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.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
  • 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

Deed query


HP Mum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 181 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

I'm going through historic docs to do with a property on which there is  a repo and debt claim.  Am doing this w/o lawyers - but lawyers were involved at points. I have a query. I did notice the query a while ago and asked the then-appointed lawyer to investigate and respond within my court papers (1.5y ago).  The lawyer was inept. Messed up so many issues.  Counsel never dealt with the query. I've been dealing with so many issues that I had forgotten the query.  But I've been triple-checking all the papers again this week as I have important deadlines looming.

There were 2 charges on the flat - 2 different (ltd co) lenders (under the umbrella of a parent lender).

On a Friday the lawyer (with poa) allegedly wrote 2x Lba stating that both loans had needed to be redeemed the day before, Thursday.  The letter gave figures on redemption and stated must redeem in full within 30 days.  However, on the following Tuesday - so just 2 working days later - the lawyer executed a Deed of Assignment.  To be clear - I never received the 2x Lba or the DoA (I think not receiving the DoA is normal as its considered a 'confidential' doc?).  The first I knew about either was a few months later in a PoC.

I believe there must have been an issue with dates from default to issuing the Lba to assignment?  Irrespective, it's the DoA that's wrong: the lawyer assigned the wrong sum from Assignor to Assignee.  They registered the wrong sum at Land Reg.  The Assignee then made a claim against me (still ongoing) for a large sum. But this sum includes £s that legally have never been assigned from the Assignor. 

I've done a bit of reading this week. Seems that one can't part-assign a loan.  That the assignment switches from a legal to an equitable assignment?  That the Assignor must join in court proceedings?  If they still exist.  This is interesting as the parent company got bought out almost 2y ago.  The Assignor is still registered as a ltd co but the new parent co has added a page to their recent y/e accounts about consolidating subsidiaries, including the Assignor.  The Assignor name is on another subsidiary website, but if one follows the links one always gets led to pages pertaining to the website subsidiary.   A completely separate unassociated company in a different part of the UK has been using the Assignor's name to trade since start 23, which seems to correspond with the parent co y/e accounts date/ consolidating subsidiaries.

I'm not sure what to do next?   I'm not a lawyer. No lawyers/ counsel have spotted this error.  And the error is in my favour.   If the Assignor does still legally exist I guess the otherside will try and add them to the proceedings?  And try change Land Reg?   They can try argue that I had 2 loans of x & y £ value and it was a clerical error.  But companies assign loans/ debts at discounted levels all the time.  And in this instance the error was perpetuated in LR docs.  And has gone unnoticed for 6y.   On the face of it - whether they say I borrowed/ they loaned x&y - the DoA states the sum assigned - and that assigned sum makes the total sum with the Assignee much lower than the value of their claim!!   I have no idea what this error will do to the overall claim?  Might it mean the claimant has to go back to the drawing board and start a new claim including the assignor? 

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • HP Mum changed the title to Deed query

I've been thinking about this issue.  I missed out there was another legal step to get to where I am now.

The lender originally issued a claim for repo.  That was paused by a consent order and a payment on account.  The lender did eventually repo, tried bankruptcy, but that was struck out due to errors.  They then re-opened original repo claim as a money/debt claim.  Lawyer appointed by me at the time got it adjourned - but there's never been another hearing.  It is still "live" in the court.  Meanwhile lender issued a new money/ debt claim in a different court (currently defending).   I complained their new claim was disputing the same issues, just in different court.  They advised they were/are entitled to do so.   So we've both been filing amended claims/ defences etc ever since.   The problem now is my defence in new claim refers to the consent order (£s paid/ balance owed) - and a judge ruled its relevance in the new claim.  But, as post #1, if the £s were wrong then that impacts what judge ruled.    If the lender is entitled to issue a new money/ debt claim in different court, am I entitled to reapply to the court under original claim to reconsider the deed, balance owed, and recalculate £s??   How would/ will this impact the new claim proceedings?  (heading to trial next summer).   Its all so complicated.  

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...