real surprise is that you feel you can whinge about it “not being effective”.

CAG is a self-help site. You actually have to help people to help you for it to be effective. If you choose not to, the fault lies with you, not the site.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Billy Williams said:

I am not sure that posting up a scan of a pro-forma, parking companies threat letter, on here, and then bending over and waiting for whatever the scammers have in mind, is the best possible course of action?  Seems to me just the type of reaction, they would wish for?

Rather than just paying them? (Apparently, your chosen course of action).

Aaaand... Now back to the topic in hand.

Pros and cons of paying for goods and services in cash....🙂

If the thread continues going off topic, I will be out of here.

 

 

.

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am honestly mystified?

From reading through a few of the thousands of posts on here about the parking companies, it seems the "advice" consists" of scanning and then posting up a pro-forma, threat letter, on here, kicking that around for a bit, and then essentially hoping they dont take it to court? 

Cant honesty see how that benefits anyone, other than the scammers themselves? 

 

.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Devil is in the detail hence the upload to see if due process has been followed. Any topic without uploaded documents is in reality hear say on your word and your interpretation. So impossible to advise.

It could be that you don't even have a parking charge and using the topic again to test opinion on " Paying by cash Only " ??

  • Like 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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nicky Boy

The parking companies are not set up for taking payments in cash.

In my case I owe £170, so would propose to them, 8 payments of £20 and one final payment of £10. 

All of these being made in cash, using coins of low denomination. 

Had an offer of payment been made, any court would take a very dim view of them taking court action, given the fact its not unlawful to pay in cash.

 

@Andyorch

The pro forma threat letters are just that, they seem to disclose little or nothing about due process? 

I would guess the companies are likely to take less than 2% of non-payers to court, and there is obviously a strong need to project the idea that isn't the case?

Hence, the numerous forums, suggesting that court action IS highly likely, and outlining various ways of how to deal with the threats..

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

The parking scammers are not set up for taking payments in cash. In my case I owe £170, so would propose to them, 8 payments of £20 and one final payment of £10.  All of these being made in cash, using coins of low denomination.  Had an offer of payment been made, any court would take a very dim view of them taking court action, given the fact its not unlawful to pay in cash.

Interesting idea. Do, please let us know how your proposal is accepted...

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will refuse the proposal for sure. 

All that's needed is some documentary evidence of the refusal, and if they then take it to court, they will need to explain the reason for the refusal.  That they are not equipped to process cash is immaterial..................

 

1 hour ago, honeybee13 said:

 

Immaterial in this case, as the sums involved are all less than £100. 

Times are very hard at the moment, and I would imagine they would need a VERY good excuse from to explain to a judge, why a proposed staged payment arrangement had been refused?

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

I would guess

19 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

I would imagine

You seem to do a lot of this Billy...

 

27 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

They will refuse the proposal for sure.  All that's needed is some documentary evidence of the refusal, and if they then take it to court, they will need to explain the reason for the refusal.  That they are not equipped to process cash is immaterial..................

 

25 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

Times are very hard at the moment, and I would imagine they would need a VERY good excuse from to explain to a judge, why a proposed staged payment arrangement had been refused?

You're simply hypothesizing and procrastinating... just do it and let us know how it goes.

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nicky Boy

Not at all. 

Its quite impossible for them to sidestep the law, and they would need an extremely good reason to have refused a payment plan, which many judges might well see as wasting court time

! This seems a far better way to resist the attentions of them, than posting the pro forma letters on here?  

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

which many judges might well see as wasting court time

"might".

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

JUST DO IT! (Shame that phrase is probably already copyrighted)😁

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

but you are not in any such position. that's just the point people are making........

you think you are cause of this wonderful fmotl like scheme that's failed 1000's of times before - the i pay by cash only twaddle

dx

 

 

  • Like 2

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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 185 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...