Jump to content

bustthematrix

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bustthematrix

  1. I liked this bit... "6. Summary 122 For these reasons we have reached the conclusion that connected lender liability under section 75 of the Act attaches to all transactions entered into using credit cards issued under consumer credit agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, whether they take place within a three- or four-party structure and whether they are entered into in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. We therefore allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal." Emphasis mine!
  2. Here it is more fully set out. 1. Relevant Case Law Office of Fair Trading v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2006] EWCA Civ 268 (22 March 2006) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/268.html 2. Blog post that puts the above ruling into context. http://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/emoney-and-s-75-am-i-covered/ Is this what we've been looking for folks? Rgds S
  3. Hi Is this your blog link to the above article? http://conradmeehan.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/emoney-and-s-75-am-i-covered/
  4. 945trujcan Can please share more about both the OFT judgement AND the Truman judgement? Thanks
  5. Ok, I've advised accordingly and we've just found four specialist driving solicitors on the web.
  6. To my knowledge, the answer to all the above is yes. His insurance premium shot up after the incident. He's self-employed so not on an employer's group policy I don't think.
  7. Believe me. He'not laughing about this. He's sh***ing himself. Sorry if I've made this sound trivial but it's not and he's not taking it as such. When I said he has a 'long and amusing story', I rather meant it's a bit of a 'sob story' - but that in the end it doesn't matter - he's already got the 6 points! I wonder if that's why he didn't respond to the NIP - he was too scared!
  8. I hope he doesn't get banned for this. His job requires him to drive.
  9. Driving uninsured. He has a long and amusing story about it but it doesn't matter in the end...
  10. OK. It's going to take time to get a solicitor I think and the deadline for response is tomorrow I think? Can he do anything to get more time? Also, he wants to plead not guilty as 1. The original speeding offence said he was doing 47mph in a 40mph zone 2. His name has been misspelt on the summons. I haven't seen any of the previous notices but he thinks they may have misspelt his name on those too.
  11. Hi According to the summons document The offence is for 'Failing to provide driver details'. It does not appear that a charge relating to the speeding offence itself is part of this summons/paperwork.
  12. Please take it easy. He's not computer literate nor is he a CAG member - so I'm really helping out. He already has 6 points for a different offence from 2012. Will post more shortly. Thanks for your patience.
  13. Hello I'd appreciate some help here please. Back in December, there was an incident where a friend drove a relative's car where a speeding ticket was incurred. My relative wasn't the driver or in the car but it was her car so she got the notice in the post. She quickly replied she was not the driver and named the person (my friend) she believed was the driver at the time. My friend sometimes stays at the relative’s address but not always. Anyway, a few notices were then sent to my relative in the name of my friend which my friend (the driver at the time) apparently did not respond
  14. Thanks for your input steampowered. As I've already stated, at no time did I go through PayPal or have anything to do with them myself. I paid direct to the supplier with my credit card, on a normal paper form with signature etc which many people use when paying with a credit card. It seems the supplier I bought from, the training company - used them for payment processing. The first I heard of any involvement from PayPal is that my card company is claiming PayPal are the supplier.
  15. Thanks EB. I have a bit of a relationship with my MP, do you think a letter from him might help? Another friend has suggested I MCOL them because he's confident a judge will agree with me. He thinks they'll payup before it gets to hearing, but still I'm looking for that precious s75 ruling - which addresses this issue in my(debtor's) favour - that I'm told exists somewhere!
  16. Also, I can't go down the PayPal Buyer Protection route as this is not a PayPal transaction - there's no payment reference and no basis on which I can take this up direct with PayPal!!!
  17. Hi All Thanks for your comments and input so far. Just to be clear, I did NOT pay the supplier using PayPal. I paid using a credit card with card details filled in on a payment form, signed etc. PayPal was no where in sight. PayPal only comes into it because it appears the supplier has used PayPal to 'process' the card payment in some way. My card provider (creditor) is now alleging that PayPal is my supplier under S75 not the original supplier! This cannot be true and I'm told there's case law that addresses this and that's what I'm hunting for. Many thanks all.
  18. Thanks. I certainly did NOT pay via PayPal. I paid direct to the supplier. The first I heard of PayPal having anything to do with it is that their name is part of the text for the suppliers reference on my credit card statement. As far as I'm concerned, PayPal is no more than a merchant/payment service used by the supplier in this transaction. For Mastercard to claim they are the Supplier under S75 seems ludicrous to me. As already said, it's already been suggested by others that my view is correct and that there is case law which already confirms this. It's this case law/guidance I
  19. Hello All I have a situation where I have presented what I consider to be a valid S75 claim against my Mastercard. The value exceeds £500. With S75 claims of course it's assumed there is either a dodgy vendor refusing to refund or that can't refund due to liquidation or being incontactible. In this case it's the former. So far, the lender/creditor has denied my claim on what I consider a rather dodgy basis. They have not gone down the route of saying my claim is invalid due to T&C's or some other such, they've said the following: 1. The payment reference on the Credit Card s
  20. Hi All I know this is oh so old but if anyone has ANY case law or other useful reference(s) on this very specific point i.e. where the creditor is seeking to hide behind a merchant/payment service provider (debtor-creditor-supplier relationship) in a valid S75 claim dispute, PLEASE POST IT asap! Much needed. Thanks.
  21. Done. My Sincere Respects. Kindly please conceal my real name where relevant please. Thanks.
  22. Hi Billy I'd like to rejoice with you, but are you sure you've 'won'? I note you say it's taken six years...isn't that the statutory time limit by which ANY closed credit account has to be removed from your credit file anyway? Whether defaulted or not, CCJ or not? In other words, are you sure this hasn't simply fallen off your file after 6 years? Or was it removed by the lender before the normal statutory time due because of your actions? Rgds BTM
  23. This is one reason why people need to try and stay calm when lenders do things to rip them off. Do your best to get all correspondence between you recorded - in writing preferably - and make your complaint accordingly once it's clear you've being royally done over. It's not great when you're being robbed blind but the upshot is that down the line somewhere, you may well be duly compensated and the greater the injustice, the greater the compensation.
  24. Hi Apple et al, hope you're having a meaningful and restful Easter! You're right about the importance of focusing on techniques that work NOW - and that I believe is the purpose of this thread. The only reason I picked up on the Tellinger case (after someone else had mentioned it I think) is that it is useful and very interesting for educational purposes. Whilst the issues & arguments raised won't presently offer a 'get out of jail card' for those facing repossession, eviction etc they may well do...one day. My point has always been that it's useful to be aware of the ideas around
×
×
  • Create New...