Jump to content

Halifax71

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About Halifax71

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Thanks Fodder - for the avoidance of doubt the boiler was already installed so my issue is the kitchen install was defective.
  2. Hi all. I've recently had a new kitchen installed, as part of larger renovation that was overseen by a builder - all money paid to the builder. To cut a long story short my boiler was enclosed inside one of the new kitchen units however when I've come to have it serviced (mandatory part of warranty - 2 years old, 8 years warranty left), the boiler is now inaccessible due to the way the joiner has fitted the kitchen unit. The builder was fully aware of the need for access this is accepted irrespective of it being common sense. I'm now left with a boiler I cannot servi
  3. The fight continues. Firstplus state the case here is not binding and counter citing another case where, they say, the judge found the clause to be fair. I know that is rubbish as the arguments put forward were incorrect - long story involving an incompetent barrister. Anyhow, we move on and are due to take the issue back to court soon. Personally I'm still waiting (over 4 years now) for the regulators to tell me what Firstplus did wrong when the reprimanded Firstplus. The continue to argue the legalities of disclosing under section 241a of the enterprise act, an act
  4. Thanks Rebel - was hoping for a physical email like Paul's - i'll try the form though and if not joy i'll email the CEO and copy in the Ombudsman. Thanks again.
  5. Hi - does anyone have one? I'm in a bit of an unusual situation. I need to speak to TSB on behalf on a family member (iro his mortgage) - urgently, but for the last month I've been waiting for them to send a consent form out - to the family members house. Appreciate the need for that, no problem - I can get the consent approved pretty quickly. However, as it stands: It hasn't been received - i've chased 5 times It cannot be emailed apparently - It's a blank form It cannot be downloaded A letter of consent will not suffice - I
  6. Not sure a class action is the way to go. The claim in my mind is that the loan should have tracked. Every base rate increase was applied in full, citing base rate increases. That said, I think i'll claim it should be fixed, i.e. the variation clause is unenforceable. By doing that it would get me under the £10k limit, whereas with a tracker I'd be over. I can't go into detail re the ongoing PHSO case but for it to take this long, and for it to be treated as a hot potato like it has proves to me that my argument is not without substance.
  7. Cheers Andrew, deleted my address so not bothered about name and reference to be honest. They (FOS, OFT, PHSO) know there's something seriously wrong here, I'm just waiting for disclosure of the reasons for the OFT reprimand and i'll be filing my claim. It's about time the FOS was disbanded like the OFT, absolutely useless.
  8. Agreed. Section 241a of the Enterprise Act should however allow disclosure so a person can identify whether they have been wronged. There are stringent restrictions with it, e.g. you cannot share etc. Even using that though I've found that the OFT refuse citing public interest and protection of commercial interest. And then when you claim that the OFT are maladministrative in their interpretation of s241a the Parliamentary Ombudsman take 3 YEARS (and counting) to consider. There is something seriously wrong here.
  9. Everyone got the same reply from Barclays. I've just had my response from the FOS. They won't intervene either - we all have to go to court apparently.
  10. Sadly that is not the case. My experiences of the OFT and FOS over the past few years have left me gobsmacked. I still have hopes for the FCA, but as they say it's not their responsibility, at the moment. We're going to attempt to get more publicity for this, the OFT deserve every possible criticism as they have forgotten who they are supposed to be protecting, i.e. what their job is.
  11. The FCA don't want to know, they just say it's not their responsibility.
  12. The OFT have replied to our groups email. They confirm: They note the ruling, but it does not change their public opinion, which they repeat. - The OFT previously imposed requirement under s33a of the CCA. http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/consumer-credit/first-plus.pdf - The OFT had not found that Firstplus had acted in breach of the second charge lending guidance. ( it could be argued that this is true as the guide contains NOTHING regarding the reduction of rates, it only deals with the scenario of rate increases. There's a lot of other waffle but essentially tha
  13. Not really a digress as it's all interlinked. This market is corrupt, and the regulators have, so far, shown a complete unwillingness / inability to deal with the issues. If you read page 7 onwards of this http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file41381.pdf you'll see that I couldn't share any info given to me, it's just the OFT know that if they told me i'd be able to wipe the floor with Firstplus. They are complicit - end of. Makes you wonder why my maladministration claim is taking so long to be considered.
  14. Ah right, remember seeing the Swift reprimand as well. As you say maybe move that discussion elsewhere as it's off topic. We'll get there in the end.
  15. The 2010 reprimand decision do you mean? If so, no. I had the ICO decide on that at the same time as pursuing under section 241a of the Enterprise Act. I'll post the FoIA rejection reasons below in a minute. ------------- As you are aware, I have now received the OFT’s response to my query as to whether all of the information you requested is covered by section 238 of the Enterprise Act 2002 or whether some of the information is covered solely by section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That response, which is from the OFT’s General Counsel, clarifies the point by
×
×
  • Create New...