Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is different to my PCN issued by Highview. I am not by any means an expert so I would leave it to the experts to check what I say and maybe delete this if it is not helpful. My thoughts on this are In the PoC they state you are liable as Driver or Keeper. Firstly, I would challenge that .... are they pursuing you as Driver or as Keeper? They don't know who the driver is, as stated on the NTK and, they don't know if you didn't tell them, so I would think that they can not pursue you as the driver. The NTK is not fully compliant with POFA 2012 as LFI stated but specifically, and correct me if I am wrong, Section 9 [2][f] states that:   Section 9 (2) The notice MUST— (f) warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i) the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (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;   All the applicable conditions under this Schedule (Schedule 4) are NOT met, specifically warning the keeper as in (f) .... As far as I can see, the creditor has NOT warned the keeper on the NTK, as they MUST do in accordance with S9 [2](f). So, as far as I can see that prohibits them from having the right to recover from the keeper.   I put it to you M'Lord, given the facts stated, the creditor does not have grounds to pursue the Driver, nor the Keeper!! 😂🤣😂 Maybe that's why you've not heard from the courts, what does it say on MCOL ?
    • at the time, if both owners signed a voluntary charge it can not be a restriction k.  but it looks like one? as above ..... if you re mortgage with the same lender is doesn't need paying if you re mortgage with a new lender then most probably you will have to settle it.
    • The move comes after Tesla reported a sharp fall in its deliveries in the first three months of 2024.View the full article
    • please dont post up unredated court docs!! done now... it looks like: you paid for then cancelled a PC from mac group ltd however the PC still got delivered but not to you. you got issued a court claim but totally ignored it. DCBL HCEO Bailiffs attempted to enforce the CCJ...they failed..you had moved. The Claimant was Granted Permission by the Court to Serve A Statutory Demand and latterly did so. you had attempted to set aside the Original CCJ but failed to attend it's hearing and it got struck out you subsequently have have received a statutory demand for the CCJ sum. you applied to set that aside there was a hearing on 18th Apr which you did not attend. ...............   not quite sure but i think thats the story. ............. same as your other thread.. stop worrying about the house.. you ought to deal with this at some point as if the claimant does go for and manage to you BK. it might not be good. have a think about things , it might pay you to look toward putting an N245 variation to the court and offer a very low £PCM to the court, esp if you have little to no income etc like on benefits/pensioner etc...you might even get it all done for free as there is a small charge for the N245 process.        
    • you've applied to have it set aside and then you've not complied with the Judge's order for your set aside. You'll need to apply to have that order stayed on the ground you were a LIP and didn't understand it. Make it clear you now understand it and you ask that an order be made in the interim to stop all enforcement and any other action.
  • 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

Dealing with Kings Interhigh in Spain - Claiming unpaid fees - RESOLVED but still lost our £1000 refundable deposit


Recommended Posts

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/465260-reddam-house-berkshire-ltd-ta-kings-interhigh-debt-now-threatened-with-a-dca/

We've just been through the same process for exactly the same reasons but managed to resolve this in our favour AND get them to drop the court case

i have confirmed they will NOT be chasing us for this money they suggested we owed them for terminating our contract.

it was a very positive outcome.

I'm happy to share how we did this if you're interested but appreciate this is not my thread,

but just wanted to offer my help and support.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@KingsParent please create you own topic and tell us the whole story please.

dx

6 minutes ago, SweetCaroline said:

Hi, i d like to talk to you, can we?

id advise against this

we dont know who people really are,.

their thread will give you all the info you need

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

Hi,

I'm a previous parent of Kings. 

Our child attended for a a few short months but was desperately unhappy with the lack of support and guidance and teaching methods.

As working parents, we were having to take it in turns to be available for her all day to help navigate around the different platforms to find the files and even we had trouble.  When we did manage to find the documents, it was too late and we had missed the teaching objective and the purpose of the lesson.

We were told to speak to IT support who in turn told us to speak to the teachers. We tried on numerous occasions to call them, but their voicemail box was full so were unable to leave a message. We emailed and were ignored. We even used the 'contact us' form on their website which was left ignored.

As we could see our child was becoming a recluse, unhappy, isolated and very upset and angry and she felt she was losing her academic abilities, we removed her from the school and emailed them to tell them why.  This email was also ignored until we sent another one which they eventually responded to.  We asked for our refundable deposit back, but they chose to keep this to pay off a partial amount off what they said we still owned them for the rest of the academic term and they mentioned the contract and used this against us.

Their Account Dept started sending us threating emails to which we replied initially saying they had also broken their contract T&C's because they had not provided a reasonable service (education).  We also told them we would fight back and we never received another reply.

We eventually looked them up on TrustPilot only to find a lot of other disgruntled parents who left their 1* review and noticed each of them received a response from the school. We did the same (our review is attached).

One day later, our review was replied to (their response attached).  As you can see their reply states "We are sorry to hear about your experience and we are committed to resolving the matter. We have requested your details so we can look into this in more detail as a matter of urgency."

We looked up the CEO of Inspired Online School and found him on LinkedIn.  His last post was celebrating a Kings Interhigh pupil who secured two gold medals and a silver at the Youth Olympic Games. I added a comment to this post saying how this was great and not to take anything away from Zak's celebration, but it was not the same positive experience for our child and added more of my thoughts and also said that their TrustPilot response said they were 'committed to resolving the matter and they look into this as a matter of urgency' yet no one had contacted us at all.

Meanwhile, we were still receiving those annoying 'pupil concern' emails saying our child had not completed the homework - blah blah blah.  The good thing about LinkedIn is it tells you when you when someone views your profile and the CEO viewed my profile. 

Within a few days, we received a phonecall from a lady who said she was calling 'on behalf' of Kings Interhigh. She sounded genuinely interested to hear about our poor experience, apologising lots and said she was committed to resolving this IF our child did not want to return - she didn't. She asked what was our most favourable outcome and we asked for:

1. The court claim to be dropped with no further action

2. The charges to be dropped and not more money from us claimed

3. The return of our refundable deposit (£1,000).

She said she would do her best to help and would call us again in a few days. 

She did call us back and confirm that she had negotiated the court claim to be dropped AND all charges to be dropped and they would not chase us for any more money.  They said that they would not give us back our refundable deposit though.  We felt this was a positive step forward for them and 2 out 3 wants was better than one or none, we accepted this. 

This lady was actually very good, a great mediator and was a complete professional on the phone. 

I can't find any information about her and I only know her first name and she emailed us using the generic 'contact@kings...' mailbox.  However, because she started the conversation with wanting to hear about our experience and how Harriet was affected mentally and academically, it was refreshing that she was the only one from Kings to do this...to actually listen.

in turn, we treated her in the same way. No shouting, no abuse and we were very thankful, accepted her many apologies and stayed completely professional. I would say that really helped in both our favours. We left with the agreement that she would ensure these actions were processed AND put in writing and that has now happened. End of saga.

For anyone else in the same boat..

.I hope this helps because this has caused no end of stress for us as parents and our child felt very responsible for the position the school put us in. 

Glad it's over and not hanging over our heads anymore.

And we don't have to deal with those annoying 'pupil concern' emails anymore!

 

trustpilot.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Kings Interhigh - Claiming unpaid fees - RESOLVED

can you post up a copy of your court claimform to PDF please 

read upload

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

Posted (edited)

It didn't get that far. 

They sent a series of threatening emails to us from the Credit Controller all called "Re: Debt Recovery Action Imminent" along with our child's name in the subject.

 
Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

what country are you in please?

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

we are a UK based forum.

how you resolved this in spain is of little relevance to UK users though i suspect there never was anything they could have done legal wise anyway, most certainly "she had negotiated the court claim to be dropped AND all charges to be dropped" is BS , there never were any charges .

On 02/03/2024 at 17:38, KingsParent said:

They said that they would not give us back our refundable deposit though.

so you actually lost £1000, quite honestly id find a spannish like forum and go take them to court and get that back.

you didn't really win at all. you got had for £1000.

thread title updated.

dx

 

  • 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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Dealing with Kings Interhigh in Spain - Claiming unpaid fees - RESOLVED but still lost our £1000 refundable deposit

Wow! Never thought I’d be bullied on a consumer support site whilst offering my story to help other parents for no other reason.

Perhaps, before calling this BS, you should take into consideration that the school in question is a school for international students. Students are therefore attending the English GCSE classes from ALL OVER THE WORLD no matter what nationality they are. As long as they can speak English - they can attend classes. Do your research. The contract T&Cs covers the jurisdiction and states that UK law will apply - no matter where a student lives. 

i am have nothing to gain by replying and only wanted to give other parents in similar situations support and a favourable solution.

The total sum that Kings we claiming from us from was approximately £3,000 so yes…on our eyes…this was a win for us. Which is subjective. For us, we are happy. We don’t want the stress of learning the Spanish court system, to pay the costs of taking them to court, to have this subject talked about infront of my daughter who has been suffering herself as a result.

So YES, for us - this is a positive result. I’m really not interested in your view of whether it’s a win. You’re not us. You’re a volunteer and perhaps need the money. Also, I’m sure you may have dealt the phone call in a different way. We feel content that we were able to reach this result without resorting to using bullying tactics like they did.

And like you have here. Why on earth are you even an admin on a help forum with your attitude? I’ve been open, honest, helpful and supportive, followed your rules and I’m also able to back my experience up with proof. Not for me. For others. I do genuinely hope this helps.

i think dx - you have a trust issue and sound unhappy in life. Me? I’m happy, content, £1000 down BUT…I’m not a volunteer so I’ll make that back in time and keep on looking after my children’s health, sanity and education in the way I see fit.

thank you.
 

 

 

 

1HI0_31_rms_20180822.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly, I found a real legal expert warning everyone not to trust the ‘dx chappie’ on this forum who is giving out questionable advice which we’ve just seen. Ironic.

CONSUMERCREDITLITIGATIONANDDEBTCOLLECTION.WORDPRESS.COM

Internet forums provide a wealth of advice and assistance to people who are often faced with a need for legal...

 

3 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

Please don't put personal contact details on the open forum. You don't know how they could be used or abused.

HB

I’ve just been abused by dx on this forum and I’m here to offer support not to be abused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a father of a child at the uk-based international school in question, this story sounds all too familiar and I’ve been reading the various posts on here about the school for some months waiting for a potential solution to appear that did not involve having to appear in court.

However, this thread, which looks like was started with good intentions with a solution, appears to have been highjacked by unhelpful, arrogant forum owners.

Thank you to the parent who first published this post as this is what we needed to see.

I won’t be commenting on the actions of the people managing this forum as we have our own battle with the School to contend with but at least now, my wife and I have a plan and are talking to barristers who are fully trained in mediating effectively.

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH

lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH.

https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7

Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post. 

but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH .

then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created.

all remarkably similar eh?

all appear to be or state..they are in spain...

....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ...

and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid.....

...................

17 hours ago, KingsParent said:

The total sum that Kings we claiming from us from was approximately £3,000

nope you never owed that in the 1st place...

17 hours ago, KingsParent said:

The contract T&Cs covers the jurisdiction and states that UK law will apply - no matter where a student lives. 

wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live.

T&C's are always challengeable under UK law

this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time...

16 hours ago, Another KingsInterhigh Dad said:

and are talking to barristers

why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim.......:whistle:

why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable :pound:deposit you got scammed out of .

people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories'

they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in.

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

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...