Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I suggested consideration of bankruptcy some years ago. It was not well received.
    • That is a superb WS. However, I have a few tweaks to suggest. In (2) "indicating" not "indication". I think to be consistent with your numbering, in (6) the Beavis case should be EXHIBIT 2. Do you really need to include over 100 pages of Beavis?  I think that would be likely to annoy the judge.  Just try and find the bit where they decide it was not a penalty due to having an interest in limiting the time that vehicles can stay. I'll have a look myself for this bit later as it's highly likely to be in WSs from PPCs who think that that paragraph means all their charges are valid always on every occasion. After your current (7) add this.  It's always useful to refer to a judgment when making a legal point - 8.  In the case PCM vs Bull, Claim No. B4GF26K6, where the Defendant was issued parking tickets for parking on private roads with signage stating “No parking at any time”, District Judge Glen in his final statement mentioned that: “the notice was prohibitive and didn’t communicate any offer of parking and that landowners may have claim in trespass, but that was not under consideration”.   In (14) if my maths are right the CPR request should be "EXHIBIT 3".  it is missing from your list of exhibits. In (16) the two figures should be £100 and £170.  They are entitled to increase fro,m £60 to £100, they are not entitled to increase to £170.  To make it clear for the judge I would write - 16. The Claimant has artificially inflated their claim for a £100 invoice to £170. This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims. 17. The Claimant has also invented a second fictitious charge, for legal representative's costs, when they have no legal representative. You also need ot number your exhibits. The rest is excellent - well done.
    • Did you ever think of walking away? Become bankrupt and in 12 months it'll all be behind you. My feeling is that you may well get nothing from the sale of the property anyway. Going by the date this thread started it looks like eight years of arrears, lender's costs and receiver’s fees on top.
    • Just to clarify - I make use of evening legal clinics. It is not always possible to see a lawyer (they have limited time and days/week).  This means questions one has may never get answered or there's weeks between follow-ups.   To be really clear - I am representing myself; I am playing at being lawyer/ barrister - which means I take help wherever I can get it (and then research it thoroughly). Ae - a judge in a recent hearing pointed out the receiver is not part of my current proceedings - and suggested I have a separate claim v the receiver. Disclosure has presented damning evidence v the receiver  The receiver against whom I have a complaint is not part of the receiver governing body.   The receivership is in 2 names - a joint one.  My complaint is directed at whom I was told is the lead receiver.  The other named receiver IS a member of the governing body.  But he has now left the company.  And the lead receiver has retired - but is still a working consultant on my case.   All the evidence shows it was the 'lead' receiver who was doing all the  work/ the misbehaviour.   But if the appointment was 'joint' would I make a complaint against them both?    I am sure that wouldn't go down well with the other receiver who is at the beginning of his career. The law is very much against borrowers.   But the evidence against this receivership is crystal clear.   I just don't know how and to whom to complain.   The places I've tried so far don't offer much transparency       
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 161 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 2557 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...