Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I am concerned that, recently, it seems that there is less activity on this forum than there used to be. This could be because there is lots of behind the scenes activity that I am not privy to.
Is it possible that, to some extent, the banks big stalling tactic has worked?
I am still confident of further success even if the OFT totally bungles the case, so long as YOU argue the relevent law properly then I can't see a difficulty.
Is there an issue surrounding the case? I mean if I comment directly on it am I guilty of some sort of contempt of court?
Personally I'm going to use this quiet period to make contact with my MP so I can share my shocking impresisons of the finacial 'services' industry in general.
The banks have phrased the announcement on their sites and leaflets in such a way that anyone not up to scratch with the events would think there is no point in even starting.
The media, in their eternal quest for juicy tidbits rather than accurate factual information, have reinforced this.
The man-in-the-pub told his mates that "they have found a loophole to stop paying".
the waiver means that most avenues are at the moment closed.
The judges have had their orders from high on to stay cases, and most of them are towing the line now.
Meanwhile, the banks can carry on charging you, defaulting you, putting DCAs onto you, trashing your credit rating, even bankrupting you, whilst your owed thousands are snoozing, held in limbo until the test case is resolved.
Apologies to people who I was in the process of helping, I may be gone some time.
I understand they have an obligation to respond to your complaint if it caused hardship. This is of limited value but it may help people in terms of defaults and stuff like that.
I will shortly have to report a comflict of interest at work. We have a new polciy mainly geared towards individual staff members doing something in thier interest that is not in the customers best interest.
The last sentence, however, says ( in a way that suggests it could never actually happen) if you believe the compnay has acted in a way which puts its interests before those of customers. I wasn't going to say anythine but the facts are SO clear cut and also it says if you do not report such a conflict to your supervisor you could be disciplined (unlikely but best to cover myself).
I'm just going to say that Nationwide has had ample opportunity to defend these cases and, as a mutual, the organisation is supposed to be owned by its members. If this is the case how dare we break the law...
"The banks have phrased the announcement on their sites and leaflets in such a way that anyone not up to scratch with the events would think there is no point in even starting."
That's the impression I had too is this acceptable? I was thinking of the way councils can cause problems if they use say a newsletter to promote the ruling party...
Has the campaign slowed down?
Reply With Quote
