Go back & ask him if that is the opinion of him or 'his' company 1st Credit the debt collectors!

1st Credit is owned by Bridgepoint whos' directors include Alan Milburn MP & former minister

Perhaps a 'nice' letter direct to him might result in a response

& whilst your at it ask him if it's because of his involvement with this company that he is keen to see debt collectors given the right to break into peoples homes & assault them

There was a case a couple of years ago involving a cricket ball & someones house which was being constantly bombarded by cricket balls from the village green playing field. The home owner sort an injuction to stop the club & won. It was in all the press at the time

your missing the point oz

what 'might' be obtained from the garage isn't the same as saying what izzy's legal rights are. What the garage do over & above their legal obligations is upto them. If izzy obtian's a new car then great we are only advising on their legal rights & the dealers obligations

As for the rest of you scenario I can only comment that you haven't been around car manufactures for very long if you think that is the norm

That may be their way of doing things but it is still wrong. An 'out off time' defence when an application for judgement has been made should be rejected.

Believe me when I say if you missed the deadline (by even one day) a default judgement would be issued against you post haste

Yes the defendant would probably be granted a set aside but only if they applied for it thereby causing them more time & trouble not to say costs. This might encourage them to settle rather than continue the fight.

If a court clerk has stated they delay placing judgement requests before the court & as a result allow late defences to be submitted without prior consent from either the court proper or the claimant can someone get it in writing & let me know

I'm almost certain the judges are unaware of whats happening

2 years! a prescribed time? What does that mean?

You CAN drive dad's Porsche on your Citroen Insurance but it will only be for 3rd party risks (unless stated otherwise) so unless you hit another Porsche then the insurance company won't care because the damage to dad's Porsche it is not their problem

If the garage didn't inspect the car in the presence of the owner they could still be held liable for damage reported after it left the garage

I agree 2 years rubbish & anyway they should have taken out pet insurance bearing in mind current vet fees

Out of interest what is the breed?

Izzy then your missing the point. I'm NOT saying your not entitled to a 'like for like' what I am saying is that if the garage have offered you a replacement 1/3 less than you originaly paid then that IS 'like for like'

When you drove your new car out of the showroom it devalued by 1/3 so even if it was fault free it is now still only worth 2/3rd's of it's original purchase price

However if you didn't have use of a courtesy car from the dealer you may be able to claim for loss of use at about £10 per day or any other costs you may have incurred

It is not for the courts to consider what 'might' happen. If the claimant had legal representation (I'm not advocating it) believe me when I say the court would not attempt to refuse the application & if they did a hearing before the senior judge would be requested when a complaint would be made

A late defence should only be allowed either on the order of the court &/or with agreement of the other party

Northampton CC have a habit of allowing the banks extra time without considering the effect on the claimant They grant stays without making an order They are known to refuse default judgements on the grounds that the bank will present a defence

This of course is disgraceful conduct & frankly I don't think the judges are aware of what the staff are doing as to deny the claimants right to judgement is highly prejudicial to the claimant & if a lawyer failed to apply for judgement on the day they could be hauled up before the Law Society for professional negligence

It must be realised that they could apply for a set aside but then that should be their problem & not assisted by the court clerks

Also having to incur additional costs might have the affect of making them settle sooner rather than later

BW of course it's nonsense & designed to put consumers off from claiming.

Anyway the OFT finding will not be binding in law unless they take court action to force the banks to justify their charges which they won't & the banks can't

Customers of that bank should cut & paste that statement & once they have compiled their claim send it with their LBA whilst saying that as the bank have clearly stated that they will not consider claims then they have 7 days instead of 14 to respond before the issue of proceedings

Make them eat their words

You will be liable for the court issue fees. If you ignore them they will take action & as you admit you obtained them fraudently (albeit you admitted this without coercion) they could pusue you more vigorously

The courts will act more aggressivly in recovering overpaid taxes

You are only entitled to credits from the time you apply & the fact that you didn't claim when you could is down to you & you can't set it against the debt

£1200pa! to insure her home where does she live in a mansion!

Your mums an elderly person sounds to me that there are grounds for reporting them to the regulator for mis-selling

Also I suggest you contact Financial Mail on Sunday its just the sort of story they would love to investigate after 1st confronting these sorts of companies

Correct pat

In fact such disclaimer notices are unlawful & can be reported to TS as they mis-inform the public about their legal rights

Glenn I agree the car was not fit for purpose & didn't say they wouldn't be entitled to a like for like but they wouldn't be entitled to a full refund not after this length of time

Also I think the original fault referred to was a badly fitting roof which has now started to leak which can hardly be described as a new! problem. They may be entitled to claim additional compensation for the loss of use but I think they will have difficulty claiming more that 1/3rd for the car alone which is what is being offered

Izzy don't want to be a wet blanket but whilst you are certainly entitled to compensation for your loss of amenity when it was being repaired numerous times I don't think you will be entitled to a refund.

The problem is 1st that you kept the car too long You gave them too many opportunities to put it right causing time to pass.

2nd most new cars devalue to the tune of 1/3 as soon as they leave the showroom so the offer they have made might not be so bad. However now that you have involved TS I should press for more

I'm new & I'm amazed that there are some on this site who actualy support the idea that people should be attacked in their own homes because of money

I thought it was about helping people

Finally!!! the courts have begun to realise whats going on.

No mention of the banks abuse of the legal system though which I think would have caused more concern amongst the regulators as it could be seen as them not doing their job etc.

If the judges are frustrated they should think how the rest of us feel

I agree. The conduct of the banks is reprehensible beyond measure. They claim a breakdown in relationship to justify their conduct when we all know it's the banks throwing their toys out of the pram because they have been found wanting

As the banks are now being used as social tools at the behest of the government by their insistence that benefits & pensions be paid direct into a bank account which resulted in the government forcing the banks to introduce basic accounts for the less well off. The fact that the banks are now closing many of those the makes a mockery of the whole exercise

It's about time the goverment & the regulators stopped pussy footing around & called them to account otherwise this goverment are going to find another revolt on their hands when people are unable to access their benefits or pensions

They could be being helpful (which will be a 1st) but the return of your £10 means that you have not met your statutory obligation under the Data Protection Act. You should send them a £10 PO stating that you are required to pay for your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) to be compliant.

Also mention that you consider the 40 day period for their compliance started on the date of your original request

Parkvale

The interest imposed on the unlawful penalty becomes part of the unlawful penalty & can (& should) be part of the claim

This isn't the 1st time I have heard of this happening

It's not upto the clerk to scrutinise the N1 They have no legal training they are clerks & are there to take the money & process the forms right or wrong.

The only reason they have for returning the N1 is if the claimant hasn't completed the sig box, or provided an address for service etc: The particulars of claim has nothing to do with them

Contact the court manager & complain about this clerks conduct repeating what was said to you & ask when this person started working for the banks

Hi I'm new just joined the battle

I've watched a number tv programmes recently involving bank charges & I have to say that the interviewers seem to let the banks spokesperson make the most outlandish statements without taking them to task They seem to be in complete denial about their amoral behaviour.

How in heavens name do these people sleep at night!!