on bbc: Some store card debtors may be let off with upgraded cards

redpete

jon1965 wrote: »

You said your wife parked legally...is there evidence? Maybe it was because there wasn't a sign up as is the case in an area near me...well to be honest that is a technicality.

Getting a bit further off course, but anyhow...
My wife parked in the correct place, bought a ticket, placed it the right way up in full view on the dashboard, ensured it was still in full view after she had shut and locked the door and returned before the ticket expired. The ticket had fallen to the floor by the time the car was checked by the parking enforcement officer, we think it might have curled up in the heat and rolled off the dashboard. I appealed on the basis that she had done everything possible short of providing something with which to stick the ticket to the dashboard, she could show them the ticket and that the council had decided to use thin plain paper tickets to save money over self-adhesive ones. The council could have argued that the requirement to display the ticket for the duration the car is parked was not met, but fortunately they applied common sense. I consider this to be different to cases where, for instance, a minor shortcoming in documentation or process is used to escape conviction/fine.

You really do need to understand that it doesnt matter if we agree or not, the law is the law and until it is changed people have a perfect right to challenge anything that is wrong.

I really do understand that. I am not disagreeing that the defendant has *the* right to go to court, but there is a difference between objective application of the law and my subjective opinion on what is right/wrong.

I note that the judge states "It is true that the underlying “merits” undoubtedly favour the Claimant" before going on to state the various reasons in law why she rejected Santandar's claim.

(BTW, my "Enough already" referred to the repeated puffing up for AAD, not to the discussion on this case.)

Gordon_Hose

nottoolate wrote: »

i think they ruled it was unenforceable it court. different than saying you dont have to pay.

what you choose to do with the knowledge that its unenforceable is then your call


pay or not pay. just cant be enforced in the courts is all.

Fair point. I think I was basing what I said by what I'd do :rotfl:

jon1965

Hi Pete
Part of me agrees with you about bigging up AAD as these are consumer help forums and frankly should all have one agenda (helping the consumer)
Just for the record, if you mention AAD on CAG they firstly alter it to nonsense and then ban the person who posted it, If you put a link to the AAD website they redirect it to "the last page of the internet".
These are I think rather draconian and childish measures.
Of course no one is perfect and we all make mistakes but it seems that CAG do not admit it and again even ban people for arguing the point.
Quite understandably, given the circumstances , the owner of AAD and the solicitor who worked with AAD are quite angry that cag tried to pass it off as their discovery
That is all I will say on this thread about why I have issues with CAG

Gordon_Hose

On CAG they believe that if a debt isn't on your credit file that it MUST be statute barred.

Nuff said, I think.

endora

jon1965 wrote: »

Part of me agrees with you about bigging up AAD as these are consumer help forums and frankly should all have one agenda (helping the consumer)

:T:T:T
SPOT ON! Yet many have been arguing against the consumer (a.k.a. the defendant) in this case! :(:(

The strange thing is that, although what AAD do is not only 101% legal (as can be seen with this victory in court) but also much more more factual and lawful than a lot of the 'advice' dished out elsewhere (see below), there's a prevailing idea on forums that should be working for the consumer, that somehow AAD is the underground, you know, like the mate you'd ring if you fancied some weed :rotfl:when in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

On CAG they believe that if a debt isn't on your credit file that it MUST be statute barred.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
The funny thing is, this idea comes from the same people who tell you to offer £1/mth for life! You do that, it's never SBd but it drops off your file after 6 years. They need an ethernet cable to make the connection as their router obviously doesn't work! :dance::dance::dance:

jon1965

you know, like the mate you'd ring if you fancied some weed

You must have some bloody funny mates ...or am I just very naive:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ILW

Odd definition of consumer seems to be getting used. ie Someone who does not repay their debts.

jon1965

ILW wrote: »

Odd definition of consumer seems to be getting used. ie Someone who does not repay their debts.

Maybe you need to go and look it up.
And it is the CONSUMER credit act that was used.
Frankly I think there is a certain amount the holier than thou attitude . As I have said before and will say again, it is not about borrowing money with the intention of not paying it back...if that was the case most of these cases would have been resolved in 2007 after the law changed not 5 years later.

Gordon_Hose

ILW wrote: »

Odd definition of consumer seems to be getting used. ie Someone who does not repay their debts.

This again?

The defendant was paying the debt. The claimant chose to take it to court and lost.

Their bad.

oscar52

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

The defendant was paying the debt. The claimant chose to take it to court and lost.

You'll find that part is ignored. Alos that the feeling should be that although the claimant lost, the defendent should still pay regardless.