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

Family home + no will + share


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Sorry, but:

a) this appears to have been dragging on for some 13 years (is that a record for a CAG thread??)

b) OP (who I've previously wondered if they are a 'wind-up' merchant), decided (according to what they said in this thread) to "joke" about seeing a solicitor, and that thst solicitor entered into a physical / borderline sexual relationship with them. Hilarous joke, if they have £50k at stake, .....   (posts around no. 130, if people want to review).

So, even if it isn't a wind-up:

i) OP should have involved a solicitor, years ago, and if they haven't: are up a creek

ii) I'm not sure anything OP says can be trusted, so on that basis, how can anyone offer advice?.

Let OP go to a solicitor. If someone wants to waste their time trying to offer advice: at least you've been warned, and its your decision if you want to waste your time.

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

its bigots like you make it difficult for people like me.

it is people like you who make it hard for people seeking help.

it is people like you who put off abused victims or other types of victims from seeking help.

if someone wants to help please do so. if not fine. however dont listen this bigot at all.

i cant explain everything! most vital points of why are personal? and not helpful to te question.

i will wait for few days then seek help else where.

too many forums are toxic environments.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes my reply bigoted?

I don’t know your gender, religion, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or anything else about you to make me / my reply bigoted. If you gave a ‘protected characteristic’ now : why should anyone believe it given your posting history and lies?

So, my conclusion is you are trolling and / or deluded.

if you believe I’m bigoted / my reply shows bigotry : report my post for it and let the site team decide.

I’ve commented on the facts. People can look at the start date of this thread, your posts during it, and your false claims about the solicitor.

So, they’ll see you are either

a) trolling, and/or

b) couldn’t lie straight in bed. The thing is, you forget what lies you have told, so you aren’t that good a liar.

I’m keen to help people, but wind up merchants / people who just lie : they waste the time of those who otherwise might help people who really need it.

 

If you are threatening to ‘stomp off’ and go troll elsewhere: fill ya boots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My responses don’t prevent others replying : it isn’t “either /or”, so I don’t need to shut up, provided my posts meet site rules (see above about reporting them to the site team)

The good news is people can make up their own mind if it looks like you are trolling, based on YOUR posts / behaviour.

I can accept that me pointing out why you are just out to waste their time, then allows them to choose to reply or not ; yup, agreed.

If you are trolling as part of a team : can we expect some recently joined members with a low post count to rush in to stir things up?

Edited by BazzaS
Link to post
Share on other sites

doubt it.

you've had god knows how many years to take this to court and prove the documents giving away your 50% inheritance of (this) your mothers home from what was clearly stated in her will, of which you were the sole executor of, were faked by your brother.

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...