Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

who are CCS?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5225 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

Hi Lizzy40, gillie35

Thanks for your input. I can no longer access my On-line Barclaycard statement now as Barclaycard have closed the account until we get our new cards. It is definitely not a genuine transaction and for now Barclaycard have suspended it from our account pending their enquiries. Because of the amount involved I am obviously very concerned. Will let you know what happens next !

L.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barclaycard wouldn't have cancelled your account unless they throught the same as you, so thats one positive. What makes this even more bazaar CCS is a debt collection company so it makes you wonder whether someone has got hold of your barclaycard details and use your account to pay their debt. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that is what we are afraid of. We are ultra careful and the card has not been out of my posession. We do use it for online purchases but only with secure well known companies. Barclaycard are sending us forms to complete re the disputed item, meanwhile they are taking it off our account. Thanks for your concern - will keep you informed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I was checking my account on line and came upon an entry for Westcliff on/ccs Rb collections. Phoned the bank and looked on the internet and found this site. I spent about 15 mins. wondering what on earth it could be and then I remembered. I had missed one credit card payment to Mint and the next month was due. In order not to accrue another late payment fee I phoned them and payed by my bank direct debit card for the two month period. I hope this may help if you are wondering what the entry could be!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Does anyone know who CCS RB Collections are?

Hi, I had the same on my statement, if you are late paying your mint card monthly payment for any reason and they ring you and pay over the phone with a card this is the company that will show on statement, hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ref CCS. I have a suspicion what happens is as follows :- I had a MINT credit card that I hadn't used for about 2 years. I decided to reactivate and use it, and pay off all bar the minimum payment. I had a Direct Debit in place to pay off the minimum payment of £5. The minimum payment direct debit was in place to cover the minimum payment if I was away from home when the monthly statement appeared. Over a period of 2 months, looking at the Mint statement, the minimum payment of £5 appeared to have been paid by DD, then a "charge" of £5 re-appeared on my statement. When I returned home, and checked with Mint, they advised me that the Direct Debit had not been paid, and my minimum payment, although removed from my statement, was then re-imposed! Trouble is, there was no indication on the statement that the DD had not been paid, and Mint made no effort to contact or email me to advise me that the payment had not been made. When I contacted my bank to enquire what had happened to the Direct Debit payable to Mint - they had no record of it at all?? I have a personal record and past statements from Mint showing it was set up, and I didn't cancel it!!! So, after 2 months of the £5 minimum payment being refused, the "Debt" must be passed to CCS Collections, although, I rang Mint Customer Services and paid the outstanding £5.42 by Switch Card, when I returned home. When I talked to Mint Customer Services, they were rude and abrupt over the phone, so, while paying off the outstanding amount, I cancelled the card account. I would advise anyone dealing with Mint to check regularly that any Direct Debit set up to pay them, is actually remaining in force. It looks like if you default, or are late paying your Mint Credit Card amount, the "debt" is passed to CCS collections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone

 

just had similar problem - CCS RB Collections showing up on my bank statement. After much detective work I found out it was my Tesco Credit Card - run by RBS. I had made payments on my debit card as they messed up setting up my direct debit. All sorted now but thought I would share info, hope this helps towards anyone else finding this company on their statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had an issue today where £580 is in the process of being withdrawn from my account. I rang the abbey up and they said it was by CCS rb but they cannot stop itfrom coming out as it was a card payment and had been authorised. It goes out firday 27/2 and i have to ring back and report it as fraud. I find it a joke that they cannot stop the funds.

 

I rang the Royal bank of scotland and they have no details of me what so ever and claim it is not them who are taking the money

 

any ideas?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I hope I can help CCs RB collections stands for customer service centre royal bank of scotland they are used for a number of different credit card companies and when you make a debit card payment to your credit card company I know this as I have just come off the phone to my credit card company who is tesco personal finance hope this helps anyone who is unsure what the payment was for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There is another CCS, they are CCS Collect of Thornton Heath. Their 'phone number is 0844 412 0344, presumably an extortionate premium rate number. I think their website is ccscollect.co.uk.

 

In my case they are chasing for a fine for an alleged parking offence in a service area. This is governed by contract law, a contract between the owner of the car park and the driver of the vehicle, not me as the registered keeper/owner. Needless to say, I was not the driver. I believe that I'm under no obligation to tell them who the driver was.

 

I hope this information may be of use to someone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Thank you all for the thread, it helped me solve my problem. We had the same on our bank statement, and it transpires that it was due an over the limit letter from TESCOs credit card, and unfortunately used the number provided rather than going direct to TESCO, and the number was... you guessed it, the collection company.

 

So fortunately we hadn't been conned for £1k which we thought we had, but am a little unhappy we made the mistake of using the number on the letter, because numerous banks will not touch people who have CCS RB collection on their statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...