Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
  • 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

un1boy - N1 issued for breach of CCA request


un1boy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5432 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

Hiya Guys.

 

Please can you check the following? To give you a little insight....I sent a CCA request Aug 2006 and the bank sent me a credit agreement with no prescribed terms....they are still processing the defaults and I have not heard from them at all since January - they have just ignored all my letters....I need to take them to court now because it is reallt effecting my job now as well.....

 

All and any comments welcome:

 

Payment since the account has been defaulted £1900

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Loan Payments £600

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Court Fee £150

 

TOTAL £935.22

 

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £0.13 per day OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

1. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxx and closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant. (account A).

2.. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxxand closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant.. (account B).

2. During the period in which the Account A was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Defendant also registered a Default against the Claimant with Credit Reference Agencies in respect of the purported breaches of contract. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Default was applied and the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

3. In October 2006 the defendant refunded as part of an out of court settlement £600 for penalty charges issued to the account

4. Despite various requests by the Claimant, the defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that the claimant is liable for the alleged balance for Account A.

5. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account A to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

6. In August 2006 the claimant requested a copy of the original executed credit agreement from the defendant under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). The defendant provided an agreement which has no prescribed terms and is therefore unenforceable by virtue of section 127(1) of the Act. They have also failed to provide the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time and a statement of account.

7. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account B to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

8. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The claimant contends that 50% of the balance of Account A comprised of penalty charges and therefore the data they are processing with the credit reference agencies is unlawful under Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) in that it is not being processed accurately.

b) The defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that they have obtained the claimant’s data lawfully.

b) The default occurred merely in respect of unlawful charges levied by the Defendant and were the result of impecuniosities caused directly by the taking of penalty charges which were applied unlawfully to the account.

 

c) For both accounts, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide a copy of the executed agreement which has all the prescribed terms and a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). Under s.78(6) of this Act if the Defendant cannot supply this information they may not enforce the agreement and if the default continues for one month they commit an offence.

d) For account Account A, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide any documentary evidence linking the Claimant’s liability to the account and their ability to collect the balance. The defendant also failed to provide a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). The defendants cannot substantiate that the alleged default notice complies with section 88 of the Act.

e) The default markers have caused the Claimant to have to pay £200 per month for a recent car loan obtained, instead of £100. The total loan balance over the term is £12000 and the value of the asset was £6000. These increased amounts are a direct result of the default markers being processed.

f) The defendant has continued to process the data unlawfully for nearly a year and this has caused the claimant distress as his occupation has been effected and his employer has incurred extra costs.

9. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts collected since the accounts were defaulted at a total of £1900.00;

b) a refund of £600 to compensate for extra payments on a loan agreement due totally to the unlawful defaults.

c) The removal of the account data and defaults registered with Credit Reference Agencies;

d) Court costs;

e) Damages at the discretion of the court to compensate for distress and extra costs incurred by employer

 

e) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

the Defendant’s own admission there is no credit agreement as defined under section 60 of the Act.

4 The Defendant does not have the Claimant’s consent under section 173(3) of the Act.

5 The Claimant’s information may not be disclosed in accordance with sections 174 (1) + (2) of the Act.

6 In accordance with the Act section 142(1)(b) the Claimant requests that the court declares the credit agreement unenforceable under section 65(1) by virtue of section 127(3).

7 By virtue of the unenforceability of the credit agreement as item 6 above, the Defendant has no rights, as precedent set in Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and industry (Appellant) [2003] UKHL 40. Therefore the Claimant claims all monies received by the Defendant to the Account.

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

  • Haha 1

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 859
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi UB.

 

Looks good to me, though I believe S174 was repealed by the Enterprise Act. I'm not really familiar enough with it (EA) to give you proper advice re how to word you claim, sorry. I do recall it saying something about any previously published information being OK, but then it seemed to hand the baton to the Data Protection Act. Its certainly worth some study.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi UB.

 

Looks good to me, though I believe S174 was repealed by the Enterprise Act. I'm not really familiar enough with it (EA) to give you proper advice re how to word you claim, sorry. I do recall it saying something about any previously published information being OK, but then it seemed to hand the baton to the Data Protection Act. Its certainly worth some study.

 

Thanks Rosie, I think it has been repealed in the CCA 2006 but not retrospectively.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2006 Act doesn't mention s174 at all sorry, UB. The repeal was made in the EA 2002 and it applies from the date of enactment.

 

I certainly wish it was otherwise as s174 had some real bite to it, unlike the DPA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well I'm gonna issue the N1 above this week - I'll let you know how it goes

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck

You may receive different advice to your query as people have different experiences and opinions. Please use your own judgement in deciding whose advice to take.

 

If in doubt seek advice from a qualified insured professional. Any advice I have offered you is done so on an informal basis, without prejudice or liability.

 

If you think I have been helpful PLEASE click the scales

 

court bundles for dummies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subscribing.

 

Lots looks familar un1boy! lol

 

Section 174 has been repealed and (following advice from the exCAGer Richard Spud and some further research) I believe should be deleted.

 

All the very best with this un1boy. Will be watching with great interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Subscribing.

 

Lots looks familar un1boy! lol

 

Section 174 has been repealed and (following advice from the exCAGer Richard Spud and some further research) I believe should be deleted.

 

All the very best with this un1boy. Will be watching with great interest.

 

Hiya mate,

 

Cheers....I'll take it out.

 

I was gonna email you it coz I found this on another thread......how is yours going? Are you still getting help from someone else?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving along but doubt will be ready to issue until late August.

 

The help has dried up a little but after the huge boost from Mr Spud before he left, I still have plenty to research for myself.

 

 

Well if there is anyhting I can do to help then let me know - I don;t have time to wait around now, it's been nearly a year and it's causing probs at works, so I've just decided that I need to enter these - I just hope the bank won't be able to pick holes in them!!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if there is anyhting I can do to help then let me know - I don;t have time to wait around now, it's been nearly a year and it's causing probs at works, so I've just decided that I need to enter these - I just hope the bank won't be able to pick holes in them!!!

 

Well as it is, I am particularly interested in the banks defence! It should give us some idea of how strong the case is and how they intend to defend. Assuming they do of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites

subscribing, all the best uniboy;)

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

Well as it is, I am particularly interested in the banks defence! It should give us some idea of how strong the case is and how they intend to defend. Assuming they do of course.

 

I would be very surprised if they do - this is even more dangerous than charges. In my case I have other bodies investigating too so, if a judge gets involved they will be in deep doo doo!!

 

I'll keep you posted!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Un1

 

I have been going mad trying to get my own poc sorted......May just use bits of this if you dont mind..... :)

 

good luck with yours

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un1 -

 

Have a copy of my own POC to send you (I have filed several), can you clear your inbox and PM me to let me know when I am clear to send?

 

Thanks

 

NcF

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Un1

 

I have been going mad trying to get my own poc sorted......May just use bits of this if you dont mind..... :)

 

good luck with yours

 

Dave

 

No probs, that's what we all do!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Un1 -

 

Have a copy of my own POC to send you (I have filed several), can you clear your inbox and PM me to let me know when I am clear to send?

 

Thanks

 

NcF

 

Thanks NCF - now cleared!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am worried about the mention of the settlement - what was this for?

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am worried about the mention of the settlement - what was this for?

 

Bank charges mate.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi un1

 

Tomterm has just given me some advice I hadnt even considered.

 

just sent them this..............

 

Dear Sirs

 

As you have not acknowledged my last letter sent ddmmyy I feel moved to inform you that I do not acknowledge any debt to your company.

 

Please note that on consideration I do not accept that I owe your organization any money whatsoever, and I consider any alleged contract or agreement void.

 

I now also demand that as no contract exists or has ever existed that you refrain from processing any more data and passing any such information to any third party. Any such further processing will be in contravention of the data protection act

 

Please be aware that I am unwilling to enter into any further correspondence with you on this matter. All I require is your acceptance.

 

If you wish to take this matter further, I suggest you issue a court claim immediately.

 

Unless I hear from you within fourteen days from the receipt of this letter, or receive a court summons I will consider the matter closed.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

I want THEM to take me to court....saves costs and time, plus it may go fastrack or multitrack and I can couterclaim for the whole amount I want

 

rgds

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi un1

 

Tomterm has just given me some advice I hadnt even considered.

 

just sent them this..............

 

Dear Sirs

 

As you have not acknowledged my last letter sent ddmmyy I feel moved to inform you that I do not acknowledge any debt to your company.

 

Please note that on consideration I do not accept that I owe your organization any money whatsoever, and I consider any alleged contract or agreement void.

 

I now also demand that as no contract exists or has ever existed that you refrain from processing any more data and passing any such information to any third party. Any such further processing will be in contravention of the data protection act

 

Please be aware that I am unwilling to enter into any further correspondence with you on this matter. All I require is your acceptance.

 

If you wish to take this matter further, I suggest you issue a court claim immediately.

 

Unless I hear from you within fourteen days from the receipt of this letter, or receive a court summons I will consider the matter closed.

 

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

I want THEM to take me to court....saves costs and time, plus it may go fastrack or multitrack and I can couterclaim for the whole amount I want

 

rgds

 

Dave

 

Hiya

 

I yunderstand exactly what you are saying but I have been writing to them since August 2006 and nothing has happened.....even their CEO has chosen to ignore me!!!

 

I have to enter the court papers now - they are *probably* absolute a**holes....

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am gonna issue this tomorrow then:

 

Payment since the account has been defaulted £1900

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Loan Payments £600

Interest under s.69 County Courts Act 1984 £156.35

Court Fee £150

 

TOTAL £935.22

 

Plus interest pursuant to S.69 County Courts Act 1984 from date of issue to date of judgement/settlement at £0.13 per day OR at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

 

1. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxx and closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant. (account A).

2.. The Claimant had an account("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around xx/xx/xxxxand closed on or around xx/xx/xxxx via default by the defendant.. (account B).

2. During the period in which the Account A was operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of purported breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant and also charged interest on the charges once applied. The Defendant also registered a Default against the Claimant with Credit Reference Agencies in respect of the purported breaches of contract. The Claimant understands that the Defendant contends that the Default was applied and the charges were debited in accordance with the terms of the contract between itself and the Claimant.

 

3. In October 2006 the defendant refunded as part of an out of court settlement £600 for penalty charges issued to the account

 

4. Despite various requests by the Claimant, the defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that the claimant is liable for the alleged balance for Account A.

 

5. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account A to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

 

6. In August 2006 the claimant requested a copy of the original executed credit agreement from the defendant under section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended). The defendant provided an agreement which has no prescribed terms and is therefore unenforceable by virtue of section 127(1) of the Act. They have also failed to provide the terms and conditions which were applicable at the time and a statement of account.

 

7. In August 2006 and various other dates, the claimant requested a copy of the default notice that was allegedly sent for Account B to confirm it complied with the conditions of section 88 of the CCA. The Defendant has failed to comply with all of these requests.

8. The Claimant contends that:

 

a) The claimant contends that 50% of the balance of Account A comprised of penalty charges and therefore the data they are processing with the credit reference agencies is unlawful under Schedule 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Data Protection Act) in that it is not being processed accurately.

 

b) The defendant has failed to provide documentary evidence that they have obtained the claimant’s data lawfully.

b) The default occurred merely in respect of unlawful charges levied by the Defendant and were the result of impecuniosities caused directly by the taking of penalty charges which were applied unlawfully to the account.

 

c) For both accounts, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide a copy of the executed agreement which has all the prescribed terms and a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). Under s.78(6) of this Act if the Defendant cannot supply this information they may not enforce the agreement and if the default continues for one month they commit an offence.

 

d) For account Account A, the defendant has failed to comply with a request made under s.78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) in August 2006 to provide any documentary evidence linking the Claimant’s liability to the account and their ability to collect the balance. The defendant also failed to provide a signed, true and certified copy of the original default notice under s.78(1). The defendants cannot substantiate that the alleged default notice complies with section 88 of the Act.

 

e) The default markers have caused the Claimant to have to pay £200 per month for a recent car loan obtained, instead of £100. The total loan balance over the term is £12000 and the value of the asset was £6000. These increased amounts are a direct result of the default markers being processed.

 

f) The defendant has continued to process the data unlawfully for nearly a year and this has caused the claimant distress as his occupation has been effected and his employer has incurred extra costs.

9. Accordingly the Claimant claims:

 

a) the return of the amounts collected since the accounts were defaulted at a total of £1900.00;

 

b) a refund of £600 to compensate for extra payments on a loan agreement due totally to the unlawful defaults.

c) The removal of the account data and defaults registered with Credit Reference Agencies;

 

d) Court costs;

 

e) Damages at the discretion of the court to compensate for distress and extra costs incurred by employer

 

e) Interest pursuant to section 69 County Courts Act as set out on the attached list of charges or at such rate and for such periods as the court deems just.

 

By the Defendant’s own admission there is no credit agreement as defined under section 60 of the Act.

 

6 In accordance with the Act section 142(1)(b) the Claimant requests that the court declares the credit agreement unenforceable under section 65(1) by virtue of section 127(3).

 

7 By virtue of the unenforceability of the credit agreement as item 6 above, the Defendant has no rights, as precedent set in Wilson and others v Secretary of State for Trade and industry (Appellant) [2003] UKHL 40. Therefore the Claimant claims all monies received by the Defendant to the Account.

I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get the numbering of the paragraphs right first

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...