Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
    • Massive issues from Scottish Power I wonder if someone could advise next steps. Tennant moved out I changed the electric into my name I was out the country at the time so I hadn't been to the flat. During sign up process they tried to hijack my gas supply as well which I made it clear I didn't want duel fuel from them but they still went ahead with it. Phoned them up again. a few days later telling them to make sure they stopped it but they said too late ? had to get my current supplier to cancel it. Paid £50 online to ensure there was money covering standing charges etc eventually got to the flat no power. Phoned Scottish Power 40 minutes to get through they state I have a pay as you go meter and that they had set me up on a credit account so they need to send an engineer out which they will pass my details onto. Phone called from engineer asking questions , found out the float is vacant so not an emergency so I have to speak to Scottish Power again. Spoke with the original person from Scottish Power who admitted a mistake (I had told her it was vacant) and now states that it will take 4 weeks to get an appointment but if I want to raise a complaint they will contact me in 48 hours and it will be looked at quicker. Raised a complaint , complaints emailed me within 24 hours to say it will take 7 days till he speaks with me. All I want is power in the property would I be better switching over to EON who supply the gas surely they could sort it out quicker? One thing is for sure I will never bother with Scottish Power ever again.    
  • 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
      • 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

V-E Day: Victory over Egg


Mistermind
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5011 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

Suggest go to the last page

 

 

 

Venicegondolasatsunset.jpg?t=1190149312

 

 

 

A legend has grown up that Egg always digs in, and nobody can beat the Egg. This is untrue, Egg have caved in time and again and offered full refund, but attaching a confidentiality condition each time.

 

All who have been offered full refund are invited to briefly describe their success. As postings will be under anonymous forum names this action will not breach the confidentiality agreement -- unless any legal eagle knows different.

 

The jungle of Egg threads have grown to such volumes that it is hard to keep up. Suggest this thread be used like a quick index to navigate to other threads with full details -- the sheer number of successes will encourage others being put through the same ordeal by Egg.

 

Egg is in retreat. Lets turn it into a rout.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No offence to anyone, but if you let them attach a confidentiality clause to your settlement, you are letting them build that legend.

 

There is no reason whatsoever to let any bank attach any conditions to your claim. YOU are the claimant, THEY are the defendant, and there is no legal or moral reason whatsoever to accept them setting conditions to refunding you YOUR money.

 

Out of all the bank claims on my sig, all but one of them tried to impose confidentiality. I refused on every one of them. And got my money on every one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Joa mentioned in his thread that Egg has switched law firms and now Egg appears to be falling into line, refunding like other institutions and no longer fighting to the last ditch wasting everybody's time -- cheers to all still going through the process.

 

Apparently Egg insists on a confidentiality agreement in every case, hence we have heard but a fraction of the success stories, without the heart-warming names and figures. No way can open secrets be covered up for long.

 

Message to Egg -- please pull your finger out of the dyke. The deluge is coming in spite of you.

Admanbo80 - won on 20th December 2006.

 

Johnnie Reclaim - won on 21st December 2006.

 

Joa - won on 22nd December 2006.

 

CAG Claimants 9 - Egg 0 icon10.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

i have claimed against several banks and 4 have tried t attatch a confy clause i do hope i will be the first to get payout without accepting the confy clause i am looking forward to seeing their confy clause

bring it on egg just try and break me if you can

SETTLED CASES

LTSB (CC) £20 21-8-06

HSBC (CC) £600 19-10-06

HSBC (Ac) No.1 £1900 25-10-06

RBS (CC) £900 25-10-06

Smile (Ac) £1300 17-11-06

A&L (Ac) No.1 £400 23-11-06

A&L (Mortgage ERC) £3900 4-12-06

LTSB (Ac) £200 13-12-06

A&L (Ac) No.2 £120 19-12-06

HSBC (Ac) No.2 £650 29-12-06

LTSB (Business) £1700 13-2-07

RBS (Ac) £4500 + Default Removal 17-3-07

Barclays (Bus) Warrant of Execution 10-3-07 not used yet

ONGOING CASES

Egg (CC) N1 Filed £1300 + Default Removal Judgment Order 9/1/07 In my Favour

Barclays Business loan & 2 accs. S.A.R N1 filed Judgment in Default isued 15/2/07

HSBC (CC) have failed to produce Credit Agreement

TO DO CASES

Egg (Loan)

LTSB (Ac Ltd Company)

LTSB (Loan)

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the greatest respect to you Mistermind, I have not won!

 

Egg have offered a settlement figure to me which is incorrect, bound by unacceptable terms. Therefore I am unable to accept Egg's offer.

 

The battle is not over in my case!

 

Mistermind, I can appreciate that by compiling a list of successful Claimants may provide great encouragement to others, but obviously the list has to be correct. Your statement: "Angry Cat won on 30th December 2006" is wrong, I have not won but simply been offered an amount of money.

 

As soon as the Courts re-open, I intend to amend my Claim and or, issue a further Claim against Egg.

 

No offence intended.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Angry but Polite Cat, there is no greater compliment to a thread than an inaccuracy pointed out by readers.

 

Painting an impression on New Years Eve, the ranks of the Allied forces are massed outside the Brandenburg Gate, and the lawbreakers are hiding and squirming in the underground bunker unable to face unconditional surrender.

 

CAG Claimants 9.5 icon10.gif -- Egg 0 icon9.gif

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

----------------------------------

On a different note, I read in Betfair forum the following interesting posting re delaying tactics, i.e. having settled in other similar cases, what is the bank's intention in making as if it wants to fight another case -- apart from dragging out the process as long as possible, and intimidating claimants who are laymen at law!

Such blatant time wasting will not be tolerated by the court.

------------------------------

 

Neil Warnock AKA Colin ******

 

10 Jan 10:45

spacer.gifIn Lincoln, a district judge put on the orders the following

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Court of its own motion is considering striking the Defence out as an abuse of process on the basis that it has settled all previous claims of this nature. If the Defendant objects to this course of action it is to file at Court within 14 days, a Schedule setting out a list of all claims it has pursued to trial and all claims it has settled.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a 4th case where this has happened at Lincoln, the other 3 being myself (kazzaw) v LTSB, mahatmacoate v LTSB & jodyperry v NatWest?

 

If this is a fourth case which bank is the claim against?

FIRST DIRECT: £4751.86 SETTLED IN FULL 5/07/06 :-)

 

TESCO VISA CARD: £90 SETTLED IN FULL 12/08/06 :)

 

LLOYDS TSB: £4403.59 SETTLED IN FULL 17/08/06 :)

EGG: £451.52 SETTLED IN FULL 18/01/07 :)

 

 

Opinions and advice of kazzaw are independent, offered informally, without prejudice, without liability, and not endorsed by the Bank Action Group. If in any doubt, seek the advice of a qualified, insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll of Honour - full refund won from Egg:

 

.5th December 2006 - Yasmin

13th December 2006 - Mcuth

20th December 2006 - Admanbo80

21st December 2006 - Johnnie Reclaim

21st December 2006 - blackcatchillers

22nd December 2006 - Joa

28th December 2006 - waynedear

28th December 2006 - Sassylass

28th December 2006 - Feergal71

13th January... 2007 - Kazzaw....... (without confidentiality clause)

13th January... 2007 - KateandPete (without confidentiality clause)

 

..CAG Claimants 11 - Egg nil

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I know some people were also trying to get their default removed. Has that happened to anyone who has won his or her case?

 

 

Thanks,

Hondamad

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mistermind-

 

The following is the Egg Roll of Honour:-

 

Re: V-E Day: Victory over Egg

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Roll of Honour - full refund won from Egg:

 

.5th December 2006 - Yasmin

13th December 2006 - Mcuth

20th December 2006 - Admanbo80

21st December 2006 - Johnnie Reclaim

21st December 2006 - blackcatchillers

22nd December 2006 - Joa

28th December 2006 - waynedear

28th December 2006 - Sassylass

28th December 2006 - Feergal71

13th January... 2007 - Kazzaw....... (without confidentiality clause)

13th January... 2007 - KateandPete (without confidentiality clause)

 

..CAG Claimants 11 - Egg nil

 

Plus:-

 

18th January... 2007 - Schnide (without confidentiality clause)

 

Because my Court hearing is on Monday 29 January, I really need the Claim Numbers plus amounts & date of the winning Claimants!

 

I have trawled the Litigants Concluded forum and the only Egg Claimant showing that I can find on that forum is maroonfox5 that has had their Claim settled.

 

It would really help me and other future Claimants against Egg, if the County Court Claim Numbers plus amount claimed could be added to your roll of honour. Obviously, the members Claim Numbers, who accepted the confidentiality clause should not be added.

 

Angry Cat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear pussycat,

 

With your hearing on Monday there is hardly much time left, and not everyone visits this site every day. To ensure making contact in time, I would have thought it best for yourself to send a PM with as much tact as urgency, to the 3 winners who were happy to make public their unconditional victory. Best of luck!

 

I have always got on well with cats, so am not scared of same.

But to the Egg I say: be afraid, be very afraid.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would really help me and other future Claimants against Egg, if the County Court Claim Numbers plus amount claimed could be added to your roll of honour. Obviously, the members Claim Numbers, who accepted the confidentiality clause should not be added.

 

Angry Cat

 

Here's mine:

 

KAZZAW V EGG

 

Claim number: 6QZ73946

Issued: 17.10.06

Court: MCOL

Charges: £300

Interest: £93.51

Costs: £50

Total Claim: £443.51

 

Transferred to Mansfield County Court. Bundle to be submitted by 18/01/07.

 

Received cheque for full settlement inc interest to 20/01/07, £451.79 on 16/1/07

 

Hope that helps AC. ;)

FIRST DIRECT: £4751.86 SETTLED IN FULL 5/07/06 :-)

 

TESCO VISA CARD: £90 SETTLED IN FULL 12/08/06 :)

 

LLOYDS TSB: £4403.59 SETTLED IN FULL 17/08/06 :)

EGG: £451.52 SETTLED IN FULL 18/01/07 :)

 

 

Opinions and advice of kazzaw are independent, offered informally, without prejudice, without liability, and not endorsed by the Bank Action Group. If in any doubt, seek the advice of a qualified, insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And mine..

kateandpete vs. Egg

Claim number: 6WA02787

Court: Warrington County Court

Issued:16/11/06 approx

Acknowledged: 28/11/06

AQ's filed by: 08/01/07

Settlement in full sent on: 9/01/07

Total sum: £456.72 (of which £320 charges, remainder interest charged on penalties, 8% interest on both and...)

Court fees: £50

NatWest Charges: £3708.81. Allocated to fast track 14/10/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 23/10/06 5% donation made

 

HSBC Default Removal and £186 charges: N1 claim issued 28/11/06 *WON* 28/02/07 5% donation made

 

Egg Charges: £370. N1 claim issued 24/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 12/01/07 5% donation made

 

Natwest Student: £150. N1 claim issued 24/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 10/12/06 5% donation made

Natwest Credit card: £317.01 INCLUDING CONTRACTUAL INTEREST, *WON* 30/11/06 5% Donation Made

 

Ikano Data Protection Act deception and non-complience: N1 claim issued 28/11/06. *SETTLED IN FULL* 12/12/06 5% donation made

I am not a lawyer. All advice is merely my own opinion. Nevertheless, I've won £4675 so far!

Tip my scales if you like my advice :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Possession may be nine points of the law,

but the tenth point has arrived -- repossession by bailiffs:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430129&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true#StartComments

Customer sends bailiffs in to seize bank's computers

Declan Purcell: Striking a blow for the customer

 

A man who was fed up with paying massive bank charges decided to give one of the high street giants a taste of its own medicine. When Royal Bank of Scotland refused to refund £3,400 charges that Declan Purcell believed he was owed, he sent in the bailiffs.

Stunned customers at his branch of RBS watched as debt collectors seized four computers, two fax machines and a till filled with cash. The branch manager was told that the items would be sold unless RBS came up with the money owed to Mr Purcell. Only when the manager gave an undertaking that the debt would be paid did the bailiffs leave.

Mr Purcell said: "I think the bank was pretty shocked when the bailiffs went in. But my view is that this is exactly what they would have done to me." The move, which will raise a cheer from millions of other bank customers, is part of a consumer fightback against bank charges, which net an estimated £4.5 billion every year.

Every time a current account customer goes overdrawn by as little as £1 most banks will charge around £28, even though the administration cost is only about £4.50. Then every cheque, direct debit, or card transaction that goes through or is bounced incurs another charge of up to £38. The Office of Fair Trading is investigating whether banks have implemented these charges unlawfully. The Daily Mail's Fair Play on Charges campaign and that run by the Consumer Action Group have helped thousands reclaim charges in the past year.

Like other customers Mr Purcell, 48, from East London, had warned his bank that he was prepared to go to court to claim back charges he believes were imposed unlawfully. In June last year he demanded the refund of £3,400 charges he accrued during the previous six years while running a motorcycle dealership. RBS ignored the claim so in October Mr Purcell filed an online application to get the money back through the county court.

 

After 30 days the bank had not responded and so on December 10 the court ruled in Mr Purcell's favour. It ordered RBS to pay the charges and £120 court costs. When RBS again failed to respond Mr Purcell got the court to give him a warrant of execution, allowing him to order debt collectors to reclaim items from the bank equal in value to the amount he was owed.

Finally on Monday, January 8, a team of debt collectors walked into the busy Camden Town branch in North London, demanded to see the manager, showed their court order and announced that they were repossessing items.

Mr Purcell, who now works for London Underground, said: "I was dismayed by the bank's reaction when I made my claim for a refund – it was so rude and arrogant. They thought they were above the law, so it is great to know that customers can use the law in the same way the bank does to get money they are owed."

A spokesman for RBS said: "We are looking into this as a matter of urgency, but early indications suggest that unfortunately due to an administrative error, the bank failed to defend the claim leading to a default judgment being obtained on the branch and a resulting warrant. "The confusion was cleared up at the branch."

Marc Gander, who set up campaign website Consumer Action Group, which helps consumers get refunds from their banks, said: "I am quite sure that Mr Purcell will not be the last person to send bailiffs in to his bank. The continued operation by UK high street banks of their unlawful charges regimes will see to that. "The heavy-handed debt collecting approach is something that the banks have been handing out to their customers for years. Mr Purcell simply gave them a bit of their own back."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...