Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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

EPC UK Debt Collector - Unpaid Toll Fees in Portugal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 129 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

We have travelled to Portugal several times over recent years and have just received 4 letters from EPC (a UK company who I believe have bought debts from Vialivre who the Portugues Toll Agency in Portugal) demanding payment for alleged unpaid hire car toll fees in Portugal between 2018 and 2021. 

An example of one demand; £45 toll fee plus a Vialivre administration fee around £48, £103 total.

EPC have added another admin fee of £134, totally roughly £228.

These demands state the registration plate, that we have no idea is the car we hired or not, and the journeys made,

As these notifications are the first we have received we are in shock and don't quite know what to do and wonder if this is enforceable and/or even lawful. We always paid, or attempted to pay, our tolls at the post office before we returned home but unfortunately no longer have proof of payment.

Also, there was never a mechanism in place to pay the tolls for our return journey to the airport as it took 24 hours+ before toll charges are registered there.

Really appreciate any guidance and/or advice you are able to give.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for responding to my post, really appreciate it! 

I have no idea where they got our details from and can only assume initially from the car hire company we used at the time.

I haven't reached out to the car hire company as I very much doubt they would be able to advise us from a legal standpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Welcome to the forum

He will have already had notification from his name being being referred to above.

Topic moved to Debt collection Agencies Forum.

 

Andy

 

 

.

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

You should be able to bat this away very easily.

Can you please upload one of these demands, redacted of your personal details?

You say that EPC have bought these debts but I strongly suspect they haven't.  Their webpage says they "administer the collection" and "collect outstanding toll fees" which tends to suggest they are acting as a powerless debt collecting agency.

https://www.epcplc.com/portuguese_road_tolls

I'm writing during my lunch break but promise to be on the forum this evening after I knock off work.

  • 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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you type in epc in our search top right you'll see there are numerous threads here on this DCA

a dca  are not a bailff and have zero powers on any debt no matter what its type.

ignore them 

here is an example

 

  • 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

notice how the cheeky dca epc double the cost by adding their fake charges

absolute astounding

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

Say you & I were in legal dispute.  I could sue you and you could sue me.  Your best mate couldn't sue me.  My next-door neighbour couldn't sue you.  Because the case would have nothing to do with them.

And this is the situation with EPC or indeed any other debt collector.  They can do nothing.  It isn't their debt.

We have several EPC threads here and after all the threats nothing happened.

I think Nicky Boy wanted me to contribute as I have seen off the real owners of a debt for a motoring infringement in an EU country, but your situation is even easier.  Relax & ignore the threats.

  • Like 2

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much Dave, your logic makes perfect sense and is music to my ears!

I have one more question please, if I may,

that is in relation to paragraph 3 on the back page of the notifications from EPC 'How to Present a Complaint' and there it states "A complaint can be presented online.

The EPC Group will then place your case(s) on hold and if necessary, forward your complaint or question for consideration to Vialivre SA"

Therefore, can I can safely assume EPC are NOT owners of the alleged debt and as you eluded to previously "administer the collection" and "collect outstanding toll fees" which tends to suggest they are acting as a powerless debt collecting agency?

Once again, very many thanks for your invaluable time and support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Have a read of the last posts on istrianadventurer's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459903-fine-from-epc-for-having-no-vignette-in-hungary/#comment-5219106

The news is good 😃

 

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

or post 6 in the same thread... from me.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

What a lovely "Information notice"...

And they've even been kind enough to "extend the due date"... How thoughtful!

 

Just a thought for the team...We've seen a few of these now. I'm wondering about data protection concerns.

As we are no longer in the EU, so should EPC be obtaining data from the DVLA and presumably passing it on to another EU country?

I see that they are members of BPA, so are they using KADOE to obtain keepers details for use in a foreign country?

I understand tha the DVLA are supposed to only issue data for valid reasons...

Would it be worth asking the OP to send a SAR to DVLA and EPC to find out what reason is being used to obtain their info and whether the data is being shared abroad?

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

Hi Nicky Boy

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond, much appreciate as always! As this 'alleged' toll fee contravention is for a hired car am I right to assume the DVLA will not be involved?

Thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nick is spot on.

How kind of them to send all this free tourist information for Portugal.  I went to Portugal for Euro 2004 and I will certainly bear their advice in mind should I have a return visit.

None of which has any relevance to them pursuing you for money.

All over Europe, if you don't pay what you should, you get penalties to pay on top ... not an extension of 28 days!!!  They have kindly given you this extra time because they know full well they can't do anything to you.  Relax and ignore

Nick, I would presume it was the car hire company that gave the details.  Sure, EPC are a member of the BPA, but I don't think that's directly relevant.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...