Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • more detest the insurrectional ex variety dx
    • Laura, I was surprised that the Director said that you hadn't appealed twice. I thought that the letter you posted on 24th June was the second appeal and that was to the IAS. And they did say that there was no further appeal possible. Could you please explain how many times you appealed. I am going to read your WS now.
    • In answer to your questions yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK. Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed. In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued. It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site. A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period. I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way.  All they have mentioned is  the incident time which is insufficient. There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself. The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes. if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed. You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.
    • I recently bought some trainers from Sports Direct and was unhappy with them and their extortionate delivery and return postage charges. I tweeted about being unhappy, and received a reply from someone claiming to be from Sports Direct asking me to send my order number and email address by pm, so a claim could be raised. Which I (stupidly) did. The account used Sports Direct's name and branding, and a blue tick.  The following day I received a call from "Sports Direct Customer Service", and with a Kenyan number. They asked for details of the issue, and then sent me an email with a request to install an app called Remitly. They provided me with a password to access the app then I saw that it had been setup for me to transfer £100, and I was asked to enter my credit card number so they could "refund" me. I told them I was uncomfortable with this (to say the least), and was just told to ring them back when I did feel comfortable doing it. Ain't never gonna happen.  I just checked my X account, and the account that sent the message asking for my details is gone. I feel like a complete idiot falling for what was a clear scam. But at least I realised before any real damage was done. if you make a complaint about a company on social media, and you get a reply from someone claiming to be from that company and asking for personal details, tread very carefully.   
    • The good news is that their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012  Schedule 4.. First under Section 9 (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; The PCN does not specify the parking period. AS you rightly say the ANPR times do not include driving to the parking space and then from there back to the exit. And once you include getting children in and out of cars especially if seat belts are involved the time spent parked can be a fair bit less than the ANPR times but still probably nowhere near the time you spent. But that doesn't matter -it's the fact that they failed to comply. Also they failed to ask the keeper to pay the charge.  Their failure means that they cannot now transfer the charge from the diver to the keeper . Only the driver is now liable. As long as UKPA do not know who was driving it will be difficult for them to win in Court as the Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. Particularly as anyone can drive any car if they have the correct insurance. It might be able to get more reasons to contest the PCN if you could get some photos of the signs. both at the entrance and inside the car park. the photos need to be legible and if there are signs that say different things from others that would also be a help.
  • 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

PriorityOne v A&L **GAME OVER **


PriorityOne
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6006 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

Please can you shed some light on the legalities surrounding a non-trading DCA, registered as dormant, when they are a seperate in-house company and have been collecting payments ?

 

Is it true that a company can be non-trading in the sense that it isn't doing business, but is still allowed to have other accounting transactions going through its books, which means that it is not dormant in a legal sense ? Or, would it stand that a dormant company must not have any accounting transactions except specific allowable transactions that can be disregarded. If so, what is allowed ?

 

Would an in-house collection agency be registered correctly at Companies House as non-trading because they are not actually trading in anything (doing business), just collecting debt on behalf of the original creditor ?

 

Also if the debt has not been assigned (sold) to the in-house DCA, then do they have any obligation to comply with the s77/78 requests of a CCA ?... even though they have already been collecting on an account for some time ?

 

Is it true that the in-house DCA would need a seperate registration with the ICO as Data Controllers or, since they are in-house, would they not need a seperate registration for Data Protection Act purposes ?

 

I am under the impression that it may be a different scenario from court action re. bank charges, where there is much less confusion....

 

Apologies for all the q. on a Saturday morning, but I need to send a letter off on Monday to the original creditor of a loan that has been pursued by an in-house DCA for the last 4 years. I really need to get my facts right so that I don't shoot myself in the foot !

 

Thank you for your time....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

If they are accepting payments, which will include a measure of profit for them, they are NOT dormant & to claim such is a criminal offence.

 

Report them to Companies House. They take a very dim view of such behaviour.

 

Have they at any time submitted accounts & when were they formed?

 

It is my understanding that if they are a separate legal entity, even if wholy owned, processing personal data they would need separate registration.

 

However any CCL (Consumer Credit Licence) which they MUST have, could just list the trading names provided a senior officer common to ALL the companies is named in the application.

 

These firms really have to get used to the idea that consumers are now getting tooled up to fight back & WILL check THEM out.......glass houses comes to mind

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Companies House website, it shows that they filed dormant company accounts up until 2005... yet my bank statements clearly show payments being processed by that company. I need to be certain I haven't got this wrong though...

 

They are Global Debt Management Services Limited and now reside in the same building as A & L Finance Ltd (original creditor) in Carlton Park, Narborough. They were somewhere else in Leicester around 2003.... previous correspondence from them shows a different address. I am unsure exactly when they changed premises.... and not sure if it makes any difference to anything anyway.

 

My payments stopped being processed by them back in 2005... and reverted back to being processed by A & L Finance Limited, yet I have 'phoned GDM to make those payments since around 2002.. when they were at a different address. I was never informed of a change of address to Narborough and only found out on here. The only number for Global is an 0870 number.

 

Have no idea why A & L Finance resumed the processing of these payments, but suspect something is not quite right there because there is no mention whatsoever of Global on any of my (incomplete) S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) info. All payments from 1999 are shown as going to A & L Finance Limited.

 

:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like they are providing a service, for which they need a telephone system, people and some computer hardware to keep track of things, they therefore need monies to pay for all this and these has to be recorded and accounted for. If you have information that they have been collecting monies in their own right, I would report them to the Revenue. You could maybe provide them demands for monies they have sent you, and payments you have made into their account. I see them in the same way as Insurance brokers or travel agents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Humbleman,

 

A & L Finance Ltd are threatening to go for a charge on my home, despite making regular payments to them and Global since the loan was taken out in 1999. The SAR info. came back yesterday, but there is hardly anything there.... and no mention of Global at all.

 

I need to send a letter on Monday to remind A & L Finance of their obligations under the SAR, remind them that the account is still in dispute, but I also want to get them off my back re. a property charge. If I can indicate that I may have evidence re. the trading activities of Global over the past few years, they may just drop everything.

 

I am just sick of being bullied by companies who think they have more power than me.

 

I need to log off here now, but will be on later.

 

All advice gratefully received.... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have not already done it send a CCA putting the debt in dispute. That should stop them from seeking a charging order.

 

Have they recognised the payments you made to Global...... Is it possible that your payments never reached the A&L accounts?

 

Also it could always be possible their not mentioning Global could be because they where trading fraudulently such as whilst dormant........interesting no!

Link to post
Share on other sites

you are misunderstanding the use of dormant companies, these companies will be 100% owned by the bank in this case, they will have no costs and only using the name to confuse and make you think this has been escalated to a outside firm, if it was any different the audit would pick it up, banks do not try to conceal things from the auditors as it really would be a step to far. there is nothing wrong with his and it one of the many reasons one would hold a dormant company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have not already done it send a CCA putting the debt in dispute. That should stop them from seeking a charging order.

 

Have they recognised the payments you made to Global...... Is it possible that your payments never reached the A&L accounts?

 

Also it could always be possible their not mentioning Global could be because they where trading fraudulently such as whilst dormant........interesting no!

 

I have already CCA'd Global... and they defaulted, but cashed the cheque. I also CCA'd A & L... and they also defaulted, but returned the cheque to me.... I assumed this was becasue the CCA would be in with the SAR info. but there was nothing. There has been no CCA from anyone, but for now... I am only reminding A & L Finance that the account is in dispute because of their non-compliance with the SAR.

 

Payments to Global definately reached the A & L Loan account. They went through Global (debit card payments and cheques made out to Global) for around 2/3 years, but there is no reference of them going through Global first on my loan account statement. So to me, it does sound like Global were trading during this period of time...

 

Also, as they are a seperate limited company from A & L Finance Limited, I have read that they would need a separate license/registration with the ICO because licenses cannot be transferred/shared between companies.

 

As for the Data Protection Act, 1988.... at no time was I asked for my permission for them to process my data in the way that they have.

 

I find it hard to believe that all of these activities have been lawful ?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been advised of the following :

 

Companies House only registers Ltd companies.

 

GDM can be a dormant/non-trading Ltd company at Companies House, but the name GDM without the Ltd can be used as a trading name of A & L.

 

If the letters from GDM state Ltd after the name and they are down as dormant/non-trading, then they are in trouble. However, if there is no Ltd then they are 'trading as' which is fine.

 

They are Global Debt Management Services Limited.

 

Any comments re. the above ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been advised of the following :

 

Companies House only registers Ltd companies.

 

GDM can be a dormant/non-trading Ltd company at Companies House, but the name GDM without the Ltd can be used as a trading name of A & L.

 

If the letters from GDM state Ltd after the name and they are down as dormant/non-trading, then they are in trouble. However, if there is no Ltd then they are 'trading as' which is fine.

 

They are Global Debt Management Services Limited.

 

Any comments re. the above ?

 

You are right.

 

all ltd comapnies are construed as a seperate legal entity in their own rights, whether 1%, 2% or wholly owned by another ltd comapny, they need to account for their activities, no 2 ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right.

 

all ltd comapnies are construed as a seperate legal entity in their own rights, whether 1%, 2% or wholly owned by another ltd comapny, they need to account for their activities, no 2 ways.

 

FANTASTIC !!! I can now send my letter as planned... and give the barstewards a bit of the CAG treatment !

 

:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no need to argue I'm not the one sending a letter, I have a deep understanding of both insolvency and company law, send and do as you wish, but you are simply wasting your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why am I wasting my time ? Are you saying that separate limited companies are not required to declare their trading status... and can share a license with the Information Commissioners Office with another limited company ?

 

I am not intending to take them to court... just want them off my case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, they can to all of the above.

and can share a license with the Information Commissioners Office with another limited company ?
One license for group

 

Are you saying that separate limited companies are not required to declare their trading status

 

No I am not saying this they have declared, it is dormant. A company is Dormant if it does not trade. In some cases, the company may appear to be doing business, but this is simply as part of a group or acting on behalf of a Holding Company. A dormant company may not trade on its own account. Sending letters is allowed, the money is then collected by it holding company and as such has not traded, all the costs can be met by it holding company directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, people have jumped on this as far as they see dormant means dormant, and black is black, and they want to feel empowered over the debt collection agencies that have brought them worry. But this is a red herring.

 

Company law is not simple and when people start to think of it as a simple law, they start to make statements like above

 

all ltd companies are construed as a separate legal entity in their own rights, whether 1%, 2% or wholly owned by another ltd company, they need to account for their activities, no 2 ways.

this is right, but what the poster failed to account for by filling as dormant they have accounted for the companies activities.
Link to post
Share on other sites

although this said and confusingly 7499 (Non-trading company) can be the "Nature of Business"

 

EDIT: this is not the same as a dormant company and companies trading use this SIC code, only really used when the company does not really trade, not unlike what you are on about as they are selling nothing and buying nothing just collecting money. A common one is when a company is set up to be billed for all the goods in a production chain and then the holding company would do production this why if the purchasing company should go belly up the production company is still safe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read you edited post and hear what you say.. Global are indeed down as 7499 - non trading and filing dormant company accounts. What I cannot get my head round is why their name is showing on my bank statements as the processor of my debit card payments... which then went to A & L Finance.

 

I can't understand why that cannot be seen as trading when their name is on my bank statements. I cannot understand how that is being dormant either.

 

A company tax lawyer seemed very interested in activities like these quite recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a legal problem, the easy way would be to buy the company report and see if they declared the dormant company is an agent of the holding company. But you most remember banks are very highly audited more then any other sector, this would not get past the auditors. Also dont forget the Payee can be adjusted by the bank receiving the money on any chq.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a legal problem, the easy way would be to buy the company report and see if they declared the dormant company is an agent of the holding company. But you most remember banks are very highly audited more then any other sector, this would not get past the auditors. Also dont forget the Payee can be adjusted by the bank receiving the money on any chq.

 

They have it all in their favour... one law for them and another for us. They can adjust the payee ? :-o They wouldn't need to adjust the payee if it was a legal way of doing business. I am not picking at what you say Zooman... just frustrated and cross....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it helps at all, l have a disputed debt with A&L.

 

Global Debt Management Services LTD are their in-house debt collection agency.

 

I have a letter dated 25 October 2006 from Global Debt Management service LTD (in big bold blue letters) and signed by 'Mrs Wesson For & on behalf of Global Debt Management Service LTD.

 

They are clearly trading as a limited company. Go get them. Regards.....Bob Valdez

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...