Jump to content

Pliny the Penuriosus

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pliny the Penuriosus

  1. It is just that conchy. Those proposing it as well as those who have drafted it are idiots Either that or they are just plain malevolent
  2. Dave why do you think we are lowering ourselves to THEIR standards. We aren't. We are using the law, rules & regs to our advantage whilst they constantly ignore the rules & reg & very often break the law to THEIR advantage.........We don't, we abide by them
  3. eg Today! Utility through their DCA obtain entry warrant to be exercised within the next 2 days after showing Magistrates Court a letter they allegedly sent to occupant (never received). Problem? account was settled in full by bank transfer & acknowledged 8th May 2007!! It's going to take a death or two to bring this pernicious law & government to account
  4. Yes Car Credit or rather their owners are being sued by every man & his dog for mis-selling PPI. They are already paying back thousands in compensation Check the web
  5. If you are a sole proprieter your classed as self-employed & it's doubtful the the PPI would be suitable. Therefore they could be liable for mis-selling PPI. If so your friend should write informing that she has kept up with the previously agreed payments & she considers their present demand is simply a means by which they can rescind that agreement. Tell them in no uncertain terms that if they should proceed with their unreasonable demands then she will prepare a counter claim for mis-selling
  6. I will second all of the above PS Martin just noticed your signature. Very cheeky & that should be 'Crellins Cobbett'
  7. Do not insult other users. Please read the site rules. Rooster-UK.
  8. Agreed pat more failed to 'join the spots thinking' from our wonderful legislators. What if an owner is disabled & has never held a licence but has a car in which a family member conveys them. Are they goiing to set the premuim on the basis of the non-driving invalid or the non-owning driver. Now let me guess which will produce the higher premuim??
  9. When THEY act morally then so will I. In the meantime s** em. Incidentally those who have acted with compassion & understanding ARE getting paid (admittedly at a lower rate) & even though payment could be avoided on a technicality. Those who haven't well I leave the reader to figure out what's happening to them!
  10. Although I am surprised that they didn't, I suspect an oversight on their part, but if neither of you give a personal guarantee then they became creditors of the business not you & any debt incurred by the company is lost. That's why it's called 'limited company' The limited should read 'limited as to liability'
  11. Did Blemain act as a mortgage lender. Was the loan secured by deed. If so I think you should return to the FSA as it may be they have been acting without authorisation prior to registration. I'm not sure as it needs some research but that scenario would mean agreements could be void
  12. Probably redsue & it's being done right now I understand in certain places but only in the strong belief it complies with the law you understand
  13. Quite right hisholiness Their Lordships went on to say that if a creditor had an unenforceable agreement then as well as breaching the clear intent of the CCA 1974 their Lordships could not conceive of any other means by which the debt could be enforced even if it did mean the consumer was unduly enriched. So the guy from MBNA is talking absolute rot. Incidentaly as well as being a breach of the OFT guidelines (claiming powers you don't have) it could also be a breach of the 2006 Fraud Act which is as follows: The Fraud Act 2006 came into force on 15th April 2007 The act is small as it contains only 16 sections plus 3 schedules. All Theft Act deception offences are abolished to be replaced by 3 new fraud offences: fraud by misrepresentation.......fraud by failing to disclose information and fraud by abuse of position.. Under section 1 a person is guilty of fraud if they are in breach of any offences in sections 2,3,4. Under Section 2 representation must be made dishonestly which is established under the two-stage test as set out in Rv Gosh (1982) QB 1053, 75 Cr App R 154 in which the defendant was dishonest by the standards of ordinary people Subsection (1)(b) requires that the representation is made with the intention of making a gain for himself or causing a loss or risk of loss to another. Loss and gain are defined in section 5 as being money or property Section 3: Fraud by failing to disclose information 18. Section 3 makes it an offence to commit fraud by failing to disclose information to another person where there is a legal duty to disclose the information. A legal duty to disclose information may include duties under oral contracts as well as written contracts. The concept of "legal duty" is explained in the Law Commission's Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29: "7.28 ..Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal). 7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant's failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it." More specifically, section 3 states: 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information A person is in breach of this section if he- (a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information- o (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. I think section 3(b)(ii) would be prevalent in a number of cases. Now, can they get out of this by saying that the FSA etc are happy that they can just close people's accounts based on "a commercial decision" and don't actually have to give a specific reason? Specifies losses are explained: 5 "Gain" and "loss" (1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance with this section. (2) "Gain" and "loss"- (a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property; (b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent; and "property" means any property whether real or personal (including things in action and other intangible property). (3) "Gain" includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting what one does not have. (4) "Loss" includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by parting with what one has. I should send Wayne a copy!
  14. Spot on M Even the senior judges are now saying it's become a lottery & what is needed is a precedent setting test case. I wonder how long that chocolate teapot known as the OFT will be able to ignore their remarks.
  15. Do them a favour send them a copy of the CCA 1974. They need it
  16. I don't know but have you paid the debt? because unless it was by deed, which is like a mortgage and allows 12 years the debt was time barred after 6 years & should you have refused to pay it they would have been not only be breaching the OFT guidelines but also possibly guilty of criminal harassment. and yes they are taking the ( ) That's my closing the stable door comment - Now report them to TS as has already been advised it would appear
  17. midge that is why it's ALWAYS recommended that you send postal orders
  18. Oh dear! Babyboo don't tell me the only way they would know you are Welsh is if they met you. Bit of a give away when it comes to identifying the poster. Not very sharp eh!
  19. I particularly like the term they used when referring to it "squalid bill" They couldn't find one single peer to support it Thank the Lord.........s
  20. Oh dear a happy happy customer who's just joined this site. Due for a big discount no doubt PS A word of advice The previous poster is doing the firm in question no good whatsoever, certainly not by accusing the OP of fraud. Best to learn from the experience & just move on
  21. Disgraceful conduct. Also trying to blame it on a latent record is disingenuous. Had they bothered to check the roll no. would have been different & there would have undoubtedly been previous corre with the correct occupant. It is a clear demonstration of the cavalier behavior we can expect from these bullies One thing to note although he's also a victim the owner seems to have been got at by his suppliers for what they thought was his poor treatment of his tenant. If I'm correct it sorta gives you some hope for human nature
  22. Good point ODC but it's not just the sometimes appalling means of collection of debts that is the cause of the revolt. It's the lenders avarice that is coming back to haunt them.
  • Create New...