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

Mobile phone contract used by ex


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 96 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

Firstly hello, I’ve just joined so I’m not sure if this is the right place to post. 

Last year I was looking at my credit report and noticed a mobile phone contract I didn’t recognise with 02 I called them to find out what was going on. I cancelled it there and then only to get a very irate phone call from my ex of 8 years ago saying he was using it as his business phone! 

I don’t know how he’s managed to take the contract out in my name and get the upgrades etc without coming to my house. He lives about 30 miles away from me. 

He then said it was a contract we had taken out when we were together probably 10+ years ago. I honestly don’t remember doing it. He’s now left me with a bill of £265 to pay and is refusing to pay it!

Before I go to O2, the Police or whatever

is there anything I can do?

I really can’t believe the cheek of it especially when he has a new partner and she could have got him a phone.

I’m really blazing about it all!

any advice gratefully received,

thank you for reading. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose the £265 bill comes from cancelling the contract early? I don't really see what he had to gain by keeping the contract in your name if he was willing to pay the debits himself 🤔 it all sounds dead odd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems here is that while you sort it out, O2 will blight your credit file which will cause you problems for at least six years.

This can you afford to pay the £265? Although you may not be happy about it, I would say that the best course of action is to pay the money to at least get O2 off your back and to look after your credit file and then sue your ex for the £265.
We can help you do this.

I'm afraid that the police won't be helpful and O2 won't be helpful. They just want their money.

At the same time you better have a detailed look to make sure that there aren't other contracts out in your name.
I would suggest also that you send 02 a subject access request to find out how long the contract has been out in your name and probably other interesting information.


It's in your name so even though it is your ex's telephone, you will have access to all the data on that. Do that now. It's completely free but I think you should settle the £265 so that you aren't saddled with a load of trouble for quite a long time

  • Like 2
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be reporting it to the Police as fraud and getting a crime number as well so at least he gets a visit/letter from Plod to come in for an interview, that might scare him into paying it and not doing anything similar again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Homer67 said:

I'd be reporting it to the Police as fraud ...

Why would the police investigate it as fraud when the OP has suffered no loss and there is no evidence that her ex has done anything with intent to defraud?

OP says her ex has been paying all the phone bills and there are no arrears on the account that OP is being asked to pay so OP hasn't lost any money.

The £265 appears to be the charge for early cancellation but it was OP who cancelled not her ex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ethel Street if the ex didn't have the contract in place before they were an ex and as quoted they took it out in the other party's name, then it's fraudulent to take out a credit agreement at an address you no longer reside at and in someone else's name.

Edited by Homer67
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 18/01/2024 at 13:22, SSH10 said:

He then said it was a contract we had taken out when we were together probably 10+ years ago. I honestly don’t remember doing it. He’s now left me with a bill of £265 to pay and is refusing to pay it!

But he did allegedly :cell: and is therefore liable to pay the cancellation fee also. 

  • 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

2 hours ago, Homer67 said:

@Ethel Street if the ex didn't have the contract in place before they were an ex and as quoted they took it out in the other party's name, then it's fraudulent to take out a credit agreement at an address you no longer reside at and in someone else's name.

an airtime contract is not a credit agreement

  • 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

2 hours ago, Andyorch said:

But he did allegedly :cell: and is therefore liable to pay the cancellation fee also. 

 

Hmm, not sure about that.

As the contract isn't in the ex's name, and it was OP who cancelled it (without discussing or consulting with her ex) and it seems ex didn't want it cancelled isn't OP legally liable for the cancellation charge?

It all seems very unclear how the contract originally came to be taken out but as the contract is in OP's name the phone company will hold OP liable for the £265.

So I agree with Bank Fodder that OP should pay the cancellation fee to avoid compromising her own credit history. 

We are assuming it is a cancellation fee, and that it is correctly calculated under the contract, although neither have been confirmed by OP.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was taken out over 8 years ago

19 hours ago, Ethel Street said:

As the contract isn't in the ex's name, and it was OP who cancelled it (without discussing or consulting with her ex) and it seems ex didn't want it cancelled isn't OP legally liable for the cancellation charge?

Not if he taken it out fraudulently using her name and if it was over 10 years ago

The OP has yet to speak to O2 to find out when taken  out or what default consequence's will follow.

 

.

  • 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

5 hours ago, Homer67 said:

@Ethel Street ....it's fraudulent to take out a credit agreement at an address you no longer reside at and in someone else's name.

Not by itself it isn't, even if it were a credit agreement and even if that is what happened (which is not clear).

For it to be fraud by (mis)representation the ex would have to have taken out the contract with the INTENTION of defrauding the OP or phone company. Fraud Act 2006 s2 (1) (b).  'Dishonest intent' is an essential requirement for it to be fraud by (mis)representation.

Police will not be interested because the ex's subsequent conduct in paying the bills himself for 8+ years and never defaulting is incompatible with an intention to defraud. 

OP can of course report it to the police as a crime if she wishes but that, and the fact she hasn't actually suffered any loss herself,  is why I think she would be wasting her time.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...