Jump to content

bustthematrix

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,041
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bustthematrix

  1. CCA applies...when they want it to, and it doesn't when they don't. As I said, if the PTBs were thinking and talking straight, the banksters would have got their backsides whooped... Justice requires truth and where's there's little or no truth, there can't be justice!
  2. No worries, by your recent comments, I think you've ceded my point. Basically, the banks lied and chanced it; their FSA and supreme court buddies helped out. I also understand the judiciary were heavily 'leant on' secretly as all this was concluded in the throes of the 'credit crisis' remember. Some banks apparently suggested losing this battle could knock them over...too big to fail and all that...or they'd have to start charging for ATM withdrawals, cheque clearances etc. Similiar to how some charges are still levied on business accounts here and more widely in many EU states.
  3. Btw that Fscs link you posted didn't quite work...
  4. So DX To use my crude example, you would argue e.g. for £100 in charges from 2 years ago at 30% Contractual interest. You may claim £100 + 30% compounded interest over 2 years = £100 + £69 PLUS 8% on the £169? How would that 8% be applied for the 2 years?
  5. I concur. something like this. e.g. £100 in charges from 2 years ago at 30% Contractual interest. You may claim £100 + 30% compounded interest over 2 years = £100 + £69 PLUS 8% on £100 at simple interest over 2 years = 2 x £8 = £16. Total = £100 + £69 + £16 = £185....in a nutshell
  6. Just because the consumer lost that battle does not mean he should have lost it.
  7. You've not answered my question. We all know what the SC said and what the banks said they were at the SC. My point is how they changed the argument along the way. Part of the issue is that the banks called them one thing for years in all of their literature including T&Cs and in letters to customers to justify the charges and then changed this prior to the SC case. You will note that pretty much all lenders rewrote their literature after the SC ruling to make it clear the charges should be seen as part of their core services!
  8. I'd probably use the last rate I was actually charged as I'd have written proof of it.
  9. Hi Contador It's not clear to me what you are saying. Are you saying 1. The banks said they're not charges or penalties so therefore they are not or 2. The court agreed with the banks that they are not so therefore they're not? or 3. Regardless of 1. or 2. , they actually are not default charges/penalties, they're something else. If so, what exactly are they? Bear in mind what the banks themselves have said they were, in writing, directly to millions of consumers as well as in testimony to the Treasury Commmitee. Are you suggesting the banks have always being precise as to w
  10. I think the issue of profitability and distribution of charges across products and services is more for the banks to decide. Fairness is not, in my view. The point is that the charges were not fair in that they were not proportionate to either the 'offense' (i.e. breach) nor the costs/disadvantage (or whatever label is placed on it) to the banks. This is why to date, they've steadfastly refused to even produce that information. They certainly chose not to rely on it wrt to their SC defense. People certainly don't mind paying for things, they just don't like being royally ripped
  11. Thanks for dropping in DD. SB - it appears you'll just have to bolster the other aspects of your defence. Had you actually received a defective DN, and they'd terminated on the back of it and you'd accepted that unlawful repudiation of contract, things would be different...
  12. Hi SB My apologies, looking at some of my old posts, I realise I keep asking you for your own thread when this IS IT! Sorry, you must have found that a bit irritating ...though you've not shown it8-). I think it's the Thread title and length of time between posts that has me thinking it's a generic type thread rather than a specific assistance thread! Do you have any info on what excatly is on the screen print and what they are claiming it to be? Did the Judge give any indication as to why this particular item 'changes things'? I've not encountered this before nor seen anything
  13. SB Do you have the original Default Notice you were sent? Was it compliant or not? What was your defence based on? You'll have to look through their Witness Statement and anything else they've dug up at this late stage and respond to it, blow by blow. Do you have your own thread for this? Imo, this has gone a bit too far for casual input from anyone. To really assist you, your fellow Caggers will need more info. However you must keep putting them to strict proof on everything, especially when they've taken this long to come up with anything.
  14. Thanks for dropping by Missy. Seems there's life in this lil'ol thread after all...
  15. Hi Sj I think it's going to be tricky. Lenders like to see both serviceability and affordability for a mortgage. In the current environment, they are under pressure both to be and to show responsible lending and this of course means documenting that a borrower has shown they can afford to make the repayments on a loan and that they are not likely to default over the course of the loan. As unemployed, my question to you is, how would you show that you can i) afford the repayments and ii) satisfy them that whatever income source you have will likely cover the mortgage term? There are
  16. Hi Richard, just signed up, once I realised what was happening. May I suggest you re-post the above petition to make it clearer you'd like people to support it? Your use of the phrase "I'm trying this" did not at first suggest to me what it was until I saw others acknowledging it. May I also suggest you visit various related threads here at CAG and elsewhere and point them to the petition? It needs to be actively promoted. Admin may also want to look what they can possibly do to promote the petition widely to the membership.
  17. Hi Durkin If I may offer a word to hopefully assist you in getting more publicity on this. Try some of the non-mainstream outlets out there that focus on Internet Broadcasting and Social Networking. I don't know who you've gone to in the mainstream 'misleadia' but much of the distribution is owned and controlled by interests that are either financiers themselves or massively pro-bank. That's why you will almost never hear certain vital fundamental issues discussed in the mainstream, yet on the Net, they're open secrets. It does not suprise me that they're either unwilling or slo
  18. Hi Dave First, write back telling them the info is incomplete and that you will complain to the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) within x days if they don't address it. If they don't address it in the time given, e.g. 14 days, file a complaint with the ICO. The ICO regulates the Data Protection Act which SARNs come under. Fuller guidance here - http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx HTH
  19. Well done Zingy. Any further light on what settlement was reached would be helpful to all CAGgers concerned, even if the outcome was not particularly brilliant for your good self...
  20. Hi Sf Oh my gosh, would you believe I somehow lost track of this thread!!!?!?!? Guess I was more efficient back in 09!!
  21. Hi Floricita How are things progressing for you? Looking to do something similiar soon...
×
×
  • Create New...