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

Declared bankrupt, but the shortfall didn't form part of the bankruptcy, but now the Insolvency service are coming after her, she was discharged in 2012 ? Linked to Post Office.


Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

My wife has today received a letter from the insolvency service, alleging that our debt formed part of her bankruptcy, this is not correct we paid the alleged shortfall to the Post Office representative  on the day of Handover to the new owners of our business in 2005

in 2006 we had to declare bankruptcy, but the shortfall didn't form part of the bankruptcy, but now the Insolvency service are coming after her, she was discharged in 2012 ?

Seems that the gov are still trying to keep the money anyway the can.......utterly disgraceful

 

Br 

Nick

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can somebody help

My wife was a post mistress in 2003 - 2005

- Sold the business in 2005

before we could sell the business to the new owners we had to pay the short fall of £1000 back to the Post Office which we did on the day of the handover,

went bankrupt in 2006

now the insolvency service say we have got to pay out creditors before we can claim any money

I might have read that wrong ??.....

. I'm confused it was 13 years ago,

she was discharged from bankruptcy in 2012

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Declared bankrupt, but the shortfall didn't form part of the bankruptcy, but now the Insolvency service are coming after her, she was discharged in 2012 ?

I'm so sorry you're caught up in all this.

Dan Neidle, the tax campaigner, recently mentioned a group of accountants who are helping SPMs. It mentions tax advice and I don't know if they deal with the kind of problem you have but I think it might be worth asking them. If they can't help maybe they can suggest someone who can.

Don't part with any money.

WWW.ACCOUNTINGWEB.CO.UK

Last week I reported on tax concerns [1] for recipients of the Historical Shortfall Scheme (HSS) element of the compensation paid to wrongly...

HB

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ruddy speculative leeches all these LPA receivers, they never ever change.

and none of the money goes off anything, just in their own pockets...

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

I explained to the receiver that the shortfall was paid in full on the day of the handover, this is what she came back with, surely this makes all Bankruptcies in this country unsafe even after discharge??

Thank you for your email.

The compensation claim with the Post Office is an asset in the Bankruptcy as the events leading to the claim, predates the bankruptcy order and under insolvency law this becomes an asset in the bankruptcy even though the act of claiming post dates the bankruptcy.

The Official Receiver is entitled to part of the compensation offered by the Post Office for the financial losses, any offer in relation to distress, inconvenience, damage to reputations remains with you. The Official Receiver would not force you to accept the offer made.

Although the Post Office was not listed as a creditor in the Bankruptcy as it was paid before the business was handed over, this does not affect the Official Receivers entitlement to part of the claim.

Below is some links from our website which provides some information regarding the Official Receivers involvement in Post Office cases:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/postmasters-impacted-by-horizon-who-may-have-been-wrongly-made-bankrupt

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/progress-update-on-compensation-for-postmasters-subject-to-bankruptcy-orders#full-publication-update-history

As stated in my previous email, you may wish to take your own independent legal advice on the matter.

I am happy to arrange a call with you if you think this would assist?

If you have any queries please don't hesitate to contact me on the details below.
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Declared bankrupt, but the shortfall didn't form part of the bankruptcy, but now the Insolvency service are coming after her, she was discharged in 2012 ? Linked to Post Office.

Hi

I have just had a good read of that letter and it is actually nothing to do with the shortfall that you paid £1000.

What it is to do with is the claim you are making via the HSS Scheme for the Post Office Compensation due to this shocking scandal which in you case was going back to 2005/2006 approx.

So your HSS Scheme Claim although recent is to do with 2005/2006 and as you went Bankrupt in 2006 and were then Discharged as the Claim as stated is to do with 2005.2006 it is then classed by the Insolvency Service as part of the Estate when you went Bankrupt.

I know its disgusting that a Government Body The Insolvency Service can do this due to the Horizon Scandal but they are also following the Bankruptcy Legislation that's why it got passed onto them when you made the HSS Scheme Claim.

If the Horizon issue is what ultimately led to you having to go Bankrupt (as it probably has with many other) I would as suggested in that letter apply for an annulment.

Importantly I would be showing/forward a copy of that letter to your MP for them to raise this issue further with whoever in Government is dealing with this Post Office/Horizon issue.

 

  • Like 4

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...