Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • or PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH        For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes      This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.    Below is CE  evidence to POPLA and  2 photos of my evidence. I have omitted other CE evidence as it includes personal and private details. I will upload POPLAS decision soon    CE to POPLA   ce to popla.pdf ce to popla 2.pdf ce to popla 3.pdf ce to popla 4.pdf ce to popla 5.pdf view approaching car park.pdf view from my parking bay.pdf   My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   18. We refer to the Appellant’s submissions that the signage was turned and difficult to see, however, we have attached an image plan dated 27/03/2019 which demonstrates there are many signs on the site which are readable and easy to see. The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured. Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.    19. The grace period was taken into consideration before issuing the Notice, and we have deemed this incident to have exceeded the allowed grace period.  Please note that whilst we do not advertise the grace period on signage, it is compliant with the guidance provided by the British Parking Association in their Code of Practice, which states that motorists should be allowed 10 minutes in which to decide if they are going to park or not.    20. Whilst we appreciate the Appellant’s submissions, we are unable to take into account mitigating circumstances; the terms and conditions of parking were clear. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.    21. We refer you to paragraph 3-8 of our response (above) as well as the following statement made by the British Parking Association, which advises all motorists:    “Regardless of whether they park in private car parks, Council car parks or on-street, motorists should always park properly and always check any signage displayed to make sure they know and understand the rules that apply. This is especially so if they are visiting for the first time - in order to acquaint themselves with the prevailing Terms & Conditions for parking.”    Drivers have an obligation to check for signage when parking on private land – the signs do not need to be placed directly in the position where they parked, they      Horton House, Exchange Flags, Liverpool L2 3PF Tel: 0115 822 5020  Registered Office as above. Company Registered in England. Company Registration Number 05645677  Pa ge 7  simply must be placed throughout the site so that drivers are given the chance to read them (BPA Code of Practice, 18.3).    22. This Parking Charge Notice was issued under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.    23. The Appellant’s details were obtained from the DVLA on 10/07/2019 and the PCN was sent on 12/07/2019.  Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.            POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.  
    • Hi MIE   I have prepared for the fact that I might not win, although I would very much like to but has been factored into my plans to deal with my current debt and helping to reduce it.    In in regards to documentation....I have been asking for specific information, which they have refused to provide me with since 2013 and not just since I received the claim.    I’ve not received any documents or a response to my SAR.    Particulars of claim in #5.    Defence below (I know it’s not the best, but it’s all I could come up with).   DEFENCE   1. The Defendant received the claim xxxxxxxx from the Northampton County Court Business Centre on 10/08/2019.   2. Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.   3. This claim relates to an alleged salary overpayment.   4. It is admitted that the Defendant was employed by the Claimant from 02/02/2009 until 31/08/2011.   5. It is admitted that the Defendant has made a payment of £465 to the Claimant.   6. It is denied that the Defendant owes this whole amount as the Claimant has not provided the information and documents requested.   8. The Defendant is unable identify through financial records that amounts were received as alleged.   9. The Claimant has failed to provide bank account details of where payments were made despite being requested to provide this information.   7. The Claimants particulars of the claim fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.   8. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is a public body that is requesting interest on a debt that is alleged to have been incurred as a result of a salary overpayment and not a credit agreement.   9. The Defendant contends that the Claimant is requesting interest from a date that is Statute Barred.   10. On the 12/08/2019 the Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to Claimant’s Solicitor].   11. Claimant’s Solicitor has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.   12. The Defendant has asked the Claimant Solicitor if we may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of the defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but no response has been received.   13. Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.   14. The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead her case else the Claim should stand struck out.   15. In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend her defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.   16. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.   Statement of Truth The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this Defence are true.
    • Thread moved to Debt Collection Agencies Forum.   Andy
    • We will also need a copy of the defence you submitted.I would advocate sending a CCA Request also...unless you legally request it they cant be in default.   Andy
  • Our picks

Guest Wild Billy

Office Of Fair Trading Test Case

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4185 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Another rambling thought to add to the mix - this is only an agreement between a state regulator and various commercial organisations. It might only take an independently-minded Judge or two to overrule it.


  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Josie - good post. I think our interests been shabbily and arbitrarily treated here. One the one hand it's great that the law is being tested, but so far it appears this is being done with the main objective being to relieve the poor banks' suffering :rolleyes: Let's hope the independently minded Jusges I referred to in my previous post, exist!


  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"surely if we can come up with other law that will support our argument then the courts will NOT be able to stay the action"

 

 

Fezzaboy has raised a good point here, surely there must be some other laws that have relevence to the reclaiming of bank charges. If another law is potentially quoted then surely the courts putting a stay on the case is totally out the question...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT's Mission statement on their web site:

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive

Now where's that number for the advertising standards authority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question....

 

What is the effect of the banks who have not signed an agreement with the OFT for this?

 

Do they fall under the same rules or can we carry on as normal with these?


Morgan Stanley

**Won 31.01.07 with CCI**

Capital One

**Won 19.04.07 with CCI**

Halifax current & Joint

Verbal S.A.R 11.01.07, stats recd 18.01.07

Halifax Visa prelim sent 26.01.07. Reply 31.01.07 Filed N1 on 20.03.07 - Judgement granted, sent in the bailiffs

GE Capital

Frazercard Prelim sent with CCI 27.01.07

Burtons Prelim sent with CCI 22.01.07

 

RBOS Visa S.A.R sent 12.01.07

Partners JJB card (Creation) *Won* with part interest - 15.02.07

 

 

Partners LLOYDS Account S.A.R 13.12.06 - stats recd 30.01.07. Prelim sent with CCI 01.02.07

 

Partners BOS Mastercard Offered all charges except £12. Refused. N1 filed 20.03.07 - Judgement granted, sent in the bailiffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is upsetting a lot of people with claims in progress, but isn't this the final solution we all wanted? Pre 27th July we were relying on the interpretation of our local judges on the cases we put forward and were excited when Banks were faced with divulging their true costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The OFT's Mission statement on their web site:

The OFT is responsible for making markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive

 

Now where's that number for the advertising standards authority?

 

:D :D :D :D :D :D

 

that's a good one, LMFAO!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The other banks not included can sign up to the waiver. I am not expecting any of them to not do. The waiver allows them the freedom to keep charging without giving any refunds.

 

It is the courts allowing cases to be heard that is the critical factor, if that can be achieved then the FSA's decision has had no real effect in the short term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone make some noise, it's because of the strength of us consumers that we have gotten this far.

 

If we make enough noise, they will realise we are no longer prepared to take any more of their rubbish, exploitation and will expose their games.

 

Send in your evidence

 

We need your Terms and Conditions NOW. Past and present, anything that could be relevant. Particularly in need of T & Cs for Yorkshire Bank Please send to: evidence@consumeractiongr oup.co.uk


Lloyds TSB: Settled after FO assistance

Co-operative Bank: Settled - Goodwill gesture:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funhat

I don't think that anyone would deny that it's a good thing the banks are being brought to heel in a test case; and one that may very well end up in our favour - but I think people are a little disturbed and suspicious by the sudden announcement, the strangely similar recorded messages the banks have made on their telephone banking services and the fact that a lot of people are may perceive this as a chummy little arrangement by the banks and the regulator to get the grubby punters off their backs for a while while they sort things out in their own clubby world :roll:


  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wild Billy

What a bunch of idiots! :o Some of the rubbish written in this thread is really beyond belief.

 

This is the test case that everyone was crying out for. It clarifies the law. It is important, more important than anyone's individual claim. Sure it's annoying but see the bigger picture here. It was going to happen sooner or later and it's happening now so put up with it.

 

And the nonsense about the banks knowing the outcome already and being in cahoots with the authorities is equally as dumb. C'mon! Haven't you heard about spin? How do you expect the banks to present it? You're pretty dumb if you're falling for it.

 

And the waiver is by the FSA. Not the OFT. And the "stays" are granted by the courts as part of the legal process. Some of you really should read the fine print... or even the large print and think about what is going on rather than following JFK style conspiracy theories.

 

Can people refrain from commenting if they have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With All Due Respect Wild Bill

 

Peoples money is now being held up for potentially years. There would of been nothing wrong with the test case happening but there was no need for the waiver or the courts wanting to stay any cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess we can all go home now - that's cleared everything up for us, with insightful knowledge and razor-sharp intellect. What a 'bunch of idiots' we are! :roll:


  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can people refrain from commenting if they have no idea.

 

Everyones opinion is equally relevant isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep this thread civil, there is no need for personal attacks from anyone.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With All Due Respect Wild Bill

 

Peoples money is now being held up for potentially years. There would of been nothing wrong with the test case happening but there was no need for the waiver or the courts wanting to stay any cases.

 

EXACTLY!!!

 

Wht do we have to wait for our money,but the banks can keep charging??

If this will clear up the legal issue once and for all,surely the 'ceasefire' should apply to both sides??

 

Sure the test case is a good thing,but the waiver and stay bit just sucks. I for my part am continuing my court case and will argue against a stay!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Get your cases in as soon as possible, even if it means shortening your time tables.

Not if it means going against the CPR, no.

I honestly believe that no judge is going to effect a stay at this present time but I may well be wrong.

You already are. Romford has already stayed cases as of today, and the judge has stated that he will keep on doing so. :mad: I fully expect a certain judge in Birmingham to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend of mine who is a solicitor says that "there isn't a District Judge in the land who will not accept the stay."

 

Does anyone think otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a simple question, forgive me but it is puzzling me, what right has the OFT to make this agreement with the banks on my or anybody else?

 

I am just starting my cases now and am puzzled why a Quango can dictate the law and how and when the Courts here the cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree a test case is good for the future roadmap of consumer banking, however, not at the expense of my consumer rights in being effectively denied my right to complain until this test case is a done deal.

 

And Im not an idiot, just sceptical of having my rights messed around without having any input. Atleast if I was an individual case I could put my own point of view forward, not a view deemed appropriate by a state appointed regulator who has yet to prove they are working for the consumer.


27th April - Requested Statements

13th May - Received Statements:D

15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent.:D

16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received.:D

23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin:

30th May - Letter Before Action sent. :D

10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in.

16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill

17th July - Rejected offer letter sent

25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received

26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go.:evil:

Never even felt it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A friend of mine who is a solicitor says that "there isn't a District Judge in the land who will not accept the stay."

 

Does anyone think otherwise?

Absolutely. There are some judges who are well aware of the banks' tactics, and I think that the over-riding objective means that everyone should get fair treatment. If you have a case already going, and the bank doesn't comply with court directions, apply for strike-out. A fair judge will grant that rather than wait for the bank to apply for a stay. The OFT's decision does not supersede existing court directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can I ask a simple question, forgive me but it is puzzling me, what right has the OFT to make this agreement with the banks on my or anybody else?

 

I am just starting my cases now and am puzzled why a Quango can dictate the law and how and when the Courts here the cases?

 

They're not.

 

The waiver related to "internal" complaints procedure, if you will: FOS and bank's own system.

 

If you file at court, it will get processed through. The difference is that the judge may decide to stay your case until resolution of this one (of his own initiative), or the bank will apply for the stay, which the judge may or may not grant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My case was heard at the London Merchantile Court on the 20th July 2007, the judge asked if Barclays bank intended to defend any or all of the 18 cases against it for that day.

 

The bank then replied it did intend to defend all 18 cases, so Judge Mackie CBE Q.C then said that all 18 cases would be heard the same day in court on the 19th October 2007.

 

In light of these recent develpoments, does this mean that my case and the 17 others will be stayed untill the test case is resolved? Or will mny case ever get to court, because i have little hope right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can people refrain from commenting if they have no idea.

 

with all respect, it's cos we have no idea that we're commenting! some people (especially me!) can't quickly fully understand the long winded posts on websites/tv news etc, so we come here for a look around and sometimes get even more confused? CAG has always been a place to post your worries and fears and after a big announcement like this its' understandable thet'll be quite a bit of confusion etc:) ...is anybody elses head hurting???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In light of these recent develpoments, does this mean that my case and the 17 others will be stayed untill the test case is resolved? Or will mny case ever get to court, because i have little hope right now.

 

Boris, I just answered you on your Mercantile thread. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...