Jump to content

southyorksman

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Background I first wrote to Bank of Scotland Card Services in March with a Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request), I heard nothing from them so in May started sending reminders and trying to get through to confirm it was being dealt with, in June I upped the pressure and in July I sent a final demand but all i've had to date is 6 years worth of charges info which isn't what I asked for. In total it's been over 120 days since my initial request and fee paid. I'm now out of patience and want to pursue this in court and if possible also get damages for all the distress and anxiety it has caused. I've looked at the POC template in the templates library and it says "Please be aware that claims for distress are only available where the distress is caused by the quantifiable damage. You would usually need professional evidence in support. If you are intending to go down this route it is vital you contact us before proceeding." I have no idea who the "us" to contact are so I'm putting it here in a thread. Are the extra letters, special delivery charges and hours of phone calls damages? This extra expense has caused me considerable distress on my meagre income. Help please. IAN
  2. There is nothing straightforward for a layperson to use the legal system. I have no idea what a "Part 8" procedure is.
  3. Hi all, I am looking for a legal bundle to help me prepare a claim for enforcement of a DPA subject access request. Background I first wrote to Bank of Scotland Card Services in March with a DPA SAR, I heard nothing from them so in May started sending reminders and trying to get through to confirm it was being dealt with, in June I upped the pressure and in July I sent a final demand but all i've had to date is 6 years worth of charges info which isn't what I asked for. In total it's been over 120 days since my initial request and fee paid. I'm now out of patience and want to pursue this in court and if possible also get damages for all the distress and telephone calls and anxiety it has caused. I don't know how to word my claim so I wondered if the CAG had a dpa disclosure court bundle like they have for actual charges claims. Help needed ASAP! IAN
  4. Can someone give me some advice please. I have already calculated 6 years worth of charges and sent the LBA and final demand to Nationwide without even a derisory offer to settle from the building society in return, just letters "holding the T&C line". I have now rec’d my almost full S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) bundle which contains flexaccount statements back to 1998 and branch records back to when the account was opened in 1990. I have the evidence to make a bigger claim back to 1998 but would I then risk losing the lot if the limitations act is upheld. Also would I need to send another LBA and another final demand before I issue a court claim. So should I just issue the 6 year claim for charges, debit interest plus contractual interest and then, when I have won that, go back for the rest or will that weaken my case for the second round. Also if they settle before judgement in the first case will I then have weakened my second case as all the charges will be over 6 years old. Or am I better off starting again from 1998 and claiming 9 years in one go? Help!!
  5. This weeek I have received an interesting letter from Barclaycard in response to my Data Protection Act S.A.R - (Subject Access Request). Paragraph 4 of the letter states I have a jpeg scan of the letter if anyone wants to see it (with my personal details removed), I would have attached it to the post if I knew how but I can't work out how to. I also have the original if that is needed. All the best, IAN southyorksman
  6. Hi Petcat, I too have problems as spending time to put things in writing frequently causes me panic attacks with no-one there to calm me down. I made many complaints via Lloyds Banks customer services and in the end my branch filled in an "escalation form" and sent all the evidence of sec states letter and SSAA 1992 with it. Today I've had a letter from the collections concerns team at Lloyds TSB saying that they were entitled to take my benefits as the money was paid into my normal current account, the sec of states letter referred to direct payment accounts set up by the government which are different. I phoned her and argued that the letter is about the direct payment scheme itself whatever type of bank account it is paid into, not just basic bank accounts but she wouldn't have it and said they have this complaint a lot and I'm not the first. I'm now seeking a court hearing as I believe they are deliberately misinterpreting the intent of the Sec of states letter and ignoring the SSAA 1992 totally. Anyone having this problem with Lloyds particularly? IAN southyorksman
  7. They are complicit in and profitting from an illegal act. They are complicit in defrauding say "the shopkeeper" who provided goods in return for the cheque and by charging a service fee for the process of bouncing the cheque they are then profitting from the illegal act. Is that not so?
  8. The banks argument that returning a cheque is a service cannot possibly be upheld. Why? I was told a long time ago that writing a cheque, when you know you have insufficient funds to honour it, is technically illegal ( I think it is fraud but I am willing to be corrected on the exact law being broken). It is also illegal to contract with anyone to assist with or carry out an illegal action. Therefore if the bank contracts with us (the consumer) to bounce our cheques then it is aiding and abetting an illegal act, which voids the contract. It’s a very simple argument but I believe a compelling one! Prove me wrong people, prove me wrong!! IAN
  9. The banks argument that returning a cheque is a service cannot possibly be upheld. Why? 1. I was told a long time ago that writing a cheque, when you know you have insufficient funds to honour it, is technically illegal ( I think it is fraud but I am willing to be corrected on the exact law being broken). 2. It is also illegal to contract with anyone to assist with or carry out an illegal action. 1 + 2 = 3. Therefore if the bank contracts with us (the consumer) to bounce our cheques then it is aiding and abetting an illegal act, which voids the contract. It’s a very simple argument but I believe a compelling one! Prove me wrong people, prove me wrong!! IAN
  10. OK, OK, I sometimes don't think enough before I write, I'm sorry. I find that the best way to tackle a problem such as the banks' argument that they are providing a service is to get back to the underlying fundamental principles under which they are legally entitled to trade and then look at the subsequent controls that are legally placed upon them. I'm not a solicitor but I have a pretty good brain and quite a lot of time free at the moment (no I'm not incarcerated). What law actually governs bank current accounts, is it just the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982? What is the actual contract that was signed? Is it covered by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and /or the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. I am vaguely aware that used to be Banking acts but I think these were replaced/repealed by the Financial Services Act but do these merely authorise banks without laying down rules for bank accounts. What legally constitutes a services, is there a legal definition of what a service is and what act does it appear in? I'm sorry if I'm posing basic questions but the answer is often "hidden" in plain view. Any legal pointers welcome, sarcasm not helpful. Thanks, IAN
  11. Any legal opinion welcome on this. CONSIDER The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 15 Implied term about consideration (1) Where, under a contract for the supply of a service, the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract, left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract or determined by the course of dealing between the parties, there is an implied term that the party contracting with the supplier will pay a reasonable charge. As a simple layman, I interpret this to mean that if the consideration (the fee) for a service is not determined (an actual figure of pounds printed in the contract) then the fee charged for that service has to be reasonable (rather like the UTCCR). I may be wrong but as far as I am aware the actual charge for the defaults is not explicitly stated in the contract rather it refers to the banks current charges schedule. Thereby satisfying the highlighted state in 15 (1) "left to be determined in a manner agreed by the contract". This means that the banks cannot argue that, as it is supposedly a service the bank is providing, the consideration is not relevant. Can they? Thoughts please. IAN southyorksman
  12. I created my own spreadsheets to calculate the interest relating to charges. It works on the simple premise that interest is charged on the running total of charges plus interest at the end of the previous month (using the credit card rate in operation on that date) then the charges made in the current month are added. If that total exceeds the actual interest charged in that month I argue that the balance represents losses I have made by being unable to use that surplus to pay of balances on other cards. I can provide anyone with a copy if they want it. Has anyone considered instead of messing about arguing contractual interest we charge the banks it's annual reported pre-tax percentage profit on the balance of each years total of charges plus interest. I've calculated these figures for Lloyds TSB from 2001 and the results are huge. Simply argue "disgorgement", that the bank should have to disgorge all the profit made from its misappropriation of funds from customers. The fairest way is to apply overall profits proportionally to each years running total. This is the profit they made from my loss. IAN
  13. A couple of questions 1) Under what UK law does a current account exist 2) What law governs bank overdrafts A swift accurate response is required please Ta, IAN:???:
  14. I don't mean to be picky but the wording of the UTCCR non exhaustive list does not mention "breaches the contract" it actually says "fails in his/her obligations" doesn't it? This means whether the action constitutes an actual breach of contract or not is irrelevant as the wording is clearly obligations and I have a LLoyds TSB T&Cs with a section entitled "your obligations" I think this would satisfy that definition even in an American court with a wealthy famous defendant (probably;) ). Am I wrong? (or just missing the point as usual)
×
×
  • Create New...