Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Leaderboard

  1. noomill060

    noomill060

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      2

    • Content Count

      6,952


  2. tifo

    tifo

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      2,775


  3. steampowered

    steampowered

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      5,272


  4. flumps1976

    flumps1976

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      2,038



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/04/13 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    This isnt a platform for davewright to speak his mind, you are trolling. CAG is for the vulnerable and those scared witless by the oppressive world that Britain has been allowed to become and its going to get worse. People need to know they dont have to take this carp. By reading Ian's story, others who find themselves in the same situation wll know that it is the shop that has to back any evidence of intent to steal goods, rather than the shopper having to prove otherwise. There is more going here on CAG than you think dave. Very few Caggers will contribute, but this thread and all the others will eventually be read by many thousands of people, some Caggers and some guests looking for advice and information and you have no idea what is going on in their minds or what drew them here. Best to save speaking your mind and instead, make your advice non-judgemental, friendly and supporting OR simply keep your half baked opinions to yourself and butt out, unless you have something kind and useful to add.
  2. 1 point
    If you attend on Monday to sign you can take the fit note to show you are "not fit" for a 6 week period and can complete form JSA28 to cover you for the period up to Monday that is covered bu the fit note to excuse you from the requirement to be actively seeking and available as per the JSAg. You then specify that you wish to close your claim with last effective date of your claim as Monday 8th April. You then call the contact centre 0800 0556688 to claim ESA from Tuesday 9th April , doing this will make the transition between benefits easier and to make sure you receive a full payment of JSA. Once you have closed the claim for JSA you will not be required to attend the MWA placement.
  3. 1 point
    it's still ongoing ....... zurich accepted the claim when it went to the Ombudsdman. court proceedings due soon against Zurich after a few years at the Ombudsman. Initial letters to their nominated solicitors were sent some months ago who have offered to settle some heads of claim but not all (and the main damage). I've said I'll accept to settle these heads of claim and move forward to court on unsettled matters but they want all or nothing. i'm even thinking of a judicial review against the Ombudsman who made the decision that the developer is at fault which the insurer accepts and they both put a figure of £200 to the repairs (against my £9,750) but then say it is not covered under the policy definition of major damage. The Ombudsman also missed out crucial heads of claims because they seemed to misunderstand my heads of complaint even though they are clear in the loss adjusters report. so the Ombudsman and insurer accept the developer made mistakes which resulted in the damage claimed but none will pay for repairs.
  4. 1 point
    The Land Registry have just produced a new Practice Guide 76 regarding Charging Orders HERE Of particular interest is Section 5 which at paragraph 3 reads, "Entry of a restriction does not protect the priority of the interest to which it relates for the purpose of s.29, LRA 2002. A charging order affecting only the beneficial interests under a trust is liable to be overreached along with those interests by the operation of ss.2 and 27, Law of Property Act 1925. Accordingly, a Form K restriction will be usually be cancelled automatically, without application, when a transfer which appears to overreach the beneficial interests is registered." Which information will, hopefully, a) be of use to sellers when conveyancers are telling them that the CO related to the Restriction has to be paid off prior to any sale being completed and b) eventually deter creditors from going down the CO route (if it can only be made against Beneficial Interest) as it will come to be seen as an ineffective debt collection method with poor security.
  5. 1 point
    The legal implications are of course HUGE.... we are not talking about paying back Borrowers small amounts of money here (such as ppi claims, bank overdrafts or charges).... remember, investment bankers inflated the market so that house prices went through the roof, Borrowers home loans are massive - not like back in the 80's when you could get a loan for £17K or less on a three bed house..... today, we are talking figures of £100'sss of pounds..... HMLR are not going to take likely to requests for official copies of deeds - but by statute they must supply them as and when requested. Notably they are even misconstruing UN1 applications as AN1 applications I'm told (gawd help us...!!) The Adjudicator is not going to take likely to standing by the decision in Garguilo - but it is its own precedent - how can it deny the similarities?? (HMLR are telling Borrowers that they cannot make applications direct to the Adjudicator - when the Adjudicators website clearly states that the public make applications direct to him in cases to do with rectification of the register - why are HMLR misleading the public??? the mind boggles....they even told one Borrower that the deed does not need to be signed by the Lender - crikey, whatever next??? - this from an Authority that we rely on to register the very houses we live in.....it's not looking good at all...but hey ho we press on...) Borrowers will be interested to know that according to Halsbury's Law of England, 4th Edition 1975 vol 12, para 1360: "..where a party named in a deed has without executing the deed, accepted some benefit under it, that person must give effect to all the conditions on which the benefit was expressed by the deed to be conferred, and so must perform all the covenants and stipulations on their part contained in the deed' Halsbury's Law is essentially saying, that where it can be shown that the Lender has not executed the deed, but benefits from CMI, repossession and the eventual sale of a borrowers home, then they are to be made liable to the Borrower for all the monies and benefits they have derived...... It is clear that a Lender with an order from the court will follow through to re-sell (I say this because they will have already sold all the legal and equitable rights to the SPV previously) or better stated as 'sell the actual property' - this should not deter the Borrower - the finding that the intended underlying mortgage was intended to be by deed may protect the right to bring a case to the Adjudicator upto 12 years after the event (as a 'speciality' deed) Hope this helps : ) Apple
  6. 1 point
    You need to be careful to ensure that your Defence is fully particularised and must state your own version of events, as per the court order. Your first defence was inadequate and the court has given you a shot at redemption here - there are some holes in your defence so I think it will help to dissect it, please don't be offended by this. On the SB point, they have already provided a list of transaction records showing you were making monthly payments until March 2007. This would normally be adequate proof of payment and enough to defeat your allegation of SB. Your SB defence is likely to fail unless you do a better job of particularising it. It is not really good enough to demand more evidence and say you are putting them to proof. The court has ordered you to state your own version of events. If you do not believe their list of transactions is accurate then you need to explain this. Remember that YOU are the one claiming the Defence so it is incumbent on you to get to the bottom of this, you cannot just sit back. You are saying why SB applies so you need to say when the last payment was made. If you do not then the court will probably accept their list of transactions as correct. I think you need to contact your former bank to get a copy of the statements from March 2007, they should still have these. I don't understand what you are saying here. What do you mean by "not a true document". Are you alleging that the documents are forged? Or that someone else fraudulently applied for debt on your behalf because you didn't sign them? If so this should be made clear. I don't understand what you are saying about the addresses. If these are addresses you never lived at you need to make this clear. If you are saying that the agreements are not valid because the address is incomplete (e.g. because it only has a house number and post-code but is missing a road name or town name) then this seems to me to be a hopeless argument. I don't think it matters that the DoA is not dated. Fine, but the factual basis for your allegations and legal reasons why this makes the agreement unenforceable should be properly set out in your Defence. If the lack of a DN leads to unenforceability legal basis for this needs to go in the defence. This is all very interesting. But unless you are denying existence of the debt or denying that you signed the documents it is not strictly relevant to the question of whether the debt is enforceable. You need to be clear about what you are alleging and how this makes the debt unenforceable. I would not bother with a strike out application. As you are in the fast track, you will be liable for legal costs if your application fails. As per the Claimant's letter, they say they have provided you with all the documents and thus have complied with s78. If you want to pursue the s78 point then properly explain it in the Defence and argue the point in court. I do not understand why you think they have not complied with section 78. If this is an argument you want to pursue, it needs to be properly explained in the Defence.
  7. 1 point
    DonkeyB has given you some good advice in the post above. You need to start negotiations with 1st crudite NOW. Telephone National Debtline and ask them to help you complete a Common Financial Statement (personal budget sheet that is recognised by the courts). Then write to 1st crudite via their solicitors (or who ever is acting on their behalf for the claim) and lay out your situation along the following lines. You are a student existing on student grants. Unless you have a regular part time job you cant provide any income details. Do not assume that you will get a part time job. Your priority expenditure such as rent, food, etc will be on the CFS. You have no assets, BMW, Cartier Watch, House in Belgravia. Your offer is likely to be a £1.00 token offer. On that basis, there will be little point in them even bothering to take you to court. You could even make a case for asking them if they would write off the debt. You should include the court references and the account number - send it Recorded Delivery. But do it NOW.
  8. 1 point
    What? You spend your DLA on issues related to your disability? It seems most people assume you spend it on hookers and cocaine. I mean, that's what I'd do if I had some spare cash, right? I'm Daily Mail reader Joe, and I'm in decent health. Not great, but decent. Of course, a few years from now I might be in your situation, although I won't think about that because DM readers are exempt from the vagaries of life. This is because they are reliably informed about the only illness that could kill them: cancer. They are informed about it daily. That's what the DM is for. Well, that and the fact that their house might be worth less soon. Because of the benefit scroungers, you know? And of course, we all want to help, but there are limits to the charity the poor can offer to the rich. Oh, there are other illnesses that can be debilitating? Ah. Hmm. Not so sure about that. You're probably a phoney. Get a job!
  9. 1 point
    I'll have whatever you've been smoking! Ha ha... If your company Idiot iQor adds charges and fees, then these won't be legal and are unenforceable. DCA's CANNOT add anything they are powerless to do so, all you can do is send out puerile threat letters. Please don't take this advice, 82 posts in 4 years, not a very prolific troll eh. The consumer holds all of the powers, we dictate exactly what we will pay, and you will accept it.
  10. 0 points
    Your employer needs to e careful in precisely 'how' they are measuring your absence. HIV is classed as a disability and consequently, the employer should be using different scoring criteria for measuring sickness absence - in a sense separating 'sickness' absence from 'disability' absence. Not an easy task with a condition such as HIV, as so many otherwise common infections and ailments will be attributable to the condition. That isn't to say that the employer cannot set target levels of absence which take into account your disability, but that these should be more flexible than they would be for another member of staff who isn't disabled (as defined by the Equality Act) - that is the 'reasonable' adjustment. Your starting point should therefore be to establish what special consideration has been given when measuring absence for the fact that you have a condition which is more likely to cause sickness? If you are subject to the same thresholds and trigger points as for the rest of the workforce then it is highly likely that your employer is heading towards a discriminatory act. If however the employer has allowed a greater degree of leeway before instigating action, then the fact that you may face sanctions may well be fair. As Conniff states, the employer does have a right to terminate your employment, even if you are classed as disabled, but they must do so correctly, and in your case this would most likely be on grounds of capability - if your persistent absence, despite being allowed a degree of latitude due to the disability, causes you to no longer be able to carry out your duties effectively, then dismissal could be the consequence. This should though be a last resort., taking into account medical reports and a qualified prognosis. Edit - just seen the 'two day' additional allowance and I agree that this does not sound reasonable. Maybe a more in depth discussion of the nature and likely impact of HIV on your attendance would be appropriate, backed by any medical guidance that you can find.
  11. 0 points
    It is my understanding that ALL the terms and conditions should be present at time of signature !!
  12. 0 points
    I don't disagree with you. I just hate it when politicians draw similarities between criminals and regular claimants. It's exactly the same kind of spin as the skivers/strivers rubbish, just much more offensive!
  13. 0 points
    From what you have said, it would be pretty obvious to anyone at the assessment that you are a person in great difficulty. Regardless of what we may think of those who are employed by ATOS, I would sincerely hope that they will render you every possible assistance. When you get there don't be shy. Make sure you let the receptionist know of your problems and the help you will need. Whilst it may do little good, I'd be inclined to phone ATOS and let them know you have no-one to accompany you and that you will need their help on arrival. You never know, the message may get through. I'm guessing from your username that the chances of you being anywhere within striking distance of West Dorset are somewhere between none and not at all. Otherwise I would happily volunteer to escort you on the day and assist as best I could ...
  14. 0 points
    Ok Pimpy. If a member of staff (mainly security) thinks anything is untowards with a customer whether it be there not fit to be in the shop or they think that a customer hasn't paid for an item then they have a duty not only for themselves but for their employers to make sure that they take the appropriate action. Whether that is removing them from the shop, asking to see their receipt or phoning the police then so be it. As mentioned before if the member of staff thinks that there is a problem then they are there to sort it out. If someone asks me for my receipt then if i think they are a member of staff i will show them without any questions asked. If you fail to show your receipt then it can in my eyes either be that you are too arrogant or that you have done something wrong. If i was the member of staff at the time and i asked the customer to show me their receipt and they refused then alarm bells would ring. You as a customer have the right to do what you please but if it's failing to uphold the law or comply with the shops rules then you'll have to face the consequences. What makes me laugh and think it's arrogance personified is the following: Ian Valentine Quotes: "The first officer then asked if I minded showing him my receipt for the purchased goods, and as he is an officer of the law I duly obliged" My thoughts to that "take your head out of your bottom sir"
  15. 0 points
    RW are passing the buck really they now own the debt and are resonsible for the cra file entries,but you can try approaching Cahoot about it.
×
×
  • Create New...