Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Lolerz - I don't understand you.  Rebuked you?   No. I simply replied to your orange comments with legal facts as I know them.  I've already worked through the s42 and s146 issues - over the last 3-4y - and these issues are (mostly) resolved legally.  In terms of posting evidence.  Sure I can post some.  But my most recent questions have been a) how can I enforce a sale before trial?  And b) how can I make a complaint and/or a claim v receiver? (E.g. to which body do I complain?).  At the mo I'm asking for some helpful pointers on those specific questions??  I'm not asking for help with how to prove or present evidence. Fwiw - all evidence for trial has been disclosed (although additions are poss). The lender sent me like 10,000 emails and docs.  There's also 000s of emails, docs, photos, videos, recordings and texts that relate to freeholders/ me.   I read, filed and categorised everything for ease of future reference.  Witness statements and evidence were prepared for trial in the 42 and 146 matters. (now joined with current claim to save duplication).  I've lived the process before.  My current statement and linked evidence has taken like 6 months to draft/ write - to ensure I can succinctly prove my defence and counterclaim points.   Whether I can convince a judge at trial w/o lawyer / barrister is debatable 🙄   But I've prepared.  And continue to try better prepare - which is why I visit this site (and clinics).  This is NOT my business or expertise at all.  I'm just trying.  Not that anyone should ever have to justify why they need help if they ask politely! 
    • Thanks for the other info will also take a look at that.
    • It doesn't use the word reconstructed in the cover letter.  Although, I have just noticed on the cover letter they have asked me to complete a financial statement and offer a repayment within the next 10 days, or they will continue to follow court directions.  They sent a separate letter on the same day advising me they will be continuing with their claim ?  They have done the same for both claims.  Is it worth just doing that - doing the financial breakdown and offering a x amount.    
    • hahah except I can't locate the courier to frighten them with it hahaha   
    • Dx100uk according to the ICO office, who I spoke to at some length earlier today after getting the email from the court, Equita are the data controller if they have instructed the contracted EA. The ICO have noted the case, and stated very clearly that the court has the higher standing in terms of dealing with, and punishing either party if they fail to adhere to the district judges order and any action they take will not be criminal.    but they also stated very clearly that with what I’ve told them, and on the basis of accepting what I’ve told them as gospel (which it is with written confirmation from both the courts and the police) then there is some major red flags being raised on both sides with them blaming each other.    they’ve advised me to essentially keep my powder dry until there is a charging decision and an outcome from the seperate proceedings with the EAC2 complaint, and then come back to them with the case and they will be in a stronger position to act against Equita and the EA as there will be established facts and evidence that have already been laid before a court.     
  • 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

LLoyds PPI refund, much lower than my calculations


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1916 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

Hi All,

 

A follow up to this. I sent my complaint to FOS as per post 17 in this thread, with a cover letter explaining that I thought Lloyds redress calculations were incorrect, based on the the CAG PPI redress spreadsheets completed using the loan agreement and statement figures.

 

I have today received their response, please see attached letter. They think that Lloyds offer is correct, which goes against the CAG spreadsheet calculations in post 17, also Llyods have the PPI premium amounts different to what is on the agreements and statements on loans 888 and 577 as you can see in post 17's attachment. This does make me wonder if the rest of Lloyds calculations are correct and then why did FOS not notice this when they reviewed the documents and made their calculations.

 

It does say on the bottom of the FOS letter that I can have this looked at again if I don't agree with the case handler.

 

Please could I get some advice on this, and how I should proceed, as other than simply re sending the CAG spreadsheets insisting they are correct and pointing out the PPI premium figures are wrong i'm at a loss.

 

Thank you,

 

OD2012

overdraft2012_personal_loan_assessment- (1).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes escsalate to the ombs himself not a case handler/adjudicator

 

we've never had our sheets questioned before

infact I actually know of 2 cases whereby they actually asked for blank ones to check them over and commented how good they were [iMS21 threads]

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response. Before I escalate this, can you see anything wrong with how I have completed the CAG Spreadsheet for them not to accept it. The difference in redress figures are huge.

 

I will escalate this to the Ombudsman and report back their decision, hopefully, they agree with the CAG redress spreadsheet and this thread will help others reading this who are in a similar position.

od2012 PPI Redress Rev2.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If anyone could advise on whether I have made a mistake on how I have used these spreadsheets it would really be appreciated. I've got to challenge FOS rejection of them by the end of this month.

There is a huge difference in redress amounts, offer of around £9000 vs CAG spreadsheet total figure of around £22,000! Note I paid about £10,000 in PPI payments alone, before any interest is calculated, please help.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

already said you statint method is correct.

 

you need to point out

88 ppi premium paid wrong total was 1024.39

 

payments you made were 11@£24.36=£267.69

that throws everything else out inc rollover sum they used.

 

57 ppi paid total wrong

 

54 number of payments wrong but even so 33*56.34=1859.22

 

55 2*69.74 is not 96.24.

 

you had a £2600+ rebate that's not on your spready

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...