Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
    • Thanks so much dx. I really am grateful for your advice Billy  
  • 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

Mothers dispute with Lease Holder backdoor? CCJ found

Recommended Posts

Hi, hope you can help?

I am writing on behalf of my mother who has dementia and am quite concerned that the free holder and her brother (who acts as her representative) of the flat my mother owns a 100 year lease of - which is the flat at the top of the building and the Lease holder's brother lives in the flat below and runs an estate agency on the ground floor, underneath that.

This person has been making demands for payments and repairs to the building, charging extortionate insurance and yet further what seems to me to be 'made up' repairs to the property.

In the building insurance documents , my mother is listed as business interruption.

He has been done for business insurance fraud in the past and was using bullying tactics to intimidate and frighten my mum who is now in a care home for her own protection. Some of the invoices look made up or are photocopied. 

Last year she did not pay her ground rent and business insurance (charged annually) because she was ill and lost capacity.

She has now received a county court judgement (made by him online).

Normally she pays £70 ground rent annually and around about £400  (which is supposed to be 50% of the insurance for the whole building) for business insurance.

she's been asked to pay is £7182.63 - which is £6727.63 amount claimed and £455.00 court fee.

As far as I know she did not receive a bill for ground rent or insurance because it wasn't in all paperwork I have looked through. 

Is there anything I can do?

Ps. It was sent on the 12th February and the amount needs to be paid by 1st March.

I also forgot to say that in the letter from county court it says


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Dispute with Lease Holder backdoor CCJ found
  • dx100uk changed the title to Dispute with Lease Holder backdoor? CCJ found

Hi Tosca.

Welcome to CAG.

Naughty Naughty by the freeholder to bring a claim against someone without the capacity to deal with it. 

When was the judgment awarded?

You should be looking to apply for an N244 set aside due to your mother's mental capacity.

CPR 21.3 is very clear that no further steps in the proceedings should be taken if a party involved loses the mental capacity and does not have a litigation friend to handle it on their behalf. A judgment should never have been entered in the first place

  • Like 2

We could do with some help from you.



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

Hi Lolerz,

Thank you so much for your reply, I will look into this immediately.  I have been so worried about this and now have piece of mind.

The date on letter was 12/2/24 and states it needs to be paid by the 1/3/24.

Thank you again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

N244 set aside.

Will cost £275 but will get the matter dealt with.

Cant see any judge doing anything other than accepting

Get it filed quickly please.

 No delays


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


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jk2054,

Thank you for your reply. Will look into this.

I have completed a N244 form and have been struggling to find a way it can reach the county court before the 1/3/24 (this is the date the court has asked my mother to pay by)  .

phoned the county court several times today and nobody would pick up and have sent an email to  [email protected], with a copy of the completed N244 form attached. 

I got an automatic response from them saying it will take 10 days for them to respond back, due to backlog of work.

I have also sent (via Guaranteed Next day Recorded Delivery) a paper version to the county court, with covering letter explaining my mother’s mental capacity due to dementia.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thank you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Mothers dispute with Lease Holder backdoor? CCJ found
  • 2 weeks later...


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

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...