Done. Rest In Peace Martin.

More example PATAS Case Number for Battersea Bridge Road / Westbridge Road yellow box junction: 210061382A And read the full story in Telegraph here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8068422/Yellow-box-camera-raises-1-million-a-year.html

More example cases won for Battersea Bridge Road / Westbridge Road yellow box junction: 2100439540 - Unforeseen obstruction 2100446400 - Multiple reasons for winning 2110069641 - Non compliant box 2110138201 - Non compliant box

http://www.paratusamc.co.uk/ Contact Us Should you like to write to us directly on matters regarding your loan, please use the following address for correspondence: Paratus AMC Limited PO BOX 4189 Bracknell RG42 9LY Tel: 0844 770 8030 Fax: 0844 770 8040 Should you like to write to us directly on general matters please use the following address for correspondence: Paratus AMC Limited No.5 Arlington Square Downshire Way Bracknell Berkshire RG12 1WA

The main part is the UTCCR 5(1) "A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer." The supplier has failed to deal fairly and in utmost good faith. Schedule 2(1) .. (o) "obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;" This becomes relevant if the supplier treated you unfairly as it failed its own obligation of fair dealing in levying unfair charges. Schedule 2(1) .. (e) "requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation;" This becomes relevant if the charge is disproportionate to the breach. Schedule 2(1) .. (j) "enabling the seller or supplier to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract;" This becomes relevant if the 'Referral charges' was not clearly stated in the initial contract. I will also like to refer you to the following Case Law: Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank [2001] UKHL 52 According to Lord Bingham in Paragraph 17 of the above Case Law: "The requirement of good faith in this context is one of fair and open dealing. Openness requires that the terms should be expressed fully, clearly and legibly, containing no concealed pitfalls or traps. Appropriate prominence should be given to terms which might operate disadvantageously to the customer. Fair dealing requires that a supplier should not, whether deliberately or unconsciously, take advantage of the consumer's necessity, indigence, lack of experience, unfamiliarity with the subject matter of the contract, weak bargaining position or any other factor listed in or analogous to those listed in Schedule 2 of the regulations. Good faith in this context is not an artificial or technical concept; nor, since Lord Mansfield was its champion, is it a concept wholly unfamiliar to British lawyers. It looks to good standards of commercial morality and practice."

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (UTCCR) is always relevant for Credit Card transactions. Example reference: Schedule 2 (1) … (o) obliging the consumer to fulfil all his obligations where the seller or supplier does not perform his;

That piece of legislation is relevant to your argument. The unfair relationship concept originates from CCA 2006, which is an amendment to CCA 1974. Section 140A(1a-c) of CCA 1974 (as amended) gives description of unfair relationships. Section 140B(1) gives the court a wide power to intervene in the agreement. Section 140B(9) puts the burden of proof on the creditor to show the action they took was fair to the consumer. Also, Section 150 of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 allows individual consumers to make claims for unfairness in FSA regulated agreements.

Read this note from Consumer Direct: Consumer Direct - Hire Purchase

If he/she was provided with goods and services for which he was allowed to pay in arrears, that means 'Hire Purchase'. 'Hire Purchase' credit/lending issues has been fully covered under CCA 1974 and as amended under CCA 2006.

CCA 2006 is an amendment to CCA 1974. The amended legislation now apply to both regulated and unregulated credit agreements. Lending is the same as credit transaction - such as credit card, overdrafts, loans, hire purchase, payday loan, etc. Also, for FSA regulated credit agreements, individuals can seek redress using Section 150 of the FSMA 2000 (Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) if the firm breach the FSA rules e.g. FSA MCOB rules, FSA The Principles.

frazzledfrau, It is unfortunate that you accepted their 'no win, no fee' arrangement from the start. You could have been able to sort it out yourself using simple letter templates in this forum. I am not sure what else you can do to get out of their trap without paying their fee.

If the court refuse to write back to all parties highlighting the error, you will have to go through the route for Application Notice to set aside the judgement before 14 days. You will then state in the Application Notice that the claim has since been discontinued and the court has not updated its records.

Since the court agreed with you on telephone that it is their error, you should request that they write back to all parties highlighting the error.

If the money refunded to you earlier (£4091) was as a result of "goodwill gesture" and without accepting liability, Halifax will not go back on its goodwill gesture. The court should resolve their own mistake.

The grand old days. This is a good result. If it gets on Youtube, it will turn the heat on the banks. The press will take notice.

jaspen, You do not need to be scared. Their action is unlawful already by charging disproportionate fees. Like everyone is saying here and in other parking thread, just ignore them. If they eventually decide to take you to court, do not forget to comeback for help.

nikki1982, No, it is not the date of the statement. It is the date for each of the penalty transaction on your credit card statement. The transaction date is different from one penalty charge to another, this is why you can use the spreadsheet to compile all the penalty charges.

st8, It does not depend on how long they cashed your cheque. It depends on the law, Data Protection Act 1998. The law says that the company has up to 40 days to provide your request. Some companies will respond to your request before the end of 40 days while some others will wait until a few days before 40 days. Well, some others forget until after 40 days. I will suggest that you stay calm until 40 days. But I think they will respond before 40 days. After 40 days, you can then send them a reminder letter with threat of reporting them to the Information Commissioner after a further seven days.

jaspen, If this is a private car park, you can challenge the ticket using the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 Schedule 2 (1)(e). This approach will not work if the car park is owned by Leicester Council. The parking charges constitute an unfair penalty under reference to paragraph 1(e) of Schedule 2 of the said regulations: ‘Indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair - 1. Terms which have the object or effect of - (e) requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation’. The argument will follow the same line as bank charges because you agree that you are in breach of contract but the charges for your breach is disproportionate to the offence.

Go to any local Solicitor who deal with Community Legal Service cases. Try the following link: LSC Website : Community Legal Service (CLS)

Please do not pay any money to anyone until you get better legal position. Try to keep matters in writing because telephone calls can easily be misrepresented. The evidence of your previous contact with the Council in January and February 2009 will be material. Make sure you keep documents safe for your legal rep later and court.

There may not be an appeal to European Court of Justice (ECJ) if OFT wins the House of Lords Appeal case. Read this article and the full court ruling: Article: Courts must assess unfair terms in consumer contracts, says ECJ Full ECJ ruling: RECENT CASE-LAW - Results The exact conclusion says: On those grounds, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules: 1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand. 2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction. 3. It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair. [signatures]

Full court ruling: The Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 288 (02 April 2009)

The following case reference is an advantage for consumers: Unfair terms law can protect consumers for existing and future contracts, says Court of Appeal

On what date did you replace the charger and installed a new screen? Do you have valid proof of the repairs? Did you inform PC World about the faults then? If the carger replacement and repair is within 12 months of purchasing the product, you may have legal remedy. I may be wrong, seek further opinion.