Jump to content

bustthematrix

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bustthematrix

  1. Nein! I don't think it's because the majority have not been hit, I think they have. The issue is that they do not seem to care enough to take the necessary action. However, what IS mysterious to me is the apparent inaction of the general CAG populace on this point as Caggers are by nature action takers.
  2. BD, until people decide they want change and figure out what to do to get that change.....
  3. Agreed Tifo, and this is how I see it. The challenge is getting this message out with the very sound arguments needed to defend it and refute the points being raised against it by the other side. The impact of this should not be underestimated as lenders are using this very SC ruling to knock down default charges claims with some success. Something that's very concerning to many Caggers. The very fact that the FOS initially sided with the lenders that the SC ruling could be applied to non personal current accounts shows it's very easy to misread and misapply. You say they're no longe
  4. But yes, SAR the FOS to see what they will disclose. Might even be worth doing a Freedom of Information request too. You may not get exactly all of what you want, but could end up with other v.useful info plus it might just shake them up a bit.
  5. tifo To my knowledge, that argument will only really stand up in court where you can show that they are penalty charges. The FOS should not really be saying they are fair on the basis of the 'estimates' given to them which they in turn refuse to disclose to you. The good news is, if it went to court, they would have to disclose not only the estimates, but the real costs in each instance to show they weren't penalties. The bad news is, it appears lenders are now having a degree of success in using the OFT vs Abbey Supreme Court ruling as a weapon to shoot down all charges reclaims c
  6. Slick, I think this above point MUST be added to any further detailed high level review CAG/MSE or its partners now conduct. From responses received from lenders and comments I have seen on some mortgage arrears fee threads, it is now very clear that lenders now wish to use the above OFT test case (which was previously understood to be a narrow victory applying only to bank held current accounts), as a weapon to shoot down ALL penalty charge claims. Can this really be allowed to happen?
  7. Hi Slick, yes please do! As I posted earlier, as a community, CAG now really needs to look at these new arguments and strategies lenders are furnishing, at a much higher legal level. They've gone back to the drawing board and revised their approach so we have to adapt accordingly to have any chance of success. Reclaiming of charges has been a mainstay of the advice here for years and it now appears the banks are certainly willing to put in much more of a fight than before and if CAG continues, as it does, to advocate that people reclaim, then the work must be done to ensure every chance
  8. SS May I say a very very well done for pursuing this in the manner that you have. It is always a David and Goliath affair when coming up against the banks. I feel for you and your Mrs but am heartened by the positive way you have responded. As you say "it is only money" at the end of the day and this attitude says a lot for you. To the banks it's ALL about money.
  9. The FOS say they are fair because the bank has provided a breakdown. Just because the FOS think it's "fair" does not mean it is. The OFT were unwilling to do this as they knew it would require every bank to justify it's charges in each instance. I hope the FOS did not indicate that the breakdown given to you applies to all? Those costs would need to be particular to you. And also, each charge/fee would need to reflect the cost to the creditor for that particular breach, at the time and instance it occurred, to not be deemed a penalty by a court. This is the task lender's are faced with so a
  10. SS Have you been able to devise a well worded rebuttal of this particular assertion? Is/are there any on CAG? If this is what they're pinning their hopes on, it's worth putting heads together to come up with a strong argument against it. It's one thing us lot knowing the SC doesn't apply to non-current accounts but smooth talking barristers have demonstrated jedi-like powers over some judges before. I've also read somewhere else on CAG not too long ago that the SC ruling has/is being used by mortgage lenders to back mortgage arrears charges as well. Are the CAG mods aware of this 'new
  11. Hello, has this question been addressed anywhere please? Thanks in advance.
  12. Hmmnn, this is interesting. Why would they go through the trouble and expense at this level for such low amounts? The legal brains on these threads should look further into this. 'Praying' you all the best SS.
  13. I'm sure this question was asked and answered on another thread(s) not too long ago. Can't seem to recall which just now. Might even have been the old mega-length SPML thread? I remember a few posts encompassing applicability of the mortgage arrears protocol as well. The bottom line was that yes, pre-M-Day (31/10/2004) residential mortgages are regulated but in a less straightforward fashion as the post M-Day mortgages. For example, if you ever took a further advance or changed to a fixed or tracker rate after M-Day with that same lender, then the whole mortgage becomes fully regula
  14. Sometimes, this is purely due to banks' huge size and inefficiency! They may, believe it or not, actually not know that some of these CCJs exist, or the claimant who got the CCJ has simply left it like that without pressing for enforcement, which is the whole point of getting a CCJ.
  15. A CCJ against a bank? With all those assets? Bring it on!!!
  16. Assuming the debt figure is correct and does not include uncontested amounts!
  17. Hi SS Good to see the updates. Wishing you a successful outcome.
  18. Haha, not sure what to make of your use of the word....trade...
  19. Imo, you're right in essence but I beg to differ on this particular point. The very reason why the "prove it & follow correct procedure methods" do 'work' is because they have value in law. People can't just come demanding payment for allegedly owed sums and then trying to enforce collection without proving that they 1. have the legal standing to do so 2. that you actually owe the alleged sum 3. that there is a legally enforceable agreement of some kind and 4. they've followed the right legal process to enforce collection. By actually asking those vital initial questions and show
  20. All the best SS, if I find anything useful, I'll post it.
  21. Thanks for the update and keep at it. Would be interesting to see what defence they come up with, if any and whether they try and settle at the very last minute. That would make them extremely cynical and totally abusing the system.
  22. Good on yer P1. I'm sure there'll be questions soon enough on zis thread...
  23. There you have it Peterjm. By the way, just so that people are aware, while the FOS can evaluate and direct a firm's compliance with rule 12.4.1 R (1) or not, the individual is still not bound by the FOS' decision on this, if they're not happy with the outcome or the process by which it was reached. They can still go to Court and compel the lender to justify their charges if they so wish.
×
×
  • Create New...