Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  Irrespective he'd asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.  Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
    • Torys seem to think its worth while - cheap muckspreading while they get away with ACTUALLY doing it? More the aspect of ensuring that when these tactics are used without justification - make sure your people aren't doing it more and worse or their crap spread on the waters ... - mind you, the Tories would have to maybe even ease off on their using taxpayer and donor money to fund their preferred lifestyles wouldn't they? Maybe even do the jobs they are paid for?  
  • 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

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4081 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

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No t5hink its two - Sharp v Clydesdale, as well (now) Reid and BoS. Walls, last I heard, was heading to the ECHR on the basis that the refusal of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid when the Bank had taken the case out of summary cause (exposing the claimant to unlimited expenses if they lost), was a breach of Human Rights. Like many ECHR cases, goodness only knows when there will be an outcome.

Taking Sharp and Reid together with the news earlier that GLC is moving toward stage 2 where multiple cases will be brought, presumably on the same bases as Reid and Sharp, is significant progress. Clearly the banks - as they often dont - didnt want to take their chance on their day in court. Having used a variety of scare and delay tactics, they have decided to fold. It would be interesting to learn what issues were raised for Sharp and Reid, but given the agreement that has been struck with the bank that is impossible. However, when multiple cases start going in (and not just in Glasgow?), strategies of delay and causing concern, simply wont work and the banks will either have to decide whether to be dragged through court any number of times to either lose or give up at the entrance to the court (which is going to impose costs on them no matter what), or do the decent thing and return the money they have in effect stolen to their customers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes their manpower is limited - its "only" a local advice centre. However, if you go here (http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/glc-unfair-bank-charges-update-phase-2.html) you will find that they now have a partnership with the Glasgow Advice Agency Ltd, which they say will allow them to bring "much larger groupings of litigations on behalf of consumers in the East of Glasgow, and across the South of Glasgow." The East End in particular is likely to produce any number of cases from people in the most severe financial hardship, many of whom will have had a right kicking off the banks - it will illustrate the "unfair relationship" beatutifully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AND should hopefully get the press attention needed to bring this back onto the front pages of the news papers.

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully, though so far the banks havent let the cases get to a final court decision. Will they do the same now in the face of some more (but at this point hardly an onslaught)? Who knows.

I suspect they will do what they can to keep it out of mainstream media, but its on this kind of matter that sites like this are worth their weight in gold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes their manpower is limited - its "only" a local advice centre. However, if you go here (http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/glc-unfair-bank-charges-update-phase-2.html) you will find that they now have a partnership with the Glasgow Advice Agency Ltd, which they say will allow them to bring "much larger groupings of litigations on behalf of consumers in the East of Glasgow, and across the South of Glasgow." The East End in particular is likely to produce any number of cases from people in the most severe financial hardship, many of whom will have had a right kicking off the banks - it will illustrate the "unfair relationship" beatutifully.

 

GLC is one of the largest law centres in the UK, and Mike Dailly is involved in financial issues at a national (UK) level, so I think it's likely that he'll be working to improve things for the masses, and not just locally.

 

http://www.firmmagazine.com/news/2641/Solicitor_of_the_Year's_appointment_in_FSA_role_made_via_Facebook.html

 

http://www.fs-cp.org.uk/about_us/mike_dailly.shtml

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Caro you must have missed the quote marks around "only". GLC, whether its one of the biggest, or even the biggest law centre clearly punches way above its weight, and that it does so is testament to the work of Mike Dailly, though not only him as I am certain he would be the first to acknowledge.

On the other hand GLC does have to focus on cases from the inhabitants of its local area - see for instance http://www.govanlc.com/glasgow.htm - this is why the partnership with Glasgow Advice Agency is important since it allows a larger geographical "footprint" to be covered. But at the same time, I dont think Mike Dailly will need telling about the significance of his work (and not only on bank cases) for much further afield than Govan or even Glasgow as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry sfu - I missed the significance of the quote marks. Had a bit of a blonde moment I think. GLC have also been heavily involved in repossession issues. As you say, Mike and the team clearly punches above it's weight. :-D

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so, as suggested before, and what the glc seems to be working towards, need an authority, like the ppi case for eg, for things to be universal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
No t5hink its two - Sharp v Clydesdale, as well (now) Reid and BoS. Walls, last I heard, was heading to the ECHR on the basis that the refusal of the Scottish Legal Aid Board to grant legal aid when the Bank had taken the case out of summary cause (exposing the claimant to unlimited expenses if they lost), was a breach of Human Rights. Like many ECHR cases, goodness only knows when there will be an outcome.

Taking Sharp and Reid together with the news earlier that GLC is moving toward stage 2 where multiple cases will be brought, presumably on the same bases as Reid and Sharp, is significant progress. Clearly the banks - as they often dont - didnt want to take their chance on their day in court. Having used a variety of scare and delay tactics, they have decided to fold. It would be interesting to learn what issues were raised for Sharp and Reid, but given the agreement that has been struck with the bank that is impossible. However, when multiple cases start going in (and not just in Glasgow?), strategies of delay and causing concern, simply wont work and the banks will either have to decide whether to be dragged through court any number of times to either lose or give up at the entrance to the court (which is going to impose costs on them no matter what), or do the decent thing and return the money they have in effect stolen to their customers.

 

I've been away for a while (no - not that kind of "away" - I'm sure they've got better broadband than any of us can afford in there anyway) - so I'm just catching up on threads of interest. The thing is it now seems to me that we are back into a two tier justice situation - the Banks will cave in when people can use legal aid - but will continue to prevaricate when cutomers need to risk their own money in fighting them.

 

I think these kind of "confidential" deals should be made illegal - after all surely "justice" must be seen to be done - and apply to all - not just to those who can use legal aid?

 

Hopefully GLC "phase 2" might help the rest of us? I'm puzzled though that in this anti-Bank culture there has been nothing in the papers or media even to report that there is nothing to report other than two cases have been withdrawn. Perhaps CAG should be more pro-activae in publicising things like this.

 

BD

 

PS - Totally agree - OFT please BUTT out thsi time around - leave it to those more competent - i.e. everyone else!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means some posts (may be off-topic or abusive) have been removed. The post numbers within the thread are re-adjusted but the total page nos and post nos at the top are not.

 

Thus this is the last page (page 71) even though at the top is showing Page 71 of 74 pages and 1465 posts

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
Has there been ANY developments which have not been 'gagged'?

 

I don't think so kenny. I understand GLC are trying to find a way round this.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed kenny. It's been a long time and I know no more than anyone else. It's all very frustrating. :-(

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...