Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Bank of Scotland - how do I get off SVR


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2529 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Long time lurker on this site.

Now need some advice please.

 

Partner has an interest only mortgage with Bank of Scotland and is on standard variable rate of 4.95%.

Have about 10 years left with only plan to repay being downsizing.

 

Have asked for lower rate but have been advised to reapply.

We will not meet the new borrowing requirements due to age and self employed status.

 

I thought that the FCA had instructed banks/building societies not to apply affordability checks when there is no additional borrowing?

 

She/we have never missed a payment and have in fact been paying £200/month extra in order to reduce the capital, so affordability should not be an issue.

 

Any advice on how to get them to reconsider would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Find the quotation that you are referring to regarding the FCA's guidelines.

 

It would be helpful if you would post a link to it here.

 

Print out the quote and send it to the bank and tell them that if they will not follow the FCA guidance then you will begin a complaint to the financial ombudsman service on the basis that they are treating you unfairly.

 

Tell them that if the ombudsman finds in your favour, then you will insist that any remortgaging is backdated to today's date

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried applying directly on the Halifax website for a cheaper product? I was advised to do this by an independent financial adviser. Halifax itself never advised me to do this.

 

I am losing my home of ten years because Halifax are forcing me to sell up, having kept me on its SVR since my initial fixed rate ended. This means that while the rest of the country is paying next to no interest (given the low Bank of England interest rate) I, like you, have been paying 4%, making my monthly mortgage payments over £1,200 a month, which I've not been able to meet for several months.

 

The point is that I asked Halifax over a number of years to help but its in-branch advisers said my income did not warrant a new product - even though a cheaper product would have meant I could have afforded the payments.

 

In desperation I contacted an independent financial adviser who told me to just go to Halifax's website and apply for a different product, something Halifax's advisers never ever advised me. I did this, applied for a product with a lower rate and got it. Except by then it was too late. I could not risk taking on a new product that came with £5k early repayment charges in the first year.

 

I took my complaint (why Halifax did not move me to an affordable rate earlier despite my pleas) to the FCA who sickeningly sided with Halifax. My house is now on the market but it has not sold and Halifax is - even more sickeningly - threatening litigation because of the £8k arrears. Even more sickening is that news like this about Halifax is still coming out, that HBOS bosses knew about £1billion fraud that left customers bankrupt - 3rd April in the Sun newspaper.

 

I will never ever trust another bank or get another mortgage.

 

All the best to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Find the quotation that you are referring to regarding the FCA's guidelines.

 

It would be helpful if you would post a link to it here.

 

Thanks BankFodder.

 

 

The relevant FCA Guidance seems be

MCOB 11.8.1E which states ‘where a customer is unable to: (1) enter into a new regulated mortgage contract or home purchase plan or vary the terms of an existing regulated mortgage contract or home purchase plan with the existing mortgage lender or home purchase provider; or (2) enter into a new regulated mortgage contract or home purchase plan with a new mortgage lender or home purchase provider; the existing mortgage lender or home purchase provider should not (for example, by offering less favourable interest rates or other terms) take advantage of the customer's situation or treat the customer any less favourably than it would treat other customers with similar characteristics. To do so may be relied on as tending to show contravention of Principle 6 (Customers' interests).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...