Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • 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!??
  • 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
      • 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

Lazy, incompetant, inexperienced FOS adjudicator


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3131 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

I am in the process of a complaint regarding my late Father's estate. His medical insurer have withheld information relating to who provided his healthcare since 2009. Medical records are available to me under the Access to Health Record Act and I have requested this from a number of institutions which formed part of a litigation process surrounding invalid/ potentially fraudulent Wills.

 

The health insurer stated that it would be a breach of the DPA to provide this information and invited me to gain appropriate legal status. At great expense, I did. They still refused to provide me with the private healthcare provider list and invited me to contact every healthcare professional in the country to see if they treated my late Father. Absurd!

 

Having consulted the ICO, the DPA is not applicable here as the providers are acting in their professional capacity, so they are hiding behind inappropriate legislation.

 

The adjudicator had never even heard of a 'grant of probate', which is shocking. So how did they make a decision upon my rights as executor? Yep, you got it, they couldn't be bothered to find out and made up their own version of the Administration of Estates Act!

 

 

HMCTS have confirmed that a grant of probate is sufficient and the insurer's request to get a court order is unnecessary and possibly will be seen as a waste of court time.

 

I referred the case to the FOS. It took over 4 months to be allocated to an adjudicator. The adjudicator was extremely inexperienced. I was invited to provide a breakdown of the legal costs for which WPA forced me to incur by leading me down a garden path. I stated this would take a week or so to compile from the legal bill narrative. Two days later, I received a letter (the adjudicator took less than a week in total to conclude their findings on a complex matter) stated that the firm believed the DPA to be in effect. Despite my extensive documentation and the adjudicator's own admission that it was a 'lengthy' complaint, it seems the adjudicator couldn't be bothered to deal with it properly and simply wanted to get it off the desk as quickly as possible. Upon speaking to the manager I was refused to be notified how long the adjudicator took to review the full file (hundreds of pages of documents) and had to source this from the helpline. Tellingly, the manager told me that the time that the adjudicator spends looking at the file before concluding is 'irrelevant' and the adjudicator had ignored most of my complaints as only the 'key issues' as defined by the adjudicator, not me. I was also told by the manager that this particular adjudicator's workload is extremely large and the individual was not feeling well and had to be stationed in one of their 'quiet rooms' for the day. Hmm...

 

The whole process is bizarre. They quite clearly have no idea what they are doing and when I explained this to the helpdesk staff, they clearly admitted that they don't really help consumers.

 

I don't see the point in their existence and have absolutely no confidence in the FOS now as it seems like a big game for firms to play with. It's a no brainer to send all complaints to the FOS if I were a firm as it's a safe risk due to the incompetence of the FOS. No wonder they are busy and it's in excess of 6 months for a case that has been referred to a full Ombudsman to be re-reviewed.

 

 

Any similar experiences with the FOS?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have to accept the first tier adjudicator's response and can escalate this to an Ombudsman proper. You are correct, the first tier adjudicator's are just gatekeepers and do try to shut the door in your face if they can.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had a similar experience with the adjudicator.

 

My bank, Halifax, lent me nearly £10K worth of money that I have no way of paying back.

 

In my omplaint to the FOS I submitted evidence via email of the Halifax lending criteria at the time of a personal loan being given, and I had heavily quoted parts of the lending code.

 

The adjudicator had ignored this as evidence, as did the Ombudsman, Nickolas Atkinson.

 

In their final response, they failed to acknowledge the lending code and lending criteria.

 

I told them politely where to go and told the where to poke their decision.

 

I am a vulnerable customer as I am registered disabled with numerous health issues, the Ombudsman failed to take this into account also.

 

I told them that their service was a bloody disgrace; what is the point of an Ombudsman if they dont help vulnerable customer from financial bullying by banks?

 

And also, what is the point of a lending criteria or lending code if banks breach it and no action has been taken?

 

I have also sent a very lengthy email of complaint to Lord Hunt who is Chairman of the lending standard board.

 

I have yet to hear from him, but I dont hold my breath.

 

In my view, the FOS are just a waste of space.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that the FoS ombudsman was easily steered by the bank into my complaint being a DPA issue. The Ombudsman like that because they can drop the complaint in the bank's favour with no further discussion - the FoS don't adjudicate on privacy issues and won't dig into it to see if it really is a DPA matter or not

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Has anyone referred the service issues with the Independent Assessor? I'm considering doing so after having some of my issues upheld by the adjudicator's Head of Department (who interestingly declined multiple offers by me to chat through some of the issues). I've always been polite and you can't control the voice/ tone that someone else 'hears' when reading text, so I find it beneficial to speak to your 'judge and jury' before they make a decision. I've also offered to have this 're-adjudicated' with appropriate care and attention which means that this would be a two stage process as per the FOS rules rather than the 'one' that I've been given.

 

 

The telling aspect which was not upheld was the extremely short timescale spent reviewing the case, which was so short that it was physically impossible to conduct a thorough investigation. I had a previous complaint with the FOS that upheld a similar difficulty I was facing with a bank (ie non provision of data/ information). I requested for this file to be reviewed. Now I'm still in contact with the bank after the final decision for the last case and the bank has recently requested electronic or paper copies of some of the documents contained within that file. The adjudicator for that file has taken a while (over a week, which is what the adjudicator took to conclude the current case) from the archive. I understand that documents are electronically stored also by the FOS, but the adjudicator for the previous case has had to source it from the archive. Physically, this made any review of this case by the adjudicator of the current case seem impossible.

 

 

The Head of Department has stated the following rather pre-prepared, generic and in my opinion, rather deflecting comments:

"You have again raised points about the information that the adjudicator reviewed and considered and this is not something that I can intervene with."

and

"A lot of our customers are anxious to receive our response to their cases. So we encourage our adjudicators to investigate their cases and communicate their opinions as quickly as possible."

 

 

and

"I should explain that it is down to the adjudicator to direct their investigation as they see fit. This means deciding what information to request and what weight to place on that information. "

I therefore believe that an adjudicator can deny the right to a complainant (or firm!) the right to a two stage process. If an adjudicator simply cannot be bothered, then they can just say whatever they like in a conclusion and pass it on to an Ombudsman. No wonder the waiting time for a case to reach an Ombudsman's desk is over 6 months (as confirmed by the adjudicator's manager).

The second quote above is shocking. I think all customers would be anxious to have a 'proper' adjudication rather than a potentially negligent one, purely based on time, especially when it took an extraordinary amount of time to reach an adjudicator's desk. The problem with that time delay, was my 'fault' apparently. The CD I sent with data was fine, but they had difficulties finding a place to file the documents.

I'd be interested in hearing anyone else's experience with the IA if you've gone through that process!

 

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an update. I asked for an extension to provide the information to the Ombudsman, which needs to be substantially large given the incompetence of the adjudicator. I want to leave nothing to chance.

 

 

I asked about the FOS' reasonable adjustment policy and no one there had a clue what I was talking about. I also provided a letter from my GP to state that I required the extension as the FOS process itself was causing unnecessary stress.

 

 

I was given 1, yes one working day extension.

 

 

So, Lucky7even, you may have a point about the FOS not taking into account individual circumstances. Seems hypocritical when you read 'Issue 123 Jan/Feb 2015' on the FOS' Ombudsman's News section on their website.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
The adjudicator had never even heard of a 'grant of probate', which is shocking. So how did they make a decision upon my rights as executor? Yep, you got it, they couldn't be bothered to find out and made up their own version of the Administration of Estates Act! ... The adjudicator was extremely inexperienced. ... Two days later, I received a letter (the adjudicator took less than a week in total to conclude their findings on a complex matter)... The whole process is bizarre. They quite clearly have no idea what they are doing ... I don't see the point in their existence and have absolutely no confidence in the FOS now as it seems like a big game for firms to play with.

 

Apparently, adjudicators receive only a week's training, and the focus is on rejecting cases. Read the quotes at the end of this, a lot of people will identify with what is said:

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/financial-ombudsman-and-its-service

 

It is more or less a PR exercise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See also this, how the "other side" is advised to secure a positive FOS decision for themselves.

 

http://www.ftadviser.com/2014/11/05/regulation/regulators/how-to-secure-a-positive-result-with-fos-gQ2RNN9cOhL5SCY3dcDKYM/article-0.html

 

I think they are wrong in the second paragraph of the last "P" - the courts are not less complainant-friendly if you have a good case and prepare it properly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My current PPI with hsbc on a flexi loan is amusing.

 

As you know they have to put you back in the position you were in before taking the product.

 

HSBC had agreed the mis-sale

They also agreed the premiums charged

 

These were charged to my current account hat was always in overdraft

So I stated I wanted account reconstructed to take into account the premiums, any compound interest charged on those and any charges triggered (And interest attached to those charges) by the accruing balance that should not have been there.

 

Adjudicators response?

 

You chose to have the premiums paid into your current account so overdraft APR interest charged on them is your fault......

Therefore NATWEST will not be making a better offer.

 

Couldn't even get the name of the bank right.......

 

Now waiting on the appeal to Ombudsmen

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...