Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You will probably get a couple more reminders followed by further demands fro unregulated debt collectors with even increasing amounts to pay. They are all designed to scare you into paying.  Don't. It's a scam site and they do not know who was driving and they know the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. Also the shop was closed so they have no legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear. So to charge £100 is a penalty as there is no legitimate interest which means that the case would be thrown out if it went to Court.  Keep your money in your wallet and be prepared to ignore all their letters and threats. Doubtful they would go to Court since a lot more people would not pay when they heard  MET lost in Court. However they may just send you a Letter of Claim to test your resolve.  If yoy get one of those, come back to us and we will advise a snotty letter to send them.  You probably already have, but take a look through some of our past Met PCNs to see how they are doing.
    • Hello, been a while since I posted on here, really hoping for the same support an advice I received last time :-) Long, long story for us, but basically through bad choices, bad luck and bad advice ended up in an IVA in 2016. The accounts involved all defaulted, to be expected. In 2018, I got contacted by an 'independent advisor' advising me that I shouldn't be in an IVA, that it wasn't the solution for our circumstances and that they would guide us through the process of leaving the IVA and finding a better solution. I feel very stupid for taking this persons advice, and feel they prey on vulnerable people for their own financial gain (it ended with us paying our IVA monthly contribution to them)-long and short of it our IVA failed in 2018. At the same time the IVA failed we also had our shared ownership property voluntarily repossessed (to say this was an incredibly stressful time would be an understatement!) When we moved to our new (rented) property in August 2018, I was aware that creditors would start contacting us from the IVA failure. I got advice from another help website and started sending off SARs and CCAs request letters. I was advised not to bury my head and update our address etc and tackle each company as they came along. Initially there was quite a lot of correspondence, and I still get a daily missed call from PRA group (and the occasional letter from them), but not much else. However, yesterday i had a letter through from Lowell (and one from Capital One) advising that they had bought my debt and would like to speak with me regarding the account. There will be several.of these through our door i suspect, as we did have several accounts with Capital One. Capital One have written to us with regular statements over the last 5 years, and my last communication with them was to advise of of our new address (June 2019), I also note that all of these accounts received a small payment in Jan2019 (i'm assuming the funds from the failed IVA pot). Really sorry for the long long post, but just thought id give (some of) the background for context.... I guess my question at the moment is.....how do I respond to Lowell...do I wait for the inevitable other letters to arrive then deal with them all together or individually...? Do I send them a CCA?  Many thanks
    • hi all just got the reminder letter, I have attached it and also the 2nd side of the original 1st pcn (i just saw the edit above) Look forward to your advice Thanks   PCN final reminder.pdf pcn original side 2.pdf
    • The airline said it was offering to pay $10,000 to those who sustained minor injuries.View the full article
    • The Senate Finance Committee wants answers from BMW over its use of banned Chinese components by 21 June.View the full article
  • 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

Kev's Appeal


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6222 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

The FOS have changed their position in recent years on looking at matters that had been litigated, they now have discretion.

 

The following information is taken from Ombudsman news - issue 32 - October 2003:

“Insurance firms occasionally try to insist that we cannot look at complaints about underwriting matters, or where legal proceedings have been issued. These misconceptions are a legacy from the past. The Terms of Reference of one of our predecessors, the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau, precluded such cases. However, the FSA rules give us wider powers and such cases are not outside our jurisdiction. They are, however, among the types of cases that we can, under the rules, decline to deal with”.

 

Incidently and unfortunately Kevin Berwick's case is unsuitable for appeal to the high court as fresh evidence cannot be admitted, you can only appeal on a point of law.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of interest would you be willing to take him on a no win no fee basis? What with your current relationship with Judge Cooke that could be a lot of fun!

 

Indeed :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guidot,

Excellent piece of information. But can we close the thread before it becomes another slanging match which keeps going to the top to the detriment of everybody else?

I now try to keep off any threads which have any reference to Kev, Cooke or podgy. Unfortunately, newcomers do go onto these threads, post questions, get no replies and go away. Not what we are here for is it?

broke dave v LTSB WON £3840 2 weeks before court.

Mrs broke dave v Barclays accepted offer £355.

broke dave v LTSB (Business) Prelim stage.

broke dave v LTSB (2nd Claim) LBA stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guidot,

Excellent piece of information. But can we close the thread before it becomes another slanging match which keeps going to the top to the detriment of everybody else?

I now try to keep off any threads which have any reference to Kev, Cooke or podgy. Unfortunately, newcomers do go onto these threads, post questions, get no replies and go away. Not what we are here for is it?

 

Then they should look here for a far more upbeat theme

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/93886-joint-cag-mse-news.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nic,

Yes, I agree!!!

But shouldn't it be on a sticky or an announcement. Otherwise the thread just rambles on and on. There is often really good stuff on these general threads that just get lost in the argy bargy of who is right or wrong. Most of us just then ignore the threads and miss some of the really good points that the likes of you make.

broke dave v LTSB WON £3840 2 weeks before court.

Mrs broke dave v Barclays accepted offer £355.

broke dave v LTSB (Business) Prelim stage.

broke dave v LTSB (2nd Claim) LBA stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not looking for an argument, I was just surprised to read the press release in light of some conversations I had last week with the FOS. I also found it interesting as I have read on here many times people telling posters not to bother using the FOS as they are a waste of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...