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

CCA Agreements (Mark II) PLUS any other topic


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4965 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

  • Replies 550
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

join in......:-)

 

you missed all the fun stuff, which seems to be over

 

any ideas on my little problem ??

 

(please)

 

Dave

 

Thanks Dave -it's the story of my life - I always get to the party after the fun has finished!

 

So on a serious matter, have you looked through the OFT guidelines to see if your agreement has any flaws. I have done that on all of mine and they all have some so then you can deal with the paperwork according to how many and how serious those flaws are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave, I have been back and had another look at your agreement. I don't know too much about the numbers but there does seem to be a lot of them. There may be a flaw or two there. Have you considered the Wilson case and where these figures should be and how they should be described. Some of the venerable members of the CCAA committee may know more about this as they seem to have researched it more than I have.

 

The OFT guidleines you need are these

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft018.pdf

 

Other thoughts I have had based on those guidelines are

- does the wording include a comment about a rebate if the loan is paid off early? I can't actually read the wording on the posting so I'm not too sure

- if your copy is not legible I would always argue that I cannot see if the original was any more legible (and they also could not show the court it was) so unless they can show me otherwise I can only conclude it was NOT and so the agreement is unenforceable (S61) also every copy must be legible too.

- your agreement has cancellation rights and they must have complied with the very strict rules on this. I would be inclined to say that I don't remember getting copies and a cancellation rights notice after execution so they need to prove they did. They will need to prove it to the court if they want to enforce the agreement so it is perfectly reasonable for you to ask to see the evidence now.

- equally copies need to be sent at specific times after the agreement becomes executed and it is just as reasonable to ask for evidence that such copies were sent and when.

- look at the t&c's they sent you. Are they the ones relevant at the time or a more up to date version as is often sent following a S77-79 request. There may be a printer's reference on the document which should include a print date or look at the default charges, if they are £12 you know that it is a very recent one.

You need to be imaginative really, twist those words to make them say what you want. That's what these creditors do so why shouldn't you. That way you may force them to reveal as much of their evidence as you can and that may give you something to work on. If they refuse just tell them you can only assume they do not have the evidence and if they do and the case goes to court the judge will be VERY unhappy to hear they have obstructed you in your reasonable and legitimate requests.

You are welcome to get in touch if you want any more help. If you want to keep it private send me a pm

Good luck. Don't throw the towel in just yet. Make them work really hard for this. After all they have yet to earn all the charges they put on your original loan at the start!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian, I think it was because of S85 (yes I know that's the one they all ignore) because that requires them to send a copy of the agreement with the new card and if they send the agreement with the signature then it would be easy enough to be used fraudulently if intercepted through the post.

 

I have generally moved these sorts of situations on with a comment that whilst they may have fulfilled S77-79 on this point it has highlighted to me that they may be trying to use an unexecuted agreement which is unenforceable. I ask for a copy with the signatures and failing that I shall consider the agreement unenforceable. If it goes to court they would have to produce the signed version and so I stick to the line that this is in dispute and they cannot do anything until court orders the agreement is enforceable. The court would be very unhappy if the creditor refused to give such a copy to me but turned up with it at court so they might just as well send me a copy now. Stress it's not a S77-79 request now but a legitmate question on the validity of the documentation they hold

Mind you so far I have only been told they are not prepared to talk to me anymore and I consider that's a case of the toys are now out of the pram!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have reported Cap One to Trading Standards (amongst others) and have had a couple of interesting telephone calls with them. They are pursuing the criminal offence (her words) although whether it can be pursued will depend on what evidence Cap One can come up with.

 

I have also been told by them that the agreement must be accompanied by the orginal T&C's which I haven't had yet. The last lady who called me was most disgusted with the contents of the letters from Cap One.

 

She also asked me if I was interested in pursuing the criminal offence further if there is no evidence of compliance. I did go through the motions of considering what she asked for a whole second before I said I would!

 

It's early stages yet but I can hope and dream, can't I?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Corn, I'm not sure how it happened either!

Oh yes, it is after all Thursday and the very large glass of wine is now consumed. I am not as coherent as I was and I don't care.

Don't be wounded Corn, you are a helper to me and I couldn't have got where I am now without you.

I was worried you would all hate me for turning to the dark side. Can I still come to the party?

Seriously, thanks for the kind words. You're a gem!

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although a debt is not written off by the CCA requirements, a company is obliged to make certain adjustments in their accounts for the requirement of Accounting Standards to show the debt is irrrecoverable. I suspect once they do that they will take it off their system and stop notifying the CRAs. I am not certain on this but I think it may be worth thinking about

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...