Their are Group Actions which the courts are now more prone to accept as being a right of mutltiple ordinary litigants to share the cost. There is now a hedge fund offering funding to claimants for group actions Although it has yet to include action against them the banks better watch out as someone with bigger pockets who they won't be able to intimidate now could be knocking on their door.

Subscribing

Correct Bong but assuming it's sufficient funds, if you set it against the pre 6 year charges you can argue that they have settled them & won't have to argue section 32.

In the face of all the overwhelming evidence including their failure to defend, & the circumstances it wouldn't. They could & probably would be required to produce it and/or the source of that advice to the court. If they claimed such a defence in their evidence then it would not be privileged

Having read this wonderful thread I can say that gingerheid appears to have entered into a valid contract & can demand payment Name for your business Specific Help & Investment in Training

For criminal yes (beyond doubt) for civil no (probabilities). If there is a judgment against them then that would be the next question "Did you know what you were doing when you imposed these unlawful charges" "In other words did you take legal advice" You claim you didn't! then don't you think you may have failed in your fudiciary duty to your shareholders"? Or "you did take legal advice". "From whom & what did they advise"?

The statement that the banks must have costed being found out ignores one very important point. That is that they are unbelievably arrogant. I suspect they probably thought they would never be caught

Apply to the court to have the warrant amended to include the new trading name

No Seq but you would need the bill of sale to be registered & sealed by the High Court otherwise it's theft

They appear to be listed in BT as Bri an Carter

suspect you may be correct yaff Also doesn't such an order have to be served by a certified high court bailiff?

They are still listed in the phone book at their Weybridge address

They are acting on behalf of the lender LBL. However I ask are they really licensed bailiffs

The problem for the CC's & Banks is that the Genie is now out of the bottle & there's no putting it back. Once it becomes apparent that they are substituting one exorbitant charge or charges for another & no matter what they call it it will be subject to challenge as an unlawful penalty charge. They don't appear to be the sharpest tools in the box as they don't seem, like their current penalty charges, to have considered that. Oh I almost forgot if they claim it's a service charge we now all know they have gone to great lengths to reduce their costs via automation to almost zero so how are they going to justify the enormous mark up on their charges without the consumer being able to argue they are to compensate for the loss of profit form their unlawful charges & are therefore a penalty Also I believe the OFT have stated as much

Charlotte I've Pm'd you. The allegations are that you may find that the 'sales invoice' which is used to place the lien is invalid. Also that it wasn't validated with the High Court which in turn may mean that your car was taken illegally

If Tom gets the judgment he want's the banks won't be able to force each claimant to issue proceeding to get their money & if they did the courts would soon put a stop to that, as they are beginning to now, by declaring them vexatious litigants

Oh my gawd! If what is alleged is true this is VVV serious for those practicing lawyers involved with the firm. It's possible that their certificates are invalid which in turn will invalidate their indemnity insurance. Theres also the possiblility of misrepresentation which could amount to an offence under the 2006 Fraud Act. Should such a senario be true then the partners/owners would by personaly liable for any compensation/losses

I agree with BF how Refreshing! What do you sell Natalie? as if I ever need it I will purchase it from YOUR company.

Really! it doesnt 'act' that way. Then perhaps that bank 'spokes-person' should go & tell that to the bereaved. Congrats mlloyd by the way

madriggie PM me urgently

Yes & if they are pre 6 years you no longer have to argue section 32 of the limitations act.

If the worst happens & NW apply for costs I'll donate to any support fund for the guy. He's very brave & has got more guts than me that's for sure. Perhaps if he wins he could start a whole new career acting for claimants. Methinks the banks would very concerned be if he did

Phil Have you claimed costs for your time. If you haven't then you should A DJ has made what amounted to a wasted costs order against Lloyds. (Check todays Daily Mail, there's mention of the site & Mark) The courts are coming to realize (at last) that the banks are using/abusing them in order to deter claimants

Gertie without sight of your docs I can't be sure but I suggest that you take them to your nearest CAB. If you have proof that you have already paid & that payment can be linked to the finance docs then you have a case for disputing the amount & if Carland took your money (even if it's another company) then you should be reimbursed by Carland or Black Horse

Will be in Central London on 21st. Will try & attend hearing