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 had to accept in Full and final, but as the amount they were offering (£172) had since escalated to the current figure (over £500), and they were insistinbg that I allowed those to remain, then the answer had to be a big...
NO
More to follow tomorrow, as have to shoot out now...
In this case, shouldn't you accept full settlement of your original claim and then filed another claim for the charges that have occurred since the original claim?
Haven't got that far yet myself, only just sent prelim letter.
I'll be interested to see other posts for future reference.
Hi i too have been charged again since i sent off my 1st schedule of charges with my prelim ltr, i am now at lba stage which expires the 13/11/06, i will include my new charges when i get to mcol stage by adding them to schedule. i'm sure u r allowed to do this i think i was told as much on my thread Natwest ltr to good to be true, i will have to go back and check my thread.
yeah i think so to but you do not have to accept that condition i had a partial offer after my prelim basically saying if i accepted it that i wouldnt pursue further charges, i think once it gets to court stage and they settle i think u can still make future claims.does anyone know differt to this.
yeah i think so to but you do not have to accept that condition i had a partial offer after my prelim basically saying if i accepted it that i wouldnt pursue further charges, i think once it gets to court stage and they settle i think u can still make future claims.does anyone know differt to this.
It will all depend on what you actually agree in your settlement - it is not acceptable for anyone to ask you to sign away your future rights - and therefore disputable but if you ahve signed then you will ahvea much ahrder job claiming.
any idea on what i should do about the charges i am still getting an extra £66 so far without int, i have alrway sent prelim, lba and refusal of offer ltr, the LBA only asked for original amt, without int?
any idea on what i should do about the charges i am still getting an extra £66 so far without int, i have alrway sent prelim, lba and refusal of offer ltr, the LBA only asked for original amt, without int?
sorry, have not been able to get back as have had my local Council to deal with...
if it's not one thing it's another... ;-)
Basically, as that offer was conditional, then it was turned down outright because of that...
Yes Mupster, ideally the position would be to accept this offer (but only as partial settlement if more charges had been added, or full as was if no more had been, but under the explicit understanding that it would be conditional upon them not attempting to undermine my rights by signing away my ability to claim through the Courts in future).
Thing was, thet tried...then when I said I would only accept conditionally, they withdrew it altogether..
your right.. luckily I refused to sign anything, just sent them off a nice, long letter explaining why I wouldn't accept (with reasoning) unless they made the offer unconditional.
Perhaps someone will correct me but I wouldn't think the condition would stand up in Court even if you agreed to it as they are pressuring you into agreeing to something which is unlawful to start with.
More than likely you're right...I doubt that it would either. It just seems to be easier to do things that way, as you bypass that issue without any real risk if you insist on making things unconditional... all ended up being a little academic in my case either way, as they withdrew their original offer when I wouldn't let them continue attempting to flout the Common Law... ;-)
Firstly, in response to a question I sent to Borehamwood concerning Manual Interventions (made by me on 31st October, by letter) , I recieved a reply from a Boringwood personage saying that my request had been passed on to the ubiquitous Joyce Tudor at Regulatory Risk in Edinburgh...
methinks that they are getting a little overwhelmed with queries, as she stated that 'as concerns manual interventions... for administrative charges debited'...
when my original letter made no mention of 'charges' whatsoever, and merely asked about any Manual Interventions.. ;-)
Also on 31st October, I sent the following letter to Birmingham Collections, as a reply to their first letter dated 27th October...... (which, after follow up phone calls to them in early November, they had allegedly never received.....)
I write with reference to the above correspondence.
As the bank is well aware (due to ongoing communication with Stuart Higley at Borehamwood) the above Account is currently in dispute, and I am preparing to send a letter before action to your Bishopsgate address, as a prelude (if necessary) to Court Action against you through the Small Claims Court for the recovery of Unenforceable Penalty Charges and associated Interest. Despite your suggestion to the contrary in your correspondence, this situation is, therefore, not an oversight but an officially disputed figure.
As such, I must officially state that your correspondence appears to be attempting to prejudice such action, by implying that an amount entirely in dispute is recoverable by yourselves, when such is not the case. Should the amount I am claiming, currently standing at £432.42 (£404 of Unenforceable Penalty Charges, together with associated interest of £28.42) be subtracted from your alleged figure of £915.21 o/d (i.e. allegedly £415.21 over my £500 overdraft limit) then the actual Account Balance (as of today's date) stands at £480.79 o/d, i.e. £19.21 under my Overdraft limit (other charges were due to be added to the Account today, but had not appeared Online prior to my sending this correspondence. This, and all charges in the interim, will be added to my claim, with Interest, and reflected in any Small Court Claim).
Should you continue to prejudice my possible Court Action in this manner however (by taking any retaliatory or Collections-related actions, or indeed by referring any information concerning the Account to a debt collection Agency, Credit Reference Agency, or Issuance of Default Notices, whilst this Account remains in dispute, contrary to Section 13.6 of the Banking Code), then I shall have no alternative but to bring such intimidatory actions to the notice of the Court (should a Small Claims Action prove necessary to recover the amount owed to me).
The previous letter was to no (apparent) avail, as those lovely Work Experience peeps at Birmingham continued to send me intimidatory letters (on 3rd and 7th November, the usual, you are being bad, you owe us such and such, give up or else... ;-)
Not being the type to roll over and capitulate in these matters (and being possibly a LITTLE pedantic) I wrote the following reply to the Birmingham Collections Centre, which flew off to them on 13th November... (hopefully this reply will give you the gist of what they had said originally)...
Ref: Following Intimidatory Letters Concerning Account ********,
Sort Code **-**-**, Mr damo1312 (Currently in Official Dispute) from Birmingham Collections Centre:
(Letter 1) (Dated 27/10/06)
(Letter 2) (Dated 03/11/06)
(Letter 3) (Dated 07/11/06)
Enc: Copy of Letter from Myself (Dated 31/10/06) Allegedly Not Received by Birmingham Collections Centre
Dear Sir / Madam,
I write with reference to the above correspondence.
As the Bank is well aware, the above Account is officially in dispute (as the entire amount over my overdraft Limit is composed of Unlawful Penalty Charges and associated Interest). As the bank is also well aware, A Small Claims Action is pending against it for the recovery of the said Penalty Charges (a letter before action confirming such has been sent to your Bishopsgate Head Office address).
Despite this, the Bank is continuing to send intimidatory letters from its Birmingham Collections Centre, attempting to circumvent this pending action and allege that any debt is owed, when I contend that such is not the case. I therefore wrote to Birmingham (see letter enclosed) reminding them of the fact that the account is in dispute, and that litigation is pending. Having telephoned them to enquire as to why they were acting in this manner (on 6th November) I was informed that this letter had allegedly not been received; I have therefore enclosed the letter for reference.
As the letter states, the position is very clear in this regard. As you are well aware of my intentions (and have been informed of such repeatedly) then I can only assume that the bank is attempting to prejudice my pending Court Action by attempting to ignore due process and insinuate that the Account is out of order, when I am preparing to take legal action that would prove that such is not the case (whether the Bank agrees with my reasoning on the Penalty Charges issue is irrelevant; by ignoring my pending action and indeed appearing to be attempting to subvert it, the Bank is acting in bad faith and in an intimidatory fashion, and this will be brought to the attention of the Court in my pending Claim).
In particular, I would like to make the following points as concerns the intimidatory letters from Birmingham (where such have not been addressed in my original letter, as enclosed; I am aware that these may be computer-generated, but this does not count as a Defence legally in this regard, as the Bank remains responsible for the content of all communications that it sends, irrespective of whether or not they are automatically generated):
As concerns the letter dated 03/11/06 (Ref: Letter 2):
• An assertion is made that ‘(the Bank has) been trying to contact (me) by telephone over the past few days regarding the above numbered account(s)’;this Statement is false, as the Bank does not have a current Telephone Number for me (and will not be given one, as all Communication between us will take place by letter, pursuant to the Wireless Telegraphy Act (1949); additionally, I hereby forbid any attempt to make contact by telephone should you be in receipt of any telephone number of mine in the future, pursuant to Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, which stipulates that effective immediately, any such attempt by the Bank constitutes a Criminal Offence);
• It is stated that ‘It is important to note that if the position is not resolved within the next seven days, formal regulatory notices will be issued in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act’; any such attempt to subvert the cause of my pending legal action is not only in breach of Section 13.6 of the Banking Code (to whom I shall report your breach should it continue) I contend that it is a deliberate and provocative attempt to circumvent such legal action, and is unenforceable (as any such attempt to misinform the Credit Reference Agencies of a situation in dispute, and regarding a figure consisting solely of Unenforceable Penalty charges, will not only be reported to the Court as intimidatory, but legal action will be taken to forcibly remove any false statements from any Credit Reference Agency files);
• You have asked for the return of any Cheque Books, when your sole reason to do so is based upon an overlimit figure that has no legal basis (as I again reiterate that it is composed entirely of Unenforceable Penalty Charges) and serves as an attempt to condone such unlawful practices, as no transgressions have occurred on the Account that are not as a direct result of your unlawful actions; again, such intimidatory actions will be reported to the Court if necessary. Additionally, I am aware that there are very specific legal sanctions that I can take to stop the Bank from acting in a manner that solely condones any unlawful action that it might choose/attempt to take;
As concerns the letter dated 07/11/06 (Ref: Letter 3):
• The letter states that ‘Matters have now reached a serious stage’; such is indeed the case; I contend, however, that it is the Bank that is entirely at fault in this regard;
• ‘The Bank can now formally issue you with Default/Termination notices for the total amount you owe plus interest and charges’; firstly, such is emphatically (and legally) not the case (for the reasons given previously in this letter) and legal action will be taken against the Bank should it falsely attempt to claim otherwise, or else otherwise attempt to carry out such actions when there are no grounds for it to do so. In addition, legal recourse will be sought to remove said false entries from any credit Reference Agency files; secondly, the amount owing (£571.46 as of the date at the head of this letter, composed of £538 of Unenforceable Penalty Charges, together with £33.46 of associated Compounded Contractural Interest at a rate of 29.69%, as dictated by the legal principle of Mutuality and Reciprocality of Contract) is due to me, and not the Bank; finally, you will be reported to the Office of Fair Trading as unfit to hold a Credit License (due to the nature of your actions attempting to breach the conditions of such a license);
• Concerning registering details with Credit Reference Agencies, withdrawing banking arrangements, or transfer of the Account to a debt collection Agency, these actions are not ‘open to the Bank’ as the Account is officially in dispute, and I will again reiterate the consequences to the Bank as stated previously in this letter should it attempt to do so before the dispute is resolved;
• Should you attempt to add any (baseless) costs, again such intimidation will be reported to the Court during my proposed action, and Legal Action will be taken to stop you attempting to add such (groundless) costs should such be necessary;
• A stated previously, you will not be contacted by telephone (unless I choose to do so) with all communication being by letter (again, unless I choose otherwise);
• As concerns returning any cards, I will reiterate that you are only requesting this in an attempt to condone your unlawful actions (which I will again reiterate are solely and unambiguously responsible for the alleged overlimit) and such demands are to be taken as intimidatory (and reported as such if necessary); finally, legal action will be taken to force the removal of any charge added (stated as £125) as an attempt by you to further condone said actions.
I eagerly await your immediate reply concerning the entirety of these matters, and take this opportunity to remind you of your legal obligations.
I spoke too soon... :-( **WON**
, but as the amount they were offering (£172) had since escalated to the current figure (over £500), and they were insistinbg that I allowed those to remain, then the answer had to be a big...
Reply With Quote
Re: I spoke too soon... :-(
Mupster
Originally Posted by Scaletrose
Re: I spoke too soon... :-(
Re: I spoke too soon... :-(
