Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   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;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
  • 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

NCO Europe/RMA


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5967 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

After being hassled by RMA/NCO I have sent off a complaint to the OFT and my CAB Money Advisor has contacted West Yorkshire Trading Standards. These companies, or should be company (as RMA and NCO are one and the same) are just full of numpties who think that harassing vulnerable people for money is okay.

 

So, I'm hoping that something will be done about these sharks!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Join the club.

I'm currently working with TS about these "people".

They have completely ignored my requests to stop calling me numerous times a day, upto 5 times in one day.

 

In the end I talked to BT and they kindly changed my number free of charge.

They where extremely helpful and appologetic.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

leedsangel, you should also contact the police with reference to harrassment. A visit from Mr Plod tends to focus the mind.

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

Hi leedsangel :)

 

Not had dealings with this particular bunch, but am in a similar situation with 3 other very well known bullying DCAs.

 

Stick to your guns and follow the correct advice from this site and other sources and you'll feel the weight/pressure/stress lifting as soon as you act.

 

Would advise rory32 's advise re: police for harassement as this is very serious and can have detremental effects on your life and health.

 

Good luck and best wishes,

 

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason that they are so aggressive and relentless is because in reality they have no powers whatsoever, so they try as hard as possible to bully the vulnerable

 

think toothless pirhana ;)

post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

these people are a joke. The problem for them is that through great sites like this people are now aware they are a joke. They are becoing less effective.

 

Companies that condone and endorse their procedures by employing them are surely questionable as well.

 

Their business must becoming such hard work - thus less profitable hah hah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard, always a pleasure for you to interject :)

 

I have not dealt with the said companies per sae but would hope that leedsangel pm's you.

 

Richard is one of the "good eggs" on this site.

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

well done ive had hell with rma so much i changed land line and mobile number its fantastic now its the only way to deal with these idiots.

i wonder when ts the oft and anyone else is going to start doing their job?:confused:

regards

 

out of cash

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you complain to TS and the OFT out of cash? Sometimes you have to push them a bit to get the result you want.

 

If you've got any relevant info could you pm Richard.

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

Out of Cash, give TS a call.

I've currently got an action going against these "people" as they completely ignore everything I have to say.

TS have been very helpful and easy to talk to.

Be VERY careful whose advice you listen too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi, sorry to jump on the band wagon however I feel really strongly against RMA /NCO they are ruthless, and comparable to a steam roller, however I agree with various postings that I am now starting to believe that this company as cruel and harrassing as they can be are not as powerful as I once thought.

They have 3 working days left to provide me with a true copy of the original cca or I cancel my standing order to them.

Lets get 'em!!

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just thought I would do a post to clarify some of the current legislation on harassment and what constitutes harassment. Hope it helps.

 

It is a criminal offence to leave grossly offensive messages over telephone or make indecent or obscene or menacing telephone calls or calls which cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety - Telecommunications Act 1984 . The criminal courts may in certain circumstances treat such harassment as grievous bodily harm if psychological damage results.

 

the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 makes it a criminal offence to pursue a course of conduct, which amounts to harassment of a person. This Act also creates a civil statutory tort of harassment, which enables a person to obtain a civil court injunction to stop harassment occurring and to claim damages where appropriate. This is a very important piece of legislation which can potentially provide protection in neighbourhood disputes, cases of racial harassment, bullying at work, confrontation with the media or stalking, as well as hate mail and persistent unwanted telephone calls.

 

Harassment is not defined in the Protection from Harassment Act and so it will be a matter for assessment based on each case. It has been established that publication of a series of newspaper articles by a newspaper can constitute a course of conduct amounting to harassment. However, there must be a course of conduct in order to bring a claim. This means that there must be at least two incidents representing harassment - i.e. more than one telephone call - and the person who is carrying out the harassment must know or ought to know that it would amount to harassment.

 

Hate mail is usually anonymous, but if it can be traced the sender can also be prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 . This makes it an offence to send a letter or other article which conveys an indecent or grossly offensive message or a threat, or which contains information known to be false and the purpose of the letter is to cause distress or anxiety. The category of communications under this Act has now been expanded - by virtue of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 - to include electronic communications or articles of any description. This new definition will cover hate telephone calls, emails or text messages.

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

This post is spot on.

 

One of my employers is currently taking legal action against a debtor. He left a VERY threatening message on an answerphone. Something about coming round to 'punch the solicitors lights out' when, 'he least expected it'. They are indeed prosecuting under this act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

Sorry to jump in, but I have had dealings with RMA.

 

They do back off if you get agressive by letter, especially if you have not had instructions by thr origional creditor and you tell them so in no uncertain terms. Also they do not like CCA requests they cannot usually produce the goods.

 

Look out for the post card from them about calling, its a joke they dont even put the date they will be calling just the day and time.....

 

You will then find the debt will be refered to another DCA

 

Cashin:D :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cashin, thank you for the info re RMA, and their general inability to produce relevant paperwork. Good to know, as they cashed my cheque on the 7th June, and are running out of time. I did send them a letter regarding telephoning me which they have blatantly ignored, which is currently what I am doing with their phone calls :)

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had dealings with this arrogant firm. They prey on your ignorance of the law. I sent them the letter below and have heard nothing from them since.

 

Dear Sirs

Thank you for your letter dated 1st May 2007.

I will not be agreeing any suitable terms of payment with you as the account is in dispute with Barclays Bank and has been for some time.

I will be however contacting the Office of Fair Trading about the way your company carries out its business and totally ignores the guidelines set down by the OFT which you are legally required to follow.

These include;

1. On more than one occasion your staff have tried to make me borrow money from family or friends to pay off the debt. (2.6.b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing).

2. Not disclosing who they are when telephoning just saying “A company from Preston” and trying to hide behind the Data Protection Act – which is absolute rubbish. (2.2c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, and what the purpose of the contact is).

3. Members of your staff telling me inaccurate and false information on what your company can and can’t do.(2.2b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors' lack of knowledge).

 

As it seems your staff are either ill trained or misinformed about what the legal status of a debt when in dispute I will point it out to you.

You may not try to collect monies.

B. You may not put a default on the account.

C. You may not take legal action to try to recover this debt.

D. You may not contact the debtor in relation to the debt.

IN FUTURE I WILL ONLY COMMUNICATE WITH YOU IN WRITING FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND EVIDENTIAL PURPOSES.

If I receive any phone calls from your company I will consider it as harassment, and I will report you to OFCOM, Trading Standards and The Office of Fair Trading, as you will be in breach of the Communications Act (2003) s.127 meaning that you will be liable to a substantial fine.

Be advised that any further telephone calls from your company will be recorded.

It's nice when you can stick it to these ar**holes.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy am i glad i looked at this thread! I've had a few strange calls recently where no-one talks although i can hear them breathing or it's an automated call. Last week i searched the number on t'internet and came up with RMA who i'd never heard of. Today i've traced another number to NCO. Having read this i now realise they're one and the same.

 

Which companies do they usually 'work for'?

 

God they just never stop popping up do they? :x

I'm midway through the tunnel, but getting closer to the light.

 

 

 

Please be aware that i am not an expert in anything!

I may offer an opinion, but the final decision is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Hopeful1, I am pleased that you stumbled accross this thread and I hope that you will realise how nasty these DCAs are. they are dealing with my Barclaycard, if that helps!!

I would never phone them back, (especially as it is an 0870 which they want you to call), only deal in writing, and stay strong!! Oh I could rant and rave, but am not going to!!!!!

Not sure who elso they work for though.

Good luck

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Red. The only thing i can think of is my Barclayloan. I missed some payments but have made them the last 2 months. The trouble is i haven't been able to pay my arrears. I've also stopped paying a lot of my income from going into my account because they've taken money out before and left me really short for the week.

 

My other thought is that i have sent 4 CCAs and only had 1 response, so it could be that 1 of the no show ones have passed debt on.

 

I can only wait and see.

 

P.S. Sorry, i don't mean to hijack this thread.

I'm midway through the tunnel, but getting closer to the light.

 

 

 

Please be aware that i am not an expert in anything!

I may offer an opinion, but the final decision is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI again hopeful1, you are no more hijacking this thread than I but it is all relevant. I also had a problem with the CCAs in RMA/NCOs case, when I checked on-line there was no record that they had received my letter i.e. no signature however the ******* have cashed the cheque so I know that they have received. Does sound relevant regarding your Barclay card loan. These DCAs are devillish. I have received a threatening solicitors letter today ..... more later, I am FUMING!!!!:mad:

My advice so far from what you have put is to make sure that whatever form of payment you have sent along with CCAs has or has not been cashed, and go from there.

Red

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5967 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...