I've already sent a letter away to DVLA about these requests. Wait and see what they say. P.

As far as I'm aware incorrectly stating a vehicles colour will not invalidate the ticket. A court will make allowance for minor errors on tickets because the bottom line is that it makes no difference as far as being to identify the vehicle is concerned so isn't prejudicial to the administration of justice. If the make, model and VRM is correct then that's good enough to identify it. Also, how would you identify a vehicle such as those limited edition Polo's that VW turned out a few years ago where each panel is a different colour? The little Smart cars rarely show the colour that is listed on their V5 as the major coulour as a percentage of the vehicle. The plastic body panels are interchangeable so the colour on the V5 is actually the colour of the painted metal bits which are the bits that can't be changed. The colour of the car in the picture here is black, not red. http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/S/smart/fortwo/03-large/04-cabrio-r3q-s.jpg P.

If you were parked in a private car park then this is totally unlawful. It's just a penalty charge for breach of contract so cannot be enforced. Personally, I think it's a blackmail offence too as they are making an unwarranted demand for money and backing it up with menaces (the menace being, of course, that they won't release your property unless you pay up). P.

Well, it's been around a month now since this ticket was issued and there has been no communication what so ever from Parkforce - or any debt collection agency. P.

They aren't going to go to Court because their charge is unenforcible. Making a threat of legal action when legal action clearly won't follow is actually a specific offence of harassement. You could point that out to the debt collection company. P.

I'm pursuing a few companies for return of ERC and am being given the line that the charge is not due to my breach therefore cannot be an unenforcible penalty. Does anyone have a definitive answer as to whether ending a mortgage early does in fact constitute a breach of contract, or are you just availing your self of a term of the contract? I'm inclined to think it's a breach but the situation doesn't seem as clear cut as the situation with bank charges. P.

I don't think thats right for the resons already mentioned by Glenn. Even if the bank didn't deliberately muck you about then they could still delay things by several months whilst stil keeping to your time table and the statutory time limits. For example; SAR 40 days, then it takes you, say, 5 days to work out all yor charges (if you have a lot), apply interest, etc. 1 day for the Prelim letter in the post, 14 days for them to respond from when they recieved it and say no, 1 more day for you to do write and post off LBA, another 14 days from reciept before you begin Court proceedings. That's 75 days (2 and a half months) and that's at about as fast a rate as it's possible to go. That time scale may be greatly extended if the bank fails to provide all your details or you have only limited amounts of time to devote to all this. Four or five months would not be at all unreasonable, I would imagine. It took MBNA two months, if memory serves, just to comply with my SAR! P.

Sent prelim on 16/10/2006 to request refund of charges applied to mortgage account for late payments. £1053.22 in total which includes contractual interest. Earliest charges were early/mid 2000, so over 6 years. Recieved letter refusing refund on 31st Oct. Sent LBA on 2/11/2006. No response so filed N1 form at Court on 29/11/06. Recieved letter this morning (2/12/06) offering "goodwill payment" of the full amount, which I will obviously accept. Unfotunately, because they missed my deadline for Court action they now owe me another £120. P.

The 6 year limitation runs from when you told the bank you wanted the money back. If you sent a SAR in March saying that you wanted the information to anable you to claim back charges then that's when you draw the 6 year line. Besides, it's pretty much academic now 'cos I think most people are agreed that you should have no problems claiming back further than that. P.

Your dead right. His claim on you would be for the amount he's lost. In this case, 10p. P.

This is quite good actually. His £90 clamp is not enforcible as it's an unlawfull penalty, yet the charge he levies on them probably is enforcible as it's a charge for their use of his property. P.

Ah but he has. If you, say, pay for an hour and overstay then the car park operator has a legitimate claim that he has suffered a loss of revenue for the period in which you were using his services for free. P.

You are quite right, a private person cannot levy a "fine" or penalty on anyone. A landowner, however, can establish whatever contractual regeime he likes in relation to the use of his land, as long as it's not actually illegal. By using his land you are entering into a contract with him and you don't have to accept that contract if you don't like it's provisions. Breaching the terms of the contract though dosen't give him the right to fine or otherwise penalise you but he is entitled to sue you for whatever your breach has cost him. P.

Sec.27(1) reads - the relevent part being seb-sec "e"; The Secretary of State may make any particulars contained in the register available for use - (a) by a local authority for any purpose connected with the investigation of an offence or of a decriminalised parking contravention; (b) by a chief officer of police; © by a member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; (d) by an officer of Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland; or (e) by any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him. As I have said previously, I cannot believe that anyone could consider that the pursuance of a debt that is not even enforcible at law could possibly constitute "reasonanable cause" for making such particulars available. Indeed, it is anything but reasonable! P.

I fail to see how the DVLA could possibly consider recovery of a minor civil debt that isn't to do with the use of a motor vehicle on a public road, and that isn't even lawfully enforcible, as constituting "reasonable grounds" to have access to information. P.

The Bar council link dosen't work. Is this the same Christopher Rogers who lectures at a North Eastern University? P.

You could try pointing out to the hospital that as the charge is unlawful people are entitled to claim it back that it is reclaimable from whomever the contract was made with - which will probably be them! P.

I haven't read the other thread that Glenn refers to but; if you are paying off your debt to them in the form of an agreed payment plan then I think they would have difficulty in simply reducing that debt, rather than paying you the cheque, as long as you keep paying according to the plan. The payment plan is a contract with you and I don't see why they should be allowed to vary it at will. P.

It may be, agreed. Fact is though it wasn't invested because you didn't have it. You may very well have invested it, put it in premium bonds, spent it or gambled or drank it away. The interest you are claiming is to compensate for not having the use of your money thereby not being able to choose to do those things, not because you were unable to put it to a specific use. P.

Read the thread with the info from the tax people. I'm not convinced. I was always under the impression that awards of compensation by a Court were always free of tax because it isn't income. This money is compensation to you for not having your money - it's only designed to put you back - as far as is possible - to the position you were in, or would have been in, had you not had your money taken in the first place. P.

As BW says it's calendar days from when they recieved a properly completed - and paid up - request. MBNA are a nightmare, they are staggeringly incompetant. Also, they will try to fob you off with incomplete information. If you have charges older than 6 years don't let them con you ionto thinkning they aren't obliged to provide details of them. P.

The story so far; 20th Spet 2006: Phoned Cahoot and asked for full list of charges applied to account. Recieved full transaction history since account was opened. 25th Spet 2006: Sent prelim letter requesting refund of charges. Amount asked for included iunterest at the unauthorised borrowing rate of 21.9% on each charge from the date it was made until 22nd Sept - the date on which I recieved the full list of charges frm them. 28th Sept 2006: Recieved email from Mike Quinn denying that charges were "reasonable and proportionate to the administrative costs incurred by cahoot". Refusing refund. Refused to say why or to rebut any of the points I had made to him. 29th Sept 2006: Sent email back addressing certain points and stating that it was my letter before action in the matter. 3rd October 2006: Recieved email from Mike still refusing refund and informing me that this was his final say on the matter. Replied that day accepting this as his final response on the matter and, that being the case, taking that to mean that he woudl not be requring the remaing 14 days of my LBA deadline to reconsider. 26th Oct 2006: Court issued claim for to defendant. D required to reply by 13th November 14th Nov: No ackowledgement from Cahoot. Applied for judgement in default. 26th November: Recieved notification of judgement in default from Court (issued 25th). To be continued! **************WON************** 5th Jan 2007: Recieved a cheque for the full amount this morning (£2180.76) but only after several weeks of phone calls to Cahoot (who claimed not to have recieved any Court documents) and then the legal department at Abbey. Claim was for all charges, and included compound, contract rate interest plus Court fees. P.

The mere existance of a sign is not evidence of it's self that it's contents are incorporated into your parking contract. If the sign is not reasonably visible then you have not had proper notice of it's provisions. Also, if what is said is held to be a core term of the contract then you should have been made aware of it before, or at the time, the contract was concluded. P.

Mr Parkforce has gone somewhat quiet. P.

You can't claim for a cash advance fee. That is a fee for a service they have actualy performed whereas the penalties we are concerned with here are those that are levied unlawfully for your breach of contract. P.