Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

NeilP .v. Abbey National Plc *** WON AS WELL!!!**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6476 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've had other threads that were general questions, but as things are getting serious, i though it prudent to tell you guys what's been going on, and to get your words of wisdom!

 

History:-

 

Prelim Letter sent 5th March 2006, Fob Off letter received 14th March 2006

LBA sent 14th March, Fob Off reply received 21st March 2006

Small Claims Action initiated 31st March 2006. No Defence or Acknowledgement Filed.

Judgement by Default granted on 21st April 2006.

Warrant of Execution granted on 25th April 2006.

E-mail received from Abbey Solicitors on 4th May asking (!) if i would agree to a stay of execution. Reply sent by return as a polite 'No'.

E-mail received from Abbey Solicitors on 5th May confirming Stay of Execution had been obtained.

 

Application Notice and Witness Statement received from London County Court today (19th May) with date of hearing set for 31st May at 3pm.

 

The Application Notice basically confirms all the reason why a Stay of Execution should be granted under CPR 13.3, with the possible exception of Part 2 (which deals with promptness of response - see later)

 

The Witness Statement is 11 pages long, so i won't copy it all down here (although i can scan it and e-mail it if required).

 

Various points i have pulled out (some relevant, some just picky) are as follows:-

 

4. Account Holder at the Staines Branch. Nope, i thought all accounts were held locally in London!

 

7. 'The Claimant has not particularised the charges in respect of which he seeks a refund and which he considers to be penal and/or unfair. The claimant had failed to provide details of the sums claimed, the types of charges incurred and dates when the charges were debited to his account.'

 

8.3 'The defendant's charges are in line with the banking industry as a whole. The defendant should be given the opportunity to adduce evidence at trial on this point.

 

 

They then go onto their T&C's and how i knew that these charges would be levied.

They then go into the Banking Code of Conduct and refer to the most recent one that came into effect on 31/03/05, and that is does not stipulate the level of charges which banks can charge in respect of unpaid DD's or unauthorised OD's

 

22. 'Further, the charges reflect the defendant's estimate in advance of the loss and administrative costs which it would be likely to suffer by virtue of being unable to par DD/Visa Debit/Cheques due to the insufficient funds in an account, or for the account going overdrawn.

 

24. 'It is for the claimant to prove, that as a matter of law, that they charges represent a penalty and are irrecoverable at common law.

 

30. Here they are talking about where a term of contract is deemed to be unfair. They quote case of 'Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank Plc (2001) UKHL 52, (2002) 1 AC. This case apparantly concluded that a default provision in a loan agreement made between a lending bank and a consumer borrower was not unfair.

 

31.3 'in any event, as referred to above.......that the charges which the defendent has levies both reflect and are proportionate to the administrative costs incurred by the defendant in an account.'

 

32. 'The defendant did not file an acknowledgement of service or defence because, unfortunately, the defendant's Legal Department did not receive notice of the claim until 02/05/2006 after Judgement had been entered. I became aware this Judgement had been entered, when i spoke to the court on 03/05/06.

 

33. 'I am informed by Linda Brewer of the defendant's Legal Department that enquiries have confirmed that they claim form was sent to the defendants registered Head Office. I am unable to offer an explanation as to why the claim form was not immediately sent to the defendant's Legal Department, as is standard procedure. Instead the claim form appears to have been sent to the case team in Bradford and was received by them on 26/04/06. The claim form was then sent to the Legal Department and received by them on 02/05/06.'

 

34. This one confirms their standard procedure for legal action to be immediately faxed through the their Legal Team, AND published on the defendant's intranet system. They admit that this procedure had 'broken down' and that 'the claimant (I'm sure they mean defendant) accepts that it is at fault in relation to failing to acknowledge service within time and accepts that the judgement is regular.'

 

36. But here they say that as they acted within two days of their legal team receiveing the paperwork on 2nd May, that that's OK!

 

My question now is :-

 

Do i need to respond to the court about their defence, or just wait until the hearing?

 

Thanks

 

Neil.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

can't help with this except to say that Abbey has used the excuse that they did not receive the court paperwork in other cases when trying to get default judgements set aside.

 

A search on here should bring up the relevant details (try "stay of execution"). It might be worth showing the judge that this is their standard patter, and not an unfortunate lapse of procedure.

... a little

Mahala is a powerful thing ...

 

If you like my advice, please click the scales.

All advice is offered informally. If in any doubt, seek professional advice.

Barclays:claiming £908. Defence filed

Simply Be: settled in full

Abbey: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

GE Capital: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

Aktiv Kapital: Failed to comply with CCA disclosure. Debt unenforceable.

If this site has helped you, please make a donation to help keep it going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rich44,

 

I am speaking to Whizzkid tonight hopefully who is in the same boat as me, but who's court hearing is a couple of days later on 2nd June.

 

Watch this space as they say!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be a good idea foe you to PM the administrators or mods and find out about all the cases where they have used the same excuse to get the case set aside? This is getting a bit scary now if they are going to use the same ruse with everybody.

 

Good luck anyway. I'll be there in spirit but I'm in th NE.

;) nn

FAQs: click here: http://READ THESE

 

Any views or opinions expressed are in good faith, to the best of my ability. I don't like to admit it, but I have been known to be wrong. Check other threads and if in doubt, seek professional advice.

 

 

Abbey: SETTLED IN FULL:lol:

BoS M/card SETTLED 27/09:lol:

Aqua CC (Halifax) SETTLED 28/06 :lol:

GMAC Request for refund 14/6; Prelim 31/7; LBA 11/9

First National Mortgage Data Protection Act sent 14/6 Statements 26/7

Cap 1 - SETTLED IN FULL:lol:

Abbey x 2: 50% offer refused AQ filed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Righteo,

 

6 days and counting.

 

The more i look into things, sometimes the scarier it becomes!! For instance, i found out the other day that if the Judge agrees to the stay of execution, he can immediately move onto hearing the case in full!! Not sure who would be more worried, me or the bank for actually having to present their case in front of a judge!

 

It's made quite interesting talk at work, it's amazing how many people have heard about claiming back their charges, but not actually believing it! It's not until i start telling them about it (and everyone else groans, as they have all heard 20 times before) that they start to believe it, and understand how simple it is.

 

So far, my office floor has almost disappeared under reams of papers that i have photocopied threefold (one for me, one for the judge and one for the Abbey's solicitor). Good old Viking - they're going to make a mint out of me before i'm finished!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only 4 days to go ....

 

But only 2 working days, Tuesday and then the Court Hearing on Wednesday. So, if Abbey are going to make me an offer i can't refuse, then they had better get their skates on!!

 

(Take note, anyone from Abbey or their Solicitors reading this, i will accept offers in excess of £15k to settle all of my claims accross, my bank accounts, mortgage and wifes old bank account!!) :-) :-)

 

The files are coming along nicely, just dotting the i's and crossing the t's and also trying to find some interesting case law to through in for good measure!

 

(Take note, anyone from Abbey or their Solicitors reading this, Cash would be superb! Unmarked notes of course....)

 

I suppose i should also start to think about what to wear ........

 

Suit & Tie = i know what i'm doing, so don't muck me about

Smart Casual = I've made the effort, but please don't take the michael

Casual = i really can't be bothered to make an effort, as Abbey haven't done anything to deserve it.

Scruffy = Judge, Sir, i need the cash, please make them give it to me!!!!!

 

What do you guys think?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naked = unlawful charges - you too could end up like me!!

Settled Claims:

Abbey: £4025 Claimed 27/02/06 - Paid in full 19/06/06

NatWest: £4529 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 1/08/06

Halifax: £1150 lba 18/05/06 - Paid in full 07/06/06

Natwest CC: £420 Initial letter 25/07/06 - Paid in full 08/06

Woolwich: £1100 Paid in full 28/2/07 + Default removed

NatWest Pt 2: £1700 Claimed 10/05/06 - Paid in full 7/2/07 + Defaults removed

 

Current Claims:

Abbey Pt 2: £2300 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

Alliance & Leicester: £1421 + adverse credit removal claimed 23/03/07

 

Refunds pending:

Capital Bank: Swift Advances: Halifax

 

Son's Refunds pending:

Abbey: HSBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil,

 

It may help you if you read OFT's report on credit card charges.

 

Essentially, the banks' charges are against the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR); and there is no apparent loss to the banks when customers breach their borrowing limits. All that happens is that interest continues to be charged, and is either eventually repaid, or the bank sues the customer for not repaying the borrowings.

 

It is open to the lender to simply not honour any cheques, SOs, DDs, etc., if they would take the customer over their given credit limit. The lender doesn't have to send letters, etc., to inform you that you have breached the limit - they have set up that particular system purely in order to try and justify their punitive charges. If they have suffered any losses, it is entirely of their own design! Of course, being a wunch of greedy, amoral and thoroughly unpleasant bankers, they have already covered themselves by pricing their activities so as to make exorbitant profits across a range of their products and "services". In other words, they already overcharge their customers, and then adding separate punitive charges means that they profit twice from some of their more unfortunate customers.

 

Dealing with their customers' accounts is part and parcel of their everyday activities as a bank, and that includes sorting out any issues with customers breaching their borrowing limits. If a customer refuses to repay what they owe, then the banks, like everyone else, need to take legal action to recover what the court decides is rightfully theirs - not just decide that customers should pay whatever figure enters the bankers' devious little brain.

 

They haven't got a leg to stand on - and if they do turn up in court, and the judge gets it wrong, the OFT and/or other interested parties WILL ensure that penalty charges are consigned to the bin!

 

Good luck,

 

Em

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark,

 

Nicely put. My hearing is for their application to set aside the Judgement that i have already won against them (by default). I am certain that they will turn up to this hearing as they do not want to have a CCJ against them re: return of bank charges. Then, presumably, as with everybody elses claims that have gone to the County Court, they will settle prior to the hearing.

 

It's just a game to them, and at the moment it is 30 - 15 to me!!

 

 

Whizzkid001 - Naked eh..... now there's a thought. Not a pretty one that's for sure!! LMAO!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with this. Sorry I can't make it (should be studying!)

 

There were some postings about comments made by some prominent bankers to a Commons Select Committee. They said the charges are based on total costs of banking across all customers and then divided between those who breach the contract. This however is not then a cost of your breach and is part of the reason why it is unfair.

 

If you go along to the Court without a legal team as the Abbey will have, the judge will be helpful so you may want to think about saying you are not able to deal with a full hearing (unless of course you can and want to) if they win their stay of execution.

 

Also you might want to find out how many times this kind of set aside has been requested before by Abbey because I have seen this a few times now on the forum. If you have Whizzkid helping then I suspect this is one area already under consideration because I think he was trying this argument himself.

 

On a more personal note I think it's a bit rich that they say their staff failed to act properly which resulted in the missed deadline so they want to have another try. If they have made a mistake then it should be tough luck - that's what they have said to us about our bank charges in the past. They didn't sympathise with us so why should we sympathise with them. In the immortal words of Pike "they don't like it up 'em". Still that's no use to you in Court. It's just my personal view - the cheeky beggars!

 

Sorry if this just repeats what you already know. I would like to see Abbey suffer so 'go for it'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 days to go...... and not a skid mark in sight....... yet!laughing-smiley-017.gif

 

Tomorrow is Abbeys penultimate chance to send me something in post that resembles something cheque-like.

 

Just a thought, if i win this stay of execution, will the judge let me whip out my camera and take a picture of the Abbey Solicitor's face?speechless-smiley-040.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, 1 day to go and making a checklist of all the things i need to take to court tomorrow.

 

1. Copy of their defence with lots of red writing all over it.

2. Copy of SOGAS and UTCC and OFT Report, all duly highlighted.

3. Crib sheet as i know i will forget the important bits.:-x

4. Hanky - to wipe the tears from my face when 1) i laugh so much as they try to back up their defence and 2) when i start to cry when they claim that the bank would not make any money if it didn't charge us something.:D

5. A camera to take a picture of their solicitors face.:-o

6. My paying in book for when i receive a cheque from them;)

7. B.A.G T-shirt (optional):p

 

Have i forgotten anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

6. My paying in book for when i receive a cheque from them

 

Hope it's for a different bank just to rub it in a bit more!

 

Seriously though, did you have any luck in forming a case that this has happened several times before and they should have tightened up their systems. Do they really want the courts to know that they disregard court documents when served on them?

 

Good luck tomorrow, we'll be thinking about you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to wish you good luck for tomorrow Neil. I'll be thinking of you, as I'm sure will everyone else on here.

 

Go get 'em boy!

 

Janeyh

Do you have a website? Add the following code to add a link to The Consumer Action Group:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk

The Consumer Action Group

Reclaim your rights as a consumer and reclaim your unfair bank charges! Free site with letter templates and helpful forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh my god, i nervous for you !! but the law is on our side !!

 

hope things go well for you and will be thinking of you ....

 

keep us all informed xxxx:p

if i have helped you at all click please the scales on top right!

 

ABBEY

11/4 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) SENT OFF

1/6 LBA SENT

22/7 LETTER SENT REQUESTING THEM TO REFUND CHARGES

15/7 STATEMENTS RECEIVED (ALL 6 YEARS WORTH)

20/7 CLAIM ISSUES IN OLDHAM COUNTY COURT.

8/8 CLAIM ACKNOWLEDGED GIVING THEM TILL 21/8.......

SETTLED IN FULL!!!!!!!

 

T MOBILE i won!

16/6 Data Protection Act SENT OFF

 

5/8 t mobile have failed to comply with the Data Protection Act/S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) reques ....BRING IT ON BABY!!

7/8 LBE SENT GIVING THEM 7 DAYS TO COUGH UP MY CASH

7/9 FULL REFUND BEEN SENT!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck... we're all watching this one very closely.

.

Barclays - £268 - Moneyclaim

Capital One - £172 - Moneyclaim

Abbey (2nd claim) - Moneyclaim

---------------------------------------------------

 

HSBC - £2164.46- PAID IN FULL

MBNA - £471 - PAID IN FULL

NatWest - £307 - PAID IN FULL

Abbey Business - £314.15 - PAID IN FULL

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6476 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...