Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 21/02/10 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    By clicking the scales of the person who has made a post that you think is helpful/useful etc The scales are on the left at the bottom in the middle Ozzy how do you see ya blobs and what they say??? Ive still only got one booohoooo
  2. 2 points
    We secured a bit more than permission to amend Michael; it might be helpful to give a more detailed explanation. Yesterday's hearing took place with the fully amended Statement of Claim (amended POC) and amended crave before the court, and previously intimated to the bank's solicitors. Which may explain why counsel for the bank objected so strongly to the orders we sought, and hoped to get the case dismissed. The court was taken through the new ss.140A-B CCA case, and the substantially revised reg.5 case, and full legal argument took place in light of same. The bank was ordained to lodge defences in light of the new and revised grounds of claim, and a full evidential hearing was fixed. The reason we have said 'Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges' is twofold. (1) Now that the court has accepted the new legal grounds, and appointed an evidential hearing on those grounds, the effect of this evidentially and tactically is very significant. Section 140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides as follows: (9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary. What this means is that the Bank of Scotland now has to prove its charges are fair in relation to price (under s.140A of the CCA). If you go back to pre-July 2007, that never happened. It always for claimants to prove charges were unfair, which historically was never easy given the banks failure to disclose their true business model etc., Tactically, to place the bank under more pressure, we can enroll an application to ordain the bank 'to lead' at the evidential hearing i.e. we create a prima facie presumption that the charges are unlawful, which the bank can rebut, but the onus is on them, evidentially, to do so, and we can insist that they lead their witnesses and evidence first. We are entitled to do this, given the court has accepted the new grounds of claim. Now, you wouldn't expect us to go into any more details - as our duty is to our client - but we believe we can show on the balance of probabilities that the charges were excessive, and if so, unfair under the CCA. We also have a pending claim to effectively ban the imposition of future charges - so this is considerably more powerful than a simple payment action (which is all we had pre-July 2007). (2) The second reason for our description of this development, is that we believe it is important to counter the fact the banks have convinced most people it's now impossible to challenge their charges as unfair and unlawful. But more on that if we can secure a number of victories - which I believe we have reasonably good prospects to do so. Mike
  3. 1 point
    Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges http://govanlc.blogspot.com/2010/02/...-to-proof.html Friday, 19 February 2010 Not quite as earth-shattering as the headline suggests - only been granted permission to amend their POC's as opposed to the bank being ordered to show their charges were fair, but one more step in the right direction
  4. 1 point
    thanks, just given you a tickle!
  5. 1 point
    God l have just read this thread from the start and no only am i confused but l have a headache. Tell moorcroft to bugger of.
  6. 1 point
    I agree with Kelcou I think the only thing to do is to admit it, it will not be as bad as you think. Its hard to live on benefits at the best of times but when you are a single person with only basic benefit then its impossible. Dont beat your self up its done now, Get the interview over with I dont think you will end up in court, just an overpayment hopefully. If you come out of work again you will be able to sign on again without a problem. It seems a struggle your mortgage but hopefully things will improve and a better job will come along soon Good luck with the IUC
  7. 1 point
    pinkjaney...have a read of my thread from here.. have another also.. will go find it.. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/195656-egg-barclays-help-please-3.html#post2448000 MJ:) found it.. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/230908-help-statutory-demand-costs.html?highlight=vinegarvera
  8. 1 point
    His insurance will pay for everything if you are not at fault You do not have fully comprehensive insurance so they will not do anything about the repairs to your car, that is all up to you to sort out. You will not lose your no claims bonus UNLESS a claim is made against you, and given what you have said about the accident circumstances that shouldn't happen. A no claims bonus is just what it says, it is a bonus for not making a claim (you cannot claim because you are not covered for your damage and the third party cannot claim because you state the accident was his fault) You need to sort out getting the estimates, if your car is still driveable send letter 6 from the template letters, and give his insurers a chance to inspect the damage and authorise you to get the repairs done. Any courtesy car is down to the garage, or the third party insurers (if they have that facility), otherwise you will have to hire one and claim back the cost. You will probably have to pay for the repairs yourself and claim that back from the other persons insurance as well, although some third party insurers will pay out on the estimate as a cash in lieu of repair settlement. Mossy
  9. 1 point
    Hmmmm - that creates an issue. Do you have ANY other way to find out her address? And no it wouldnt consitute harrassment dont worry about that. The definitive figure would be basically ALL of your out of pocket expenses, cost of lost posessions, cost of deposit + 3 x deposit, any lost wages - and I would probably then add £2-4k on top of all that as punitive damages. Court - timescale will be long unfortunately. Cost is about £100 (I think) as you will need to go down N208 route.
  10. 1 point
    Booo I want some green blobs :'(
  11. 1 point
    You can download form N244 HERE What kind of defence did you put in to that ridiculous POC of theirs ?
  12. 1 point
    Hi Vjohn... The thing is I've had three default notices from HFC... First... insufficient time to remedy Second... incorrect amount stated... demanded full amount and not arrears... therefore agreement terminated.. Third... a copy of the above only with a different date on. Mort clarke demanded full payment november 2008.... court claim issued Dec 2008.... CCJ issued Feb 2009... agreement well and truly deceased!!! Mort Clarke have issued another default,( stating the ones from HFC as an admin error,) on behalf of Phoenix... I just really want to stick the knife in on as many aspects as possible... Spam.
  13. 1 point
    Seriously ITBG?, If you are going to post the same 'guide', now for the 22nd time, why not at least make the 'guide' accurate? Everything about your second point is wrong. That is not my personal opinion, I have posted the links to Companies House to show it is fact. Take a deep breath before you WUF WUF me. If lots of people make the same complaint which is partly wrong, what do you think will happen (or going by your own and littledotty's posts already has) ? CIB, Companies House etc will just write one standard template letter and file the complaint with the rest. We all hear your call for action not words and we all know you have the best intentions. ITBG? Time to blow the whistle here on your repeated posts. If you are going to post the same for the 23rd or more times, at least amend it so that it is accurate. Otherwise it is not as helpful as it could be.
  14. 1 point
    Your Joking 40% lol. No received a letter from Wescot saying my client would offer me a wopping 25% dicount on the eledged dept . Which they will be getting my reply very shortly. Gaz
  15. 1 point
    Halifax lose in Leeds County Court Yes, have a read of the post in the link above.
  16. 1 point
    Yayy !!! I gots my own thread lol . . . its a pleasure to help m8, keep your thread updated on your PPI claim and if you need any help just shout. it will not get knocked back, if it was missold it is doe back to you, consumers DO have rights and companies need to learn the hard way they cannot treat us like we are money making objects. . .
  17. 1 point
    A chink of light in this long tunnel? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html
  18. 1 point
    Essexboy, I agree with you Entirely. If there has been no problem with payment for 2 years, What is Their Problem??? And Major Player your input as always is priceless in the War against The ****!!! Reputation is Still a Big Part for them!!! WE are slowly, but Definately Destroying any Rep they presume they have. With a Hell of a Lot of Help from Them. Great aren`t They?
  19. 1 point
    hi if the agreement for a freeze in the interest has been in place for two years, surley this is an agreement even if it is written or unwritten or they would have taken action sooner as a regular payment has been maintained over a long period i would think a court would take a dim view of welcomes actions especially as they have made plenty out of this transactio this is my opinion only i sure others will put me right if i am wrong essexboy
  20. 1 point
    Ok lets see what I get : loan £15000 over 180 months at 17.7 % apr thats a monthly repayment of £224.58 interest £25,425.71 total payable £40,425.71 now we add insurance ppi insurance £2810.94 over 180 months at 17.7 % apr interest £4,764.67 monthly payment £42.08 total payable £7,575.61 so we add the loan interest and insurance interest to give £30,190.38 then add acceptance fee of £235 plus MIF of 1650 to give a total £32,075.38 so we add £32,075.38 £15000 loan £2810.94 insurance to give a total amount repayable £49,886.32 divide by 180 to give a monthly figure of £277.14 Your agreement is incorrect and will leave a shortfall of 1514.92
×
×
  • Create New...