Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. Welcome to CAG. How was the car purchased?  
    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
  • 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

Civil Enforcement Ltd (again!)


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4793 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

Anyone know what case this was, when, and if genuine?

 

UK Parking Control - Court Case

 

It is the totally discredited and much lied about Combined Parking Solutions v Stephen Thomas case (where Thomas admitted he was the driver on this very site and appeared to deny it in court leading to the inevitable decision). This note was issued by Perky when he was putting himself foward to the BPA AOS as "legal expert" on the basis of this "landmark case"(they quickly saw through him). I'm having a bit of deja vu today - all roads seem to lead to Perky propaganda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Anyone know what case this was, when, and if genuine?

 

For balance, 3 parking companies have lost 8 of their 8 cases in the last 6 months.

 

The problem is that reporting them leads to the false impression that these companies take people to court regularly, which isn't the case.

 

The parking company clowns are so thrilled when they take down some clueless member of the public, they conveniently omit to mention that they've lost every other one and still make a net loss as a result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The parking company clowns are so thrilled when they take down some clueless member of the public, they conveniently omit to mention that they've lost every other one and still make a net loss as a result.

Plus the thousands they dare not try their hand with who they just 'write off', it then doesn't see, such a great victory.

regards

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

 

I've visited the forum a few times, but i'm a first time poster.

 

Civil Enforcment Ltd, Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool, L2 3PF

 

My partner has just received a 'Parking Charge Notice' for returning to her car 11 mins late!

 

Her car was parked in Castlegate Retail Park, St Johns Street, Huddersfield, HD1, they offer 90mins for free, and she was 11 mins late!

 

The are demanding 60 pound if she pays within 14 days, 120 within 28 days, if a payment isn't received, they will forward the account to a debt recovery agency.

 

Any advice on action / what response we should give?

 

Sorry if this question has already been covered.

 

Regards,

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received one of these tickets from 'Civil Enforcement Ltd' and have written to McDonalds twice and received 2 replies back, from their head office in Finchley.

 

The ticket is now up to £125 and there is no way I'm paying it. It was issued at McDonalds in Buck Barn service station Horsham. The joke of it is that this service station is on a busy main road and there is no reason to park there other than buy some food. McDonalds have said that they have to employ these people to stop people abusing the car park! It is ridiculous.

 

McDonalds advised me to write to the agency so I have now written to 'Civil Enforcement Ltd' (I like the way they have named themselves to look like a legal entity). I am more than prepared to go to court over this.

 

McDonalds have said they are concerned by my inconvenience!

 

I stayed for an hour and a half and bought a bacon roll and two cups of coffee as did the friend I hadn't seen for 8 months as we were catching up and chatting, seems reasonable doesn't it? How many other resturants impose a time limit on catching up with a mate!

 

In my opinion, someone should set up a website boycotting McDonalds until they get rid of these crooks from their car parks.

 

People go to McDonalds to buy resonably priced food and then they charge them £75+ if they don't eat it quick enough, times are supposed to be financially tough, and they are making things tougher for people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote from UKPC website:

 

"Many forums/sites advise people to ignore tickets, some advise them to send standard letters to deny liability for the ticket and other outrageous defences to avoid paying a charge. A £60 parking charge is a very minor issue (my emphasis!) ............"

 

 

It is more like £150 with many companies but even £60 is hardly "very minor" to most people who would think carefully before spending this on even a durable item rather than a few minutes of parking. It MIGHT be minor to millionaire car park cowboys (I wanted a cowboy outfit when I was a boy but have outgrown them now!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree utterly and completely with Steephill.

This is extortion by another name.

We are adult, reasonably intelligent people and yet these 'car parking control' firms insult us by assuming that we would handover £60+ for occupying a small patch of ground. We were not blocking the highway or preventing the landowner from doing something more ethically productive with their land, just there for merely minutes!

Perhaps, our criticism shouldn't just be for CEL and all its minions but also the private landowners who employ this sort of shoddy company (in my opinion) in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - the stores and the site landlord, if different, must be aware by now what is going on and so are guilty by association of upsetting their customer base. As I have said before, buying on-line is so easy and convenient it seems daft to drive customers away from shopping in stores but this will be the ultimate result. Then the amount of rip-off charges will pale into insignificance as profits fall and, perhaps, stores go out of business (car parks too!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having the same experience with Civil Enforcement Ltd at a Homebase store.

 

Homebase have been totally useless and Civil Enforcement are getting hard and heavy.

 

A number of forums have said that this is a contract matter and therefore these "Notices" are in fact invoices for the use of the car park which you should reject and refuse to pay (in writing, if you need evidence at a later date).

 

As a contract matter, they may indeed be in breach of the Unfair Contract Terms Legislation by demanding such exorbitant amounts for such a (parking) service, without the agreement of the consumer (us folks).

 

Either way I'm looking forward to my day in court - if they every get to that stage.

 

In the meantime they have put a Debt Collection agency on the case who is now demanding £238 for 23 minutes of extra parking !!!!

 

They know where they can put their demands.....

Edited by Bruce Martyn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a draft of the letter I used - feel free to use / improve as you see fit.

 

I enclosed a photocopy of their original parking notice as the "Invoice" with this letter.

 

 

 

To: Civil Enforcement Ltd, Horton House ......................

 

 

Your Ref:

 

To whom it may concern.

 

With reference to your invoice dated the xxth January 2010 (copy enclosed) and subsequent invoices submitted by you in this regard, following further advice, we hereby notify you that we do not accept this or any related invoices and have no intention of paying any such invoice(s).

 

Yours faithfully,

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

I await their reply - which I will probably ignore.

Edited by Bruce Martyn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got one of these the other day.

 

Newlyn can't take any action other than to refer it back to Civil enforcement suggesting that they take legal action.

 

Just ignore it and any other heavy handed notices from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

 

Then let the court decide.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Got one of these the other day.

 

Newlyn can't take any action other than to refer it back to Civil enforcement suggesting that they take legal action.

 

Just ignore it and any other heavy handed notices from Civil Enforcement Ltd.

 

Then let the court decide.......

 

Do you thinkl it would go to court??

Link to post
Share on other sites

People go to McDonalds to buy resonably priced food and then they charge them £75+ if they don't eat it quick enough, .

 

I assume that's why they call it Fast Food.

Seriously though, I think there's rather a warm glow to be had from knowing that these PPCs can threaten all they want but can't actually do very much. I can't wait for my next letter :)

I do feel for the poor sods who panick and pay though and I just wish that more people could/would research their options prior to capitulating to empty threats from bullying money grabbers.

Cheers

DJ67

Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt it would go to court.

 

With a significant number of failed cases (refer to earlier parts of this thread) I doubt they will want to risk further losses.

 

The Martin Lewis web site has some good guidance on this matter.

Edited by Bruce Martyn
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK after several CEL letters, now on my second Newlyn one:

 

"NOTICE OF COURT ACTION" is the heading which is scarey but rest of text just says "we have no alternative but to pass back to client, who will proceed with any action" so suddenly goes a bit soft and puts your mind at rest. On the face of it Newlyn have sent one letter, which was ignored and are now admitting defeat. Seriously if they were a real debt recovery agency and were working for me I would expect a little more effort than that.

 

'fine' now up to £238.15.

 

Original 'notice' was issued against the company car which was allegedly parked at MK HUB 15th November, so going on 5 months now so hoping end is in sight.

 

They still make no mention of the fact they have switched the offence address from Silbury to Averbury boulevard where the car park they perform extortion in is actually situated, not as per original 'fine'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have had one of these £75 fines from CEL for parking in McDonalds in East Grinstead. I went over the 75mins by 10 minutes, so annoyed!! whats worse is that my sister in law that stayed over by 25mins has had hers cancelled. She complained to McDonalds and they emailed company on her behalf and that seemed to work, not so much for me though I tried the same and McDonalds haven't heard anything back. I have since had another letter from CEL saying charges still apply and if I pay within 7 days I can still pay the smaller charge of £75, then goes up to £125. I have today sent letter to them with copies of sister in laws cancellation and asked why they are discriminating against me when I was with her?? Lets wait and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just ignore what they send , there is no real appeals

 

its a [problem] invoice NOT A REAL PARKING TICKET

 

Now ignore their junk

 

and keep your dosh

 

all you get is letters saying they MAY do this and that , its scare tactics

 

the more you write they know they have you hooked

 

they cant affect your credit rating they cant send baliffs , and if in the very rare chance they sent a debt collector they have no powers and you can tell them to GO or you will call the police

..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have had one of these £75 fines from CEL for parking in McDonalds in East Grinstead. I went over the 75mins by 10 minutes, so annoyed!! whats worse is that my sister in law that stayed over by 25mins has had hers cancelled. She complained to McDonalds and they emailed company on her behalf and that seemed to work, not so much for me though I tried the same and McDonalds haven't heard anything back. I have since had another letter from CEL saying charges still apply and if I pay within 7 days I can still pay the smaller charge of £75, then goes up to £125. I have today sent letter to them with copies of sister in laws cancellation and asked why they are discriminating against me when I was with her?? Lets wait and see what happens.

 

You're falling for the [problem].

 

Ignore everything and don't contact them again. They'll give up after a few threatening letters.

 

I don't think you can discriminate when running a mail [problem]! The charge is non-existent with no legal basis, so I don't think you can 'cancel' a debt that doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4793 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...