Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (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; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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 does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Please help! Lowell/Smile CA turned up!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6170 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

Thanks Rory I thought it was the case but one needs to be sure. So 2 unenforcables - I got a Barclaycard Student Application form from Cabot - and 5 no shows. Not a word from Fredrickson International/Bryan Carter re: CCA on NatWest overdraft, nothing from 1st credit, 2 holding letters from CapQuest and 1 from Lowells and this time next week the SAR on HBOS will have reached 40 days.

 

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good so far!!

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That 'credit agreement' is exactly the same as Smile have just sent me.

 

It lacks two prescibed terms:

 

1. No interest rate - it does state an interest for transferred balances but not a general interest rate for the card.

2. No credit limit - not even a statement of how this will be determined.

 

This type of 'agreement' is COMPLETELY unenforceable, even in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to cancel, as well as default charges, are missing. However, neither of these are prescribed terms and wouldn't make an agreement completely unenforceable. Luckily for us, the lack of interest rate and credit limit do this perfectly well!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried this Andrew. It's asking me for a duration of the agreement which there isn't and the repayments which there are not and the total amount payable, which there isn't so I have don't know for APR, 60 months just to get a figure in there and constant regular payment of 0, and £500 as the total amount of credit, though it doesn't say it on the form.

 

Very scant info but the verdict is:

 

YOUR CREDIT AGREEMENT MAY BE UNENFORCEABLE

(The Court is precluded from making an enforceability order)

 

The assessment table below shows that there are certain terms on your credit agreement that are in breach the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Regulations.

 

The court is precluded from making an enforcement order if the rules and regulations on signing an agreement are not complied with unless a document containing all the prescribed terms was signed by the debtor. The court is also precluded if certain provisions relating to cancellation were not complied with.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a helpful site for people though Ian and we are going to try to work through some really clear and simple FAQ's for people in the Deed of Assignment thread. Maybe you would like to help too? All valuable knowledge will help :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, I don't doubt that the test is helpful, but I was simply making the point that these Smile agreements are clearly unenforceable without running it through the test.

 

There is a problem with that page, though, in that it won't accept a huge number of agreements because they are missing some of the information that it requires. It needs an option to say that something is simply not on the agreements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Vampyra, found you, no need to answer in DOA:p

LTSB court date 25/7/07

17/7/07 I WON I WON I WON!!!!:p :grin:

HSBC court date 11/9/07 (stayed)

CapOne lba 7/1/08-15/3/08 WON.

Citicards lba 14/1/08

 

Read Read and Read Some:razz: More

 

If I've been helpful in anyway please tip my scales:rolleyes:

 

Please note that this advice is given informally, without liability and without prejudice. Seek the advice of an insured qualified professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A non-executable piece of paper resembling a CA was sent from Lowells from Co-Op Smile.

 

It arrived after the default date but just inside the criminal offence date - however I would argue I requested a fully & correctly executed copy of my CA and they didn't provide this within the 42 day limit so they have, in all logic committed an offence.

 

I sent a letter out to them stating this and that they cannot persue this debt whilst it is in default. Also as they have been unable to prove the debt is owed by way of a properly executed CA and no proof that they even own the debt, I asked them to set the balance to zero and cease processing my data.

 

I also stated that :"Should you attempt to pursue any legal action on this account against me it will be averred that the proceedings of the claim are both unlawful and vexatious for the reasons above."

 

I recieved this in reply:

 

Dear Miss Vampyra

 

We have now referred your account to our client for their autherisation that legal action be commenced against you and we expect an answer from them within the next 10 days.

 

If you contact us now and negotiate settlement of your account by way of full and final settlement or a monthly repayment plan we will submit your proposal to our client and await their final decision. This will also delay or halt any potential legal action being taken against you which may be by way of BANKRUPTCY proceedings should your balance exceed the involvency threshold.

 

We do not intend to correspond with you further regarding this matter, unless you enter into an agreement with us for re-payment of the debt. Any further correspondance may then be from the court if legal action is commenced against you, (if this is seen as a viable option), or from a licenced Field Agent who may call at your property during a period to be notified to youto either collect the outstanding debt or assess your means with a view to continuing with any permitted action to recover the debt.

 

Call NOW on telephone number 0845 279 7122

 

Your sincerely

A. Turd

 

OK people, another company refusing to acknowledge the Data Protection Act request and anything to do with the fact that they can't collect.

 

Your thoughts and input please! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely this is just another frightener??

 

Stick to your guns and slap it into them. If they were going to take court action they would have done it to pre-empt anything you may be planning. I think you've got them on the ropes.

 

MR A TURD?????? :grin: :grin:

 

Laughed so loud, my boss came over to see what I was doing.........:eek: 8)

 

 

Go get 'em Vamps.

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The threat of bankcruptcy (which would benefit neither party) is usually the last act of them throwing their toys out of the pram.

 

We have now referred your account to our client for their autherisation that legal action be commenced against you and we expect an answer from them within the next 10 days.

Rather non commital that there will be any legal action.

 

Any further correspondance may then be from the court if legal action is commenced against you, (if this is seen as a viable option),

 

Even more vague.....don't they know whether it's viable? I thought they were professionals :p

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

MR A TURD?????? :grin: :grin:

 

Laughed so loud, my boss came over to see what I was doing.........:eek: 8)

 

 

Go get 'em Vamps.

 

Well we are not allowed to write their real names are we? :D

 

The threat of bankcruptcy (which would benefit neither party) is usually the last act of them throwing their toys out of the pram.

Rather non commital that there will be any legal action.

Even more vague.....don't they know whether it's viable? I thought they were professionals :p

 

Indeed!

 

I assume and I know assumption isn't clever, but I assume they have sent the original letter I sent to Lowells onto the Co-Op and they are looking into whether it's worth bothering with.

 

Isn't the insolvency threshold £750 anyway? I may be wrong here, but this is for less than that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the insolvency threshold £750 anyway?

Yes but most DCA's seem to think they can make you bankrupt for anything over £3.50.

 

Got your PM - I'll give you a reply later.

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

BEWARE OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANIES OFFERING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS.

 

 

Please note opinions given by rory32 are offered informally as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are alot of ifs and mays in the letter, stick to you guns and fight them with the rubbish CA "if" they go to court. I got a court threat where there was no proper CA for La Redoute and I responded with a "bring it on" letter ..... still waiting for my summons which was threatened about 6 or 7 weeks ago, that letter had "if" and "may" in it too !! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...