Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • 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 5006 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...