Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
    • Well done.   Please let us know how it goes or come back with any questions. HB
    • Incorrect as the debt will have been legally assigned to the DCA and they are therefore now the legal creditor. Read up on debt assignment.   Andy
  • 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

Which courts are carrying on????


adam1976brown
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5934 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

still depends on the master of the rolls i would think.................if he tells all courts to suspend all claims surley the courts would have to abide?

 

I thought a Master of the Rolls was my local baker? :lol:

 

Seriously, though, what does that have to do with him? He presides over the Court of Appeal in the House of Lords and is responsible for the records or 'rolls' of the Chancery Court, and also registers new solicitors, so why should that come under his jurisdiction? (I know nothing about him, so don't be afraid to explain!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 399
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

basically in the brief from the banks they were to apply to the master of the rolls to have all court cases pending suspended till the outcome of the test case.

 

a snipit of the announcement taken from the MoneySaving.COM site

 

 

In a surprise announcement the Office of Fair Trading has announced it has agreed to a test case with seven major banks to decide the principles of reclaiming in the High Court. At the same time the regulator the FSA has said banks no longer need deal with complaints; the Ombudsmen is likely to suspend dealing with them too, and a request will go to the Master of the Rolls that all courts suspend current cases until we’ve had a test case. See the detailed Channel 4 news video of the piece (in which I was interviewed just after the news broke)

Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is bits of information are being taken from here and there, but where are the proper official announcements, different news channels ect are saying different things, who on earth are we supposed to listen to, there seems to be much scarmongering going on at the mo, whats true and whats not, i was first alarmed on hearing the news on bbcgmr radio but after looking into it more i dont think its as bad as people are being told

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts can carry on with the cases and they can decide, from the way I am reading on here. But, however, if they rule in the consumers favour in light of everything all said and done I wouldn't be surprised if the banks who are signed up for this then put in a appeal and then get onto the "Master of Rolls" and ask him/her to send out a message to say all court cases pending bank charges are to be suspended until further notice or the outcome of the "Test Case" they have all agreed and signed up to.

 

Thats my opinion, anyway.

 

Ladidi

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have any info on Watford CC?

 

I am thinking of contacting Bank Fodder who is compiling info for TV. I worked for a Bank one stint for ten years then another ten years after a break. Banks can set up auto transfers to transfer money from one acc to the other ie savings to current say if a dd or cq was presented. The transaction occurs instantaniously so you can keep money on savings and only transfers when a payment hits the current acc. This prevents charges and you don't have to bother at checking your current acc. This arrangement was not encouraged after a while I would say sometime in the eighties early nineties maybe. I believe it was eventually phased out altogether. This means one thing. The banks realised they were missing out on charges and were assisting the customer too much. To me it is deliberate and goes against all morals.

 

Determind

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the truth always comes out eventually, but as we all know, the banks will look after themselves and say to hell with consumer. They not happy at what they already paid out, they are not gonna pay out more than they have to and lets face it, with them it will very little if anything at all. Banks are here to TAKE YOUR MONEY, NOT give it BACK!

 

Ladidi

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop!

 

One thing springs out and hits me for six!

 

Since when did the FSA run the Courts?

 

The FSA has only said to the Banks that they can stop processing claims. If the Court issues Orders or similar, they would be beyond stupidity if they quoted the FSA and ignored the Court!

 

Continue with your claims! Afetr all the hearing may last for nearly 2 years!

  • Haha 1

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Continue with your claims! After all the hearing may last for nearly 2 years!

 

Right On!! why are so many people getting jittery? the oft/fos test case is just them NOT the courts lol. mind you my judge is being a pig lol so he probably will stay the case so thats why I am turning the heat up NOT allowing it too cool off!!!

:eek:ABBEY

Data Protection Act request complied with within 40 Days and no £10 charge..

31/01/07 Prelim Letter sent with schedule of charges.

19/02/07 LBA Sent with schedule of charges

08/03/07 MCOL started

09/03/07 £160 GOGW payment into account

23/07/07 Court Date set for 10/10/07

02/08/07 CPR Part 18 Request Submitted

10/08/07 Stay requested by Abbey :mad:

20/08/07 Claim Stayed by District Judge :mad:

:eek:HSBC

02/02/07 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Letter sent

22/02/07 Statements received and again no £10 charge...."happy to provide at their cost"

26/02/07 Prelim Letter to be sent with schedule of charges.

12/03/07 LBA sent with schedule of charges

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just read that they are gonna be asking for all court cases currently being worked on to be suspended until the outcome of the test case. This was on a MSN web page for UK.

 

 

Overdraft fees case goes to court

By Simon Ward

July 27 2007

 

Following a lengthy investigation into unauthorised overdraft charges, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has filed a court action that says the charges are unfair.

 

Seven banks – NatWest/Royal Bank of Scotland, Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds TSB, Halifax/Bank of Scotland, Abbey and Clydesdale – and Nationwide building society have agreed to face the High Court.

 

This test case will look to settle, once and for all, whether overdraft charges are a fair reflection of the cost to banks of people going overdrawn without permission.

Customers winning in court

This follows a series of out-of-court payments by banks and building societies to people who had taken legal action to reclaim their charges.

 

In one day alone last month, 75 cases were heard at Leeds Mercantile Court, with many being won by the people claiming their fees back.

 

Hundreds of thousands of pounds have now been refunded to customers, which probably explains why the banks have decided to go to court.

 

What this means for claims

The banks have got permission from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) to put any existing unsettled claims on hold until this court case is over. This means that if you’re in the process of making a claim you will need to wait for the verdict.

 

However, if you’ve received an offer from a bank or building society you can still accept it. But if you reject it to pursue further action you’ll need to wait for the High Court decision.

 

The Financial Ombudsman Service has announced that it’s suspending any work on overdraft fee cases until the case has been heard. County courts are also expected to stop any court actions.

 

Despite this, Citizens Advice says that people who feel they have been overcharged should continue to make claims, so that they are in the system for when a decision is reached.

 

Of course, if the banks and building societies win, then it is unlikely that anyone will be able to claim their overdraft fees back.

 

If the banks lose, then experts say it could mean the end of free banking in the UK as banks look to get back some of the money they will be paying out to customers. The final bill could run into billions of pounds.

How long will the case take?

Estimates on how long the case will take vary. Research company Defaqto predicts that it will last for years. Many consumer groups are calling for a speedy outcome.

 

But with so much at stake, it’s not likely to be quick.

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story' is a maxim that applies here. As already stated there would be so many cases backed up the effect on courts would be horrific. Things are fine here in Brum as I filed yesterday. Can't believe people are so worried.

 

I feel sorry for those using Martin Lewis's website as he recommends not using the court and going to the FOS.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It dont matter which route you take, word is that all courts are going to be told to suspend all actions on bank charges until the outcome of the test case, which is rumoured to take any where from 1 year to 2. Who knows, the only winners are the Lawyers doing this they will be getting paid top whack to defend and find what ever means they can to prevent the banks having to pay out more than they have to - which means they would prefer to pay nothing at all and just lose what they have already lost out on.

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS when are reporters going to actually give a TRUE reflect of what is happening.

 

 

All bank cases have not been suspended. What has been suspended is the requirement of the banks to go through the same old rigmarole of their complaints procedures if the complaint is about charges.

 

The OFT have no legal right to force courts to stay claims - although, this doesn't mean that the courts themselves won't stay the claims pending the outcome of the OFT's test case.

 

I wish all this hysteria would stop, people are going on as if the end of the world has arrived, at this stage THIS ACTION MEANS NOTHING and we should carry on as normal, all this panicking needs to stop there is absolutley no need for panic.

Since when did we ever believe the press in this country anyway, we all now they have always been full of inaccuracies and this is no different.

 

If you were going to put a claim in, then put it in, if you are allready in the courts system, then carry on, IF any judge decides to allow a stay pending then we need to work together and we will come up with valid legal arguements to appeal, ALL IS NOT LOST

 

Remember people UNA NOS ES VALIDUS - Together we are strong

  • Haha 3
:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hear, Hear, ICY. The wording of some of the articles written have been a gross misrepresentation of the facts. As is always the case with these kind of stories in the press, it's the headline that counts. I would expect to see more sober comment appearing in one or two of the Sunday papers financial sections tomorrow once actual Financial ournalists appraise the effect rather than sub-editors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear what you saying ICY and I agree, but I cant help but not get optimistic, lets face it, the banks adn thei supposed lawyers have already dragged things out I wouldn't be surprised if they said hey all pending cases should not be resolved until the outcome of this "test case"

 

Granted, carry on as you would file your claims do what the courts ask, I intend to do just that, I`m just not confident that any kind of outcome will be different to what we have already been given as from yesterday. Only thing that would sway me is when we hear of someone already in the courts system and judge awarding the case to the claimant.

 

After all the highs and lows since starting this, I`m not gonna raise my hopes on this no more - Motto now gonna be what will be will be - If it meant to happen it will - If it was meant to be yours it will be returned, if it's not then it wont be!

 

Ok, I done my rant and my groans, gonna go have a cuppa and some toast! Yummy

 

Ladidi

Ladidi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing that would sway me is when we hear of someone already in the courts system and judge awarding the case to the claimant.

 

That should be me next week, when abbey fail to comply with the court order and HSBC who failed to file AQ

:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...