Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • 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'.  He'd simultaneously 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. In later months 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.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). 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 (inc via new agent requested by lender). 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?
  • 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

Sandy V GMAC - RFC ***SETTLED IN FULL***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5258 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

Sent a letter requesting refund of Arrears fees for an old mortgage account since paid off and closed.

They charges me £50 per month 'Arrears fee' and £30 twice for two Direct Debits which did not go through. Having spent lots of time reading though cases and faqs decided to start process to get money back.

 

129/3 Sent nice letter asking for money back - no reply

14/4 Sent LBA - no reply

2/5 Sent reminder no reply

7/5 issued money claim

10/5 Acknowlegement of service received from GMAC with intention to defend!

 

Bit worried -seems like you have to get to drastic action before prompting any kind of response. has anyone dealt with these guys before?

Any advice welcome.

sandy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

3/6/06 Received defence from GE. they have engaged solicitors Eversheds and are defending based on contract and the 'terms of agreement' mentions the tariff of charges and 'the company's right to recover it's costs and expenses'.

 

They deny that the arrears fees and unpaid direct debit fees constitute "penalties" They also state that whether or not the law on penalties applies, each of the fees reflected a genuine pre-estimate of loss in terms of the cost to the defendant.

 

They also deny fees were unreasonable and keep harping back to the pre estimate ploy mentioned above. defence runs to 8 pages!

 

Has anyone else had this. help needed here as it may go all the way. 28 days for defence was up 4th June so no hearing date yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S the claim is for arrears fees of £50 each and bounced DD's total of £952.28

 

I cannot see how it is not going to cost them that to defend!

 

Any guidance would be gratefully received.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All seems to be going according to plan. Expect them to settle sometime before the Allocation Questionairre deadline.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Nothing so far from GMAC. Have sent in allocation doc.s so I guess now we go to hearing date. Getting a little more worried as i have not come accross any other posts this far with GMAC. Any help very much needed!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Sandy

 

Just read your posts, I too was with GMAC and as I recall they charged me £50 a month for being inarrears. It cost me £2,200 penalty to get out of mortgage back in April. I was told it was fixed penalty for only 2 years then I found out it was 3 years. Any way I will send a DPA and see where that gets me.

 

Good Luck and I will follow your posts.

Abbey National - Prelim Letter sent / LBA sent 10th August.

Capital One - Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent - Offered £428 - Refused. Statement received Actual charges £1060. M/C ISSUED PAID IN FULL I WON

GMAC Redmption Penalty - Letter sent requesting full detailed explaination of charges/exspense and penalty charges received

Yorkshire Bank/Visa - Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent. Visa Prelim sent £235. No statements as yet for Bank Account.

 

This site has been so helpfull I will donate to keep it running to help others. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello Sandy

GMAC ???? well we were with them until 21st april this year.

(see reposession/PPI/early settlemt) my post in the mortgage board?

 

Would love to know how you get on

They were charging us £39.00 per day interest on our arrears plus £50.00 per d/d that failed .

 

Would really love one of us to get somewhere with gmac!!!! then we can all start.

They used evershed llp against us as well , not nice people to do business with.

Hope it goes ok for you mate

keep us updated please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sandy

 

Any News, You hav'nt posted for a while, Just wandered how you were getting on with your claim. Keep going don't let them win.

 

Good Luck.

Abbey National - Prelim Letter sent / LBA sent 10th August.

Capital One - Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent - Offered £428 - Refused. Statement received Actual charges £1060. M/C ISSUED PAID IN FULL I WON

GMAC Redmption Penalty - Letter sent requesting full detailed explaination of charges/exspense and penalty charges received

Yorkshire Bank/Visa - Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent. Visa Prelim sent £235. No statements as yet for Bank Account.

 

This site has been so helpfull I will donate to keep it running to help others. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

mortgage with gmac taken out in 5th may 2004 at a rate of around 6.5% this was discounted for 1 yr, and then went upto 7.9%.

Please note the 1yr discount was from the offer date and not from when they actually paid for the property.......

Hope it helps you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Update

Court date set for 10/10

 

Guess what though! they have filed a request for an extention of time to exchange documents. they have asked for 1 month although it will not affect the hearing date.

their reasons are amazing:

'The defendant has decided it is necessary for it to seek advice from council.

'Dependant upon that advice the defendant may wish to apply to remove the case from the small claims track on the basis the hrearing will take longer than 1.5 hours. The arguments are complex and that the evidence may be voluminous in excess of 3 lever arch files. the defendant may also with to attempt a form of ADR' What is that?

 

The hearing is listed fo MONDAY 9.30 am. i was not going to go as it seemed ok to me as hearing would not be delayed but on reflecton I would not mind going and objecting. Case started in April which is bags of time for this to be sorted. help please on what would be best approach...what about the 3 lever arch files... I am quaking in my boots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sandy, I've passed this to the other Mods and Bankfodder for an opinion. Hold tight. Don't panic!

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ADR' What is that?

 

 

ADR is alternative dispute resolution

 

they might ask it to be moved to fast track or multi track on the grounds that there will be an extensive legal argument

 

Sounds like they will settle this,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update

Court date set for 10/10

...what about the 3 lever arch files... I am quaking in my boots.

Their ploy seems to have had the desired effect then. Don't let them bully you now.

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

Hi Jssandy,

 

Don't worry they are trying to intimidate you. The issues are really not that complex and its unlikely the judge will allocate to the fast or multi -track as it is a straight forward case, well under the 5k limit and it is a consumer dispute.

 

ADR is alternative dispute resolution which includes mediation, negotiation concilliation and arbitration. So they are contradicting themselves in that one minute they are stating it is too complex for the small claims and then stating it is suitable for ADR. This is likely to be just a tactic as under the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules parties have to show that they have considered the possiblity of using ADR.

 

I'm trying to imagine what they have put in their 3 lever arch files? It would be worth turning up just to see that! Its worth going to the hearing so that you can explain your reasons for wanting to remain in the small claims and drawing their behaviour to the attention of the judge.

 

All the best

 

Zoot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Team.

 

I know what is inside the 3 arch lever files.. THEIR DINNER !!!

 

They are going to be in there for hours if they take this on.

It is a scare tactic to make you remove your claim. Keep on with your schedule.

As usual Zoot is impressive.

 

Good luck. . .

 

Ukaviator

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I would very much look forward to them being able to move this to the fast track and preferably even multi-track.

 

Their scare tactics would then backfire in magnificent fashion when they realise they would be faced with Standard Disclosure. This would force them to supply documentary evidence of their charging regime, the costs involved and any profit made from them.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will be with you in spirit. Just keep calm, and if there is anything you don't understand, don't be afraid to ask for an explanation.

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

Good decision and best of luck Jssandy,

 

Keep your cool and be clear in your arguments. Don't worry they will not be expecting any legal arguments at this point.

 

Points to argue in your favour include:

 

1. It is a consumer dispute and should be allocated to the small claims which is designed particularly for consumers.

 

2. The claim is well below the 5K threshold. You filed the claim believing it would be dealt with in the small claims court and did not anticipate the risk of bearing the costs in the Fast Track. So to transfer to fast track would be grossly unfair.

 

3. Under the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules there is an obligation on the judge to ensure the parties are placed on an equal footing. As the defendant is a huge financial institution it would be unfair to place this in the fast track as they would have the advantage in being able to bear the risk of costs whereas you do not.

 

4. The points of law relied upon are well established and settled law with no complex issues of interpretation. There is thus no need for it to go to the County Court.

 

5. Whilst you have repeatedly tried to contact the defendant to resolve the issue, they have failed to respond to any communication. Their request for extra time for ADR is thus likely to be a further delaying tactic to those already employed.

 

All the best, will be thinking of you also!

 

Zoot

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again .. herewith update...

Went to court today, Judge agreed to extend time for service of papers to GMAC and the three lever arch files is apparently to accomodate calculations. We argued that they have been aware of this since April but judge explained that if they are going this track it will take considerable time to put this all together. The judge mentioned the avalanch of claims now clogging the court system and that the mercantile court are trying to get a test case through the courts. He did mention that, however, every time it gets near to one being tried as a test case the banks settle. The judge has asked that our case be referred. We raised the issue of costs and all the points mentioned by Zoot! (thanks came in very handy) the judge agreed and referred without costs to be applied to Claimant (us!).

The agent for GMAC tried to scare us stating the enormous costs going fast track and came accross as a little intimidating but we made it clear we felt this was fine as these cases need to go to trial to settle once and for all. Made it clear we will fight.He mentioned that he had not had instructions to settle but to fully defend.

Have to admit felt a bit intimidated about the legal arguments but I guess that is what they wanted us to feel. The case if still in small claims will not be heared until after 15/12 !!

Whew!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sandy.

 

Well done with even turning up.I filed with Birmingham Midshires this morning for my ERC,so i am expecting simular things to happen.Thanks for keeping us posted.Good luck.

 

Ukaviator

  • Haha 1

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5258 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...