Well after a long absence decided to come and see if anything new has been happening on the "stay" front? Any new angles of attack and if not what are the dates we are waiting on now? Last I remember the OFT were going down a different route, but I kind of got lost in other things and forgot about the case completely. Hope all the oldies are good and still around?

Well it has been a long long time since I have been on here... So has there been any movement on the stays being lifted or any new angle since 2008? I have not heard a peek from the Court or DG and am wondering if my case is even still in the Courts... Any ideas anyone?

Thanks for that, but the fact I was not told on sign up and it is not in their terms is surely "unfair"? Also what review of credit industry are you referring to? Thanks, Penfold

Hi guys, I have had a Vanquis card for about a year now and generally pay the balance off every month. Recently I have noticed that they are charging me cash interest every month. When I called them up they said that even though I have paid the balances every month I have new transactions added and unless there is no balance for two months in a row the interst will continue... Can someone please tell me how this is allowed and how this is surely an unfair term? In fact I cannot even find this in their terms and conditions... Any advice would be appreciated, Penfold

Thanks for that, not sure I can make a counter claim as the case is closed as far as the Court is concerned so yes will continue paying and claim seperately I guess...

Ok, well was small claims Court and the Judge agreed that they had probably breached the DPA, BUT because I had not mentioned DPA in my POC's he could not takt that into account. I now have ICO letter confirming breach was probable and in particular the sixth principle. So if I had that letter and DPA was mentioned in my POC's I probably would not have been lumbered with charges at the worst...

It will not get to Court...(IMHO) they are trying to find ways to make you accept a lower figure... Ask yourself will they win even if only 6 years? and stick to your guns... Good luck, Penfold

Hi, I don't know if anyone can answer this, but hoping maybe one of our law students or experienced battlers may be able to help... I lost a case and was asked to pay Court Costs to the defendant. New information has now come up, but the new information cannot be related to my original POC's... Does this mean: a) I need to continue paying and take seperate Court action b) Can challenge them on this new info and stop paying and ask for my money back that I have paid so far c) Makes no odds to anything Thanks, Penfold

I agree, although the DPA compensation does allow for "proveable damages" and I'd say being ordered to pay court costs is pretty provable wouldn't you? We'll see, but I do agree that they need to be held accountable, however, petty they feel the case may be. A SAR is a Legal request and they chose to ignore it and then supply extra personal info in witness docs that I never saw before...Would love to hear the Judge's view on that! Can I request the same judge that I had before? He saw my point and realised that NW got away with it all by my missing out the breach of DPA on my claim form.

Well many many months on I have finally had my reply from the ICO and they state in their email to me that: "As I understand it, you are concerned that you made a subject access request on 29 March 2007 to NatWest but without a fee. They responded on 3 April and informed you they decided to waiver the fee on this occasion. However, you did not receive any information within 40 days. You then made another request with the fee on 19 July 2007. You received some information in July 2007 and then again in January 2008. After taking NatWest to court you learned they had more information about you which was not earlier disclosed. You believe that if NatWest had fully disclosed your personal information you would not had taken your case to court and suffered financial loss. (Exactly my point in Court it cost me in Court costs then also the £1000 costs against me) Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the issues surrounding your court case. As I have explained, although we cannot award compensation for a breach of the DPA, it may be helpful to explain that section 13 of the DPA states:- ‘(1) An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of the Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage. (2) An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if— (a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or (b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes. (3) In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned.’ I have included copies of our publications on seeking compensation. Should you choose to claim compensation, you should ensure that you seek your own independent legal advice. The sixth principle says that ‘Personal data shall be processed in accordance with the rights of data subjects under the Act’. This includes the right to access personal data. Furthermore, there is a requirement under the DPA for NatWest to respond to your subject access request within 40 days of receiving that request. From the information you have provided it appears likely that NatWest has failed to comply with the sixth principle in this case. This is because it appears you did not receive a response to your request for your personal information within the statutory limit. It also appears that you did not receive all the personal information you are entitled to under the DPA. In light of this it is my assessment that it is unlikely that NatWest has complied with the DPA in this case. This assessment is based solely on the information you provided. I will now write to NatWest to tell them about this assessment and to recommend the steps they should take to bring their processing into compliance with the DPA in this caseand to prevent similar likely breaches in the future. In particular I will recommend that they now ensure you receive all the personal information you are entitled to. I will also recommend that they respond to subject access requests within the statutory limit. I have made this assessment based only on the information you provided. NatWest may well want to give their point of view. If NatWest has any information to suggest that this assessment should be changed, I will ask them to provide it within 28 days and will write to let you know. Otherwise this matter is considered as closed. Yours sincerely," I have now written to NatWest with a copy of this assessment and asked them to refund the payments I have made towards the Courts £1,000 charges (£600 so far) and a refund of £640 odd for my Court costs for the last case. I have not asked for what I was claiming for before, nor damages for distress at this stage and I hope that they will see common sense and just pay up rather than forcing my hand to another Court case with regards this breach. The damages I am claiming are all quantified and so there is no arguement to be had in my opinion. Anyone agree or disagree as all opinions are appreciated (especially the Counsel who read this thread before turning up last time to use it against me) Penfold

Woolwich settled my claim a few days before Court hearing, so I would not expect to hear anything from them before that stage. Good luck, Penfold

they settled prior to getting to the hearing date

Well I have written to them, but in the end will prob agree with you on this one.

Should add damage was front bumper ripped off from front right corner, no side damage whatsoever to our car, third party front left and ALL down the side...So think physics now guys and girls...if our car hit them then momentum would suggest our car (being smaller and lighter) would turn and we would then hit side on side....If bigger car hit front right and their momentum is stronger (which it would be) they would continue through and rip the front bumper off and have side damage...

Ok I will try to explain... Wife left work and approached roundabout, left lane goes left and straight, but as is also main road to M1 was backed up and stationary. Middle lane goes straight and wife in that lane going straight. Right lane goes right and thrid party in that lane. Wife in a Clio and third party Lexus 4X4. Wife exits and goes straight Right lane also does and then cuts in front and takes the front right corner of car out and continues going straight and comes to a stop after dragging our car along with it in the straight exit. So firstly, we never accepted any liability on speaking to DL they said "roundabout no witnesses will be 50:50". We said, under the circumstances and children in mind not happy but will accept it to bring it to a close. After this third party instructed sols and continued action against my wife via DL saying she was negligent etc. As soon as we heard this we told DL's sols (supposed to be acting on our behalf) that we dispute this and in facts the set up of the roundabout and actions of the third party do not suggest they were ever going right and in fact cut in front of our car. That being so we want them to issue a counter claim and we will see the third party in court. DL's solicitors after nearly a year wrote to say commercial reasons settling the claim IN FULL and still going back to 50:50 with no admission of liability. We do not feel our interests have been put forward and the third party has had a pay out when they were actually at fault. I asked several times what proof they were supplying and the sols never came up with anything, I even said Claimant surely has to prove this and he said "in our experience the judges go with the claimant!" Now being on this site I cannot believe that for a minute and just am shocked that the third party has got away with this sort of payout and we are not being allowed to defend ourselves as we also suffered in this, but tried to be dimplomatic from the start. I guess I should just leave it, but I feel upset that this is the way it happened. If it went to court and the judge agreed I would have to accept it, but on what basis I cannot see...Also the DL terms clearly say, even with Car hire plus, the max payout would be £500 for 21 days. Firstly, I saw the car around school pretty soon after the accident so it was not our of action that long and secondly do these insurance companies not query these sorts of amounts? What was hired a ferrari?

Thanks Flyingdoc and Gyzmo, but not really... It was a roundabout accident and due to the fact we knew the third party (our children are in teh same class) we did not push fault and were content to allow a 50:50 to go through. But a few months down the line the third party was claiming it was my wife's fault and £8k in car hire charges as well as their excess back too! How is it "commercial" sense to settle when we said this was not the case and happy to attend court as witnesses and for the thrid party to prove the fault was my wife's? Now they have settled it paying her claim and we are still being added as partially at fault through the 50:50. Is this not having your cake and eating it for the third party? Why can we not make a similar claim against her and Direct Line (they are the insurers for both of us) for distress and loss of income through not having the car for a period of time? All I am saying is the system is unfair, if the third party wanted to go to court to PROVE fault then I do not see why this was not allowed as there were no witnesses and the damage to the cars looks more against the third party than my wife.

Thanks for that swift response, the reason I ask is my insurance company has settled a claim against me on the basis of "commercial" sense with no liability. I am very cross at this as the claimant had no proof whatsoever as to who was at fault and further to that was claiming an extortionate amount for car hire! £8000 for 6 months even though her car was not out of action for that period of time. I just cannot get my head round it and thought perhalps the burden of proof was reversed in these cases. I will be pursuing them myself for loss of income now due to my car also being out of action and see what they do as this is ridiculous, no wonder all our premiums go up every year! So no case law that says the defendant must proof he/ she did not cause the accident then? Thanks, Penfold

I wonder if anyone can confirm this for me please? I read somewhere that in Motor Accident claims the burden of proof rests with the defendant NOT the claimant as in normal county court claims, is this correct? If so can anyone point me to the legistation that confirms this? Thanks, Penfold

OK, just to bump a little and put another option forward. I thought that we could wait till the court claim is finished off and they report back to Direct Line. The Solicitor acting on our behalf says he will not accept liability (ours) so how can Direct Line justify penalising us when they do not wish to defend the case? I will complain and take it up with them,then FOS then court as last resort... Views please...

Hi, I am really upset by what I am about to type and I hope someone out there can help with this matter... My wife had an accident with another car at a roundabout in July '07. Without going into the technicalities both parties thought the other was at fault and there were no witnesses nor injuries. Since we knew the other party and would see them regularly we decided it was best to leave it as 50:50 and move on. We then discovered that the other party decided to take Direct Line to court (as our insurer) to claim on car hire and my wife's "reckless driving". This is laughable, but it came to £8000 odd! Well after nearly a year of to and fro Direct Line have decided to settle the other parties claim on a commercial basis and we will be lumbered with the extra premiums etc. How is this fair when we said, as soon as we heard of this action, that we were prepared to defend and even counter claim against this other party? The solicitor did say we could take independant action as they were not admitting our liability, but how can this be fair? They are paying off the other party because they are scared of the legal bills yet the other party has no case as far as the accident goes nor can they prove anything against my wife. I have been to Court several times and the Claimant has to PROVE why they have a case and the car hire claim was based entirely on defamation of my wife's driving in the POC's. What options do we have? How can we go about being compensated for this ridiculous action of our insurance companies solicitors? Thanks, Penfold

Hi Chuggabug and welcome to the forums. Really you should start a thread on your own situation, but in brief Oakwood should be following GMAC's t&C and so what they have said is correct. There is no harm however in calling them up and quering the fact that the deal has ended and therefore you are now a complete customer of theirs and should therefore follow their SVR...Not sure you will get anyway, but worth a shot! As a mortgage broker, I know that most of us would have got back in contact with you to ensure you never ended up on SVR anyway, so perhalps you should go back to your original broker and see if you can get something even better as unless you have no choice SVR is never the best place to be... Good luck

Can I just ask a question here...This thread and many others discuss the whole "Default" issue and it being a precursor to enforcement etc. But if it was defined under the CCA why are they also being used for other non regulated credit accounts, like CAR's O2 account, bank overdraft accounts even energy accounts? Are these therefore an illegal use of this term, just so commonly used we have all forgotten? Just a question...was thinking about it this weekend

We are now in December...any further news on this thread AC? Subbing with interest

Quite Johnny! I know it has been mentioned before, but Mr Brown should really nudge them as a few grand in a lot of peoples pockets right now would help them with their "spending" and that is exactly what the country needs....isn't it?

Hi Pete and johnny, Yup still around...just... I agree with Pete though, not holding my breath either, but sounded nice anyway,