Not sure if this is in the correct section, please move if not. I took my employer to ET after giving him chance after chance to pay my overdue holiday pay, which he had promised to pay in writing. After much toing and froing, stating that if I had to go to employment tribunal, I would be pursuing for more than unpaid holiday, but for the other monies I perceived he owed me, and after pathetic excuses, he still hadn't paid up after several months, so I got ACAS involved. He still didn't pay up after agreeing with ACAS he would, so I made an ET application for all the issues of my time employed by him, not just unpaid holiday pay. After receiving the initial response re the ET application, he promptly paid some of my holiday pay. after a long time of the ET asking me for more information (mainly due to my application to waive the fees), they eventually sent me a judgement, in my favour, requiring my ex employer to pay me just under £2k for unlawful deduction of wages. However, after emailing my ex employer for the payment, he eventually got back to me stating he was unaware of the judgement. I sent him the details. Then a week later gave him a final opportunity to pay up before further legal action. He then replied by stating that he is contesting/appealing the decision and to stop harassing him. He is the type of person that leaves everything tio the very last minute, often going over deadlines, then expects the deadlines to be extended for his bad organisation of time. on the 5th of feb, I get notification from his solicitor that he is finally appealing the decision and asking for an extension and for the case to go to hearing, pleading that the papers were not served properly. He denies having received the papers, despite the judge having already stated that he considers the papers to have been properly served as they were served upon his registered business address. My question is, what is the likelihood of the judgement being scrapped and an extension for the respondent to file a response be granted, therefore the case then going to hearing, and can an extension or any kind of consideration be entered into due to the fact that 42 days long passed since the respondent was considered to have received the judgement, and even if one considers the date the respondent was aware of the judgement, 42 days have still long passed. Judgement was passed on the 5th of november, I first contacted him for payment of the judgement on the 25th of november. Is there anything I should be doing? Also, I've just got the money together to proceed with enforcing judgement. Should I pay the £60 and proceed, or should I await further contact from the court before proceeding, just incase his request gets granted and my money then gets swallowed up? I don't get why he is contesting tbh. The cost to him, acording to the website is £400 to appeal, £1500 if it goes to hearing? In either case, I seriously doubt I will be charged to pay for his expenses, therefore, he is only saving himself around £100? Why not just admit his fault and pay what he owes? I didn't even request damages etc...just unpaid wages.

Hi, Is there a way to tell if an employment tribunal judgement has been made in default? I took my ex-employer to the ET, and, long story short, got a judgement for unlawful deduction of wages success. I was not requested to attend court, and heard nothing more on the subject for a while until I received the judgement in the post. It just says "JUDGMENT, The claim for unlawful deduction of wages succeeds and the respondent is ordered to pay forthwith, the sum of £xxxx.xx to the claimant. After the fourteen day of "interest free" deadline had, passed. I chased up the respondent for payment, who then claimed to be unaware of it. He subsequently wrote to the judge asking for the judgement to be revoked so he may submit a defence, claiming his registered office had moved address since the beginning of the ET procedure and he did not receive the court papers (response pack etc.) as issued by the court. The judges reply was essentially no, as the correct procedures had been followed in serving the documents. However, the respondent has since informed me that he is applying for the judgement to be set aside. Investigating through the likelihood the judgement will be setaside, it seems that not receiving the documents alone, is not sufficient reason, unless the judgement was made by default due to this. (he had not updated his registered office with the court nor companies house, and only moved address once the et process had begun) A) what is the likelihood of the judgement being set aside? B) How can one tell if the judgement has been made by default? Cheers

Lets say I decided to allow my vehicle to be used for the purposes of advertising or general posting of "items" for public display for a nominal fee. Lets say i had an invitation for others to use the service, the wording being an invitation to "post" items upon the vehicle items with identifiable markings, logos, motifs etc as some sort of advertising board or convenience notification board. Lets say I had a terms and conditions on public view within my vehicle. That said t+c's invited others to use the service for an outlined fee and that by using the service they agreed to be contractually bound by the t+c's and pay the prescribed fees upon request. Lets then say some individual then placed upon my vehicle a "PCCN". Would I then be able to charge whomsoever applied the "post" to my vehicle the prescribed fee and then chase them in court should they refuse to pay or acknowledge the debt?

Nevermind, I OCR'd it: SEFTON COUNCIL Code of Practice for Bailiff Services Council Tax Sefton Council uses the services of external firms of Bailiffs in the recovery of outstanding arrears of local taxes. In carrying out those duties, Bailiffs acting on behalf of Sefton Council are required to adhere to this code of practice. Sefton MBC Code of Practice for Bailiff Services — Council Tax. Introduction This document outlines the requirements of the Revenues and Benefits Division of Sefton Council’s Finance Department in relation to the supply of bailiff sen/ices. The term “bailiff services” includes all aspects of the levying of distress in respect of liability orders for Council Tax. The following are specific requirements of the Council in relation to the provision of bailiff services:- a. Only a bailiff properly vetted and trained by the authorised firm, and under the control of a bailiff who is certificated by the County Court, may levy distress in respect of liability orders on behalf of Sefton Council. The bailiffs firm must at all times consist of at least 2 partners or directors who are members of the Enforcement Services Association. b. The bailiff must at all times carry on his/her person an identity card containing a photograph and contact telephone number, which should be produced when required. The bailiff must at all times make clear to the debtor the purpose of his/her visit and the fact that he/she is acting as an agent of the Council but is not directly employed by the Council. The bailiff must adhere to the following standards: - ‘1. Be smartly dressed and look presentable at all times. 2. Not discriminate on the grounds of age, colour, creed, disability, “gender, race, religion or sexual orientation. 3. Speak politely at all times and not act in an aggressive or intimidating manner towards others and not swear or use bad language in front of a debtor. 4. Respect confidentiality when third parties are present 5. Not conduct enquiries by involving children under the age of 16, or the elderly/infirm. 6. Seek not to generate alarm with persons that are interviewed. 7. Not call at premises after 9pm without prior permission from the Council. 8. Not smoke whilst on the premises of the debtor. c. The bailiffs firm must at all times carry professional indemnity insurance, ensuring the fullest indemnity against legal proceedings resulting in compensation awards due to illegal or irregular distress. Details of such insurance must be made available to the Council at any time on request, and will be required prior to the commencement of any contract, and thereafter on demand. In the event of a debtor commencing proceedings against the Council alleging irregular or unlawful distress, the bailiff fimr must supply a full written report of their dealings with the debtor and make available an appropriate witness to attend court. The bailiff firm must indemnify the Council against all claims arising out of the actions of the bailiffs which may lead to a claim against the Council. lt will be a condition that if the Bailiff firm is a subsidiary of a parent company, then the parent company will act as a guarantor and will guarantee the performance of the contract, indemnifying the Council against all losses, damages costs and expenses arising out of default of the contract. At all times bailiffs acting on behalf of the Council must act within the law relating to distress for Council Tax , including any relevant case law. lt is the bailiff’s responsibility to ensure that his/her knowledge of relevant legislation and case law is up to date. The Bailiff firm and/or its agents must adhere at all times to The Data Protection Act. Upon receipt of an instruction to levy distress, the bailiff should ensure that a visit is made to levy distress within a period of 10 days from receipt of the instruction. If contact is made, the bailiff should attempt wherever possible to ascertain the debtor’s employer’s name and address/income support payment office and national insurance number (if applicable). If it is ascertained that the debtor is no longer resident, the bailiff should make the appropriate local discreet enquiries to ascertain the date of leaving and the new address and then refer back to the Council with either the relevant information or to the effect that no further information is available. If the debtor has moved a very short distance within the Borough, the bailiff may levy distress at the new address and then refer back to the Council with the relevanLinformation. On certain occasions the Council will require the bailiff to prioritise certain cases, and the bailiff will be expected to respond promptly. In cases where an initial visit is made during normal working hours and because the debtor was not in another visit is made on the same day, the second visit should not incur the statutory charge unless it is made after 6.00pm. or it is known that the debtor will return at an earlier time. The bailiff must at all times carry the written authorisation of Sefton Council, to be shown to the debtor on request, and must hand to the debtor or leave on the premises the relevant documentation as required by the legislation. Any walking possession agreement must be signed by the debtor at the time that the distress is levied, only after its meaning has been explained to the debtor. lf contact is made with the debtor, the bailiff should attempt to recover the amount due as quickly as possible, taking into consideration the circumstances of the debtor. Wherever possible, if payment is not made in full at the time of the first visit, the debtor should be given the opportunity to enter into a walking possession agreement or instalment payment arrangement (instalment payment arrangement at no cost to the debtor[other than the the direct costs of making the payment] or the Council). Arrangements for payment of the total amount due can be agreed at the bailiff’s discretion and such arrangements should not exceed a 6 month period. The 6 month period starting as from the date the Liability Order was issued to the bailiff firm. If the payment arrangement offered by the debtor will exceed 6 months, and the bailiff considers it inappropriate to remove goods for sale, the bailiff should refer back to the Council before agreeing to a payment arrangement exceeding 6 months. k. The bailiff should at all times use his/her professional judgement to refer back to the Council if he/she considers that, due to the personal circumstances of the debtor, it is considered inappropriate to proceed to levy distress. In particular, the bailiff must refer back to the Council before continuing action if the debtor:- I. Appears to be over 70 years of age; ll. Appears to be severely physically or mentally ill, severely disabled or suffering from mental confusion; lll. Has young children and severe social deprivation is evident; IV. ls disputing liability or claims to have paid or has applied for benefit or discount or is entitled to a reduction and it has not been granted; ' V. ls heavily pregnant or the spouse of the debtor is heavily pregnant; VI. ls in mourning due to recent bereavement; Vll. ls having difficulty communicating due to profound deafness, blindness or language difficulties; ' Vlll. ls unemployed and in receipt of Income Support payments from the DSS, and details are obtained of the debtor’s National Insurance number and address of DSS office; IX. ls employed and details of the employer's name and address are obtained; X. ls consulting his or her Councillor or Member of Parliament; Xl. Any other category defined by the Council. The bailiff must use his/her professional judgement in all cases but in some of the circumstances detailed above, the bailiff may consider it appropriate to refer back the initial levy of distress. lf items (viii), (ix) or (x) above applies, whilst the Council should be advised, recovery action should take its normal course unless otherwise instructed. I. Before attending with a van in order to remove goods, the bailiff must send to the debtor a letter warning of the intention to send a van and also warning of the costs involved in such a van attendance. m. Under no circumstances is the bailiff to force entry to a debtor‘s premises unless with the written consent of a specified senior officer of the Council. n. In the event of a breach of the peace occurring as the result of a bailiff visit, the Council must be briefed of the circumstances of the case as soon as it is practicable. When the debtor's goods are removed and sold at public auction, the Council must be provided with a full statement itemising the goods sold, the amount realised, a breakdown of the costs incurred and a statement of the amount subsequently outstanding or overpaid, as appropriate. The bailiff should not remove goods for sale unless it is anticipated that the sum realised will be sufficient to settle a substantial proportion of the amount outstanding, including costs. “Substantial proportion" may be defined by the Council. No goods should be removed for sale if they fall into the categories protected by legislation. Where the bailiff is unsuccessful in his/her attempts to obtain payment, and the liability order is to be returned to the Council, the order should be endorsed to the effect that the person making the distress was unable (for whatever reason) to find any or sufficient goods on which to levy. It should also be accompanied by a report summarising the action taken by the bailiff together with any details ascertained concerning the financial/personal circumstances of the debtor. Costs charged to the debtor should be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation. - Payment lists detailing full payments collected and costs deducted must be submitted weekly to the Council, together with the appropriate remittance, on the agreed days (weekly). Theremust be no undue delay in remitting to the Council cleared funds, and therefore it will be necessary to differentiate between cash and cheque payments received, and to process, those payments accordingly. In situations where it is agreed that costs, fees or charges are to be paid by the Council, invoices cannot be offset against payment lists. Progress reports must be submitted to the Council at specified intervals, and monthly statistical reports in agreed format must be submitted to the Council. The Council will have the right to enter the bailiff's premises at any time in order to inspect the bailiff‘s records for the purpose of carrying out an audit of costs charged, monies received and the proper allocation thereof. The Council should be notified at the end of each week of the names of the bailiffs working in the Sefton area in the following week. The format of standard forms and letters issued by the bailiffs must first be approved by the Council. The Council exercises a moratorium during the Christmas period each year for approximately 2 weeks. Monthly statistical reports in the agreed format must be submitted at determined times to the Council. Any written complaints made against the Bailiff firm, a copy of the complaint as well as the reply must be sent to the Council. y. The Council should be notified of any complaints made against the bailiff firm to the Enforcement Services Association, or the Association of Civil Enforcement Agents. Also, any complaint made to the county court as representation is made that a bailiff is not fit to hold a certificate, must be notified to Sefton Council. This document is not intended to be exhaustive and the bailiff is expected to use his professional expertise at all times. This document will be subject to periodic review.

Hi, After several fruitless attempts at securing a copy of this, I have finally got one. I have not yet seen Sefton's guidelines posted online, ones for many other councils, but not Sefton. These are highly coveted documents that the councils don't want you to have. (Having issues, It doesn't seem to matter what file type I save the scan image as, CAG tells me it's an invalid file type! I have to go, but if sdomeone could tell my why I can't upload a picture....) )

Thanks for the replies guys. So to sum up, my father would need some kind of documentation to state that the car was owned by him. Someone mentioned that any documentation would have to have been drawn up at the time, however that seems only to matter upon the documentation that would be accepted because something like a statutory declaration is basically a binding statement that one is speaking the truth, and that if it thought that that 'truth' not to be the case, then it would have to be challenged in court and proved not to be the case. Otherwise what is the point of a stat dec.? So what kind of documentation would be accepted? I have read about many cases where bailiffs have gained entry to a house and levy distress via a walking possession, but being unable to list items with sticky notes attached stating that someone else owns the item and that it is just on loan. So would that suffice? Also, private sales very rarely come with purchase receipts, or are bothered with. I have a written agreement with my father that the car belongs to him until I have repaid the money loaned for its purchase, would that suffice (but as someone mentioned, my father has no cc licence)? If my father made a stat declaration at a solicitors, say tomorrow, stating that the car is his, would that be acceptable? It would be interesting to see if anyone has challenged and won in court, the accepted 'fact' that the registered keeper equals the owner, except where business loan contracts are involved.

Hi, I was wondering about the point on your V5 where is states that "This document is not proof of ownership. It shows who is responsible for registering and taxing the vehicle." It only shows the registered keeper of the vehicle, not the owner. In fact, as far as I am aware, the DVLA holds no information as to the owner of a vehicle. So, when a bailiff requests vehicle details from the DVLA, the only information that they can possibly receive is on the vehicles registered keeper, not the owner. I was under the impression that they can only levy against possessions that belong to the debtor. Thus, if one could prove that a vehicle isn't theirs, but on loan, even if they are the registered keeper, then the bailiffs should legally be able to take the car. Also, just telling the bailiffs before they levy on the vehicle should be enough to stop them from levying distress, even if they don't remove the vehicle. For example, 'my' car is technically owned by my dad, he paid for it under agreement that I would pay him back. If asked, he would say that the car is his until I had paid him back. But for practical and insurance purposes, I am the registered keeper and user of the car. So, surely this would be like a car on HP. Would I need a written contract to show this agreement with my father? The only reason I don't think this is the case (even though I can't see why not), is that I haven't heard of it being used yet, or have read anyone suggesting it (and I doubt that I'm the first to have thought of it). ....so, what's the crack? Thanks.

Hi, Due to one reason or the other, we ended up owing the council around £1300 in council tax. They where refusing sane repayment offers (like ones we could actually afford, ones that where around 1/3 or our income) for the 'debt' and current council tax. They then started sending aorund the monkeys/'legal' racketteers AKA Jacobs. After a little tete et tete, and the bailiffs using illegal means to attempt collections of the debts (including adding illegal amounts to the bill), and the council denying they've ever had ANY complaints made against their monkey company, the stress levels got so bad that we became estranged (the wife and I). The council finally agreed to a sane recovery scheme, i.e. an affordable amount from the wife p/month. After a few months, the wife and I decided to give it another go and I moved back in. We announced this to all the relevant governmental bodies. This was a few months ago. Last week, a letter arrived from sefton council addressed to me, stating that if I did not pay IN FULL the £1300 odd, that they would be sending round the monkeys. Now, again, they are refusing to accept a sane repayment scheme (one which one would naturally assume to be acceptable given that the wife draws in around £1k p/month, and I only have p/t work drawing in around £300 p/month, being around a repayment 1/3 greater than they have already agreed is acceptable from the wife). Can they officially agree on a repayment scheme from the wife AND go after me for the full amount? Can they accept a reasonable repayment scheme from the wife but not one respective of my lower wage from me Can they treat us separately considering we are now officially 'as one'? What is my best next step?

As the title suggests. I recently asked why Sefton council continue to use such a disreputable firm as Jacobs Certified Bailiffs to collect on council tax arrears even when the person(s) being persued hvae tried to make reasonable repayments and repayment scheme with the council. Their reply was that they had a duty by law to the residents of the borrough to collect on unpaid council tax as quickly as possible. They also deny having any knowledge of any instances where there have been complaints, upheld or otherwise, against Jacobs Certified Bailiffs acting on their instruction. I would like evidence that there have been complaints made against them to Sefton council, I am positive it exists. Any one here made a complaint and what was the outcome/reply? I currently have a list of [EDIT] violations, mainly [EDIT] . I will post the thread when i send if off and start getting replies etc...

Thank you again citizenB. And to whom should I be making the complaint regarding santanders gross misconduct and negligence over the handling of my greviance arising from the aforementioned mishandling, the financial omsbudsman or the oft, or both? That link is certainly encouraging, however the prospect of so many possible appearences in court isn't so appealing. Its a shame one cannot 'appear in court' by proxy......

A little up date: I hope I've not left things too late, as shortly after receiving the matter from the SAR, I've had many more important and immediate things to deal with, leaving me with little resolve for this issue. However, now that the other issues are dealt with or at least on temporary hold, I wish to resume and hopefully instigate the ramifications for, this issue. Anyway,...... Eleven days before their deadline, I received, via normal post, a thick wad of papers, a cover note and the P.O. I sent them to cover the SAR fee. The thick wad of papers was yet another copy of my regular bank statements covering the last six years, and nothing more. The cover note 'explained' to me that they presumed that my SAR was to effectively assist me in reclaiming excessive bank charges and that I was entitled to a copy of my bank statements for free, thus they returned the P.O.. Furthermore, it stated that they hope I find the information I require and that they have dealt with my query and now consider the matter closed. So, I sent the P.O. back with a letter stating that they have not complied with the SAR as per law. I asked for clarification on whether they thought that they where not required to fully comply with the SAR or the law and if so, why, or whether their last letter + wad of regular bank statements was sent in error and that more information was to follow as per the SAR. I also stated that they have 11 more days in which to comply and that this did not constitute in anyway an extension to the deadline for returning to me the data requested. Three days late, the package arrived via registered, signed for post. (and I did mean 'late' and not 'later', i.e. I received the matter of the SAR 43 days after they received the request in the fisrt instance) No where in this wad of paperwork was there a detailed list of all DC transactions whereby the exact card used could be identified for each transaction, for the DC in question. They supplied this information for our two existing cards, which I explicitly told them we did not require, just all transactions paid for using DC's in such a way that the DC used for each transaction could be identified covering the period in question. Neither had they listed all DC's we have had with them, in who's name they where in, their respective card no., when they where activated, when they where deactivated, why and when. Also, they seem to conveniently not have any record of us reporting that DC in question having been lost. Yet, if we had not reported it lost, and its expiry was not for another year at least, then how did they know to issue us with a replacement? I also asked for them to indicate where they did not hold specifically asked for information and for a reason and that if such information was destroyed, then when and by what means. Hopefully, I have them by the short and curlies. What kind of trouble do you lot think these have landed themselves into? Keeping in mind that all I wanted to know, since I found out that they had been authorising payments on a card we reported lost months prior to its actual deactivation, was a detailed list of all transactions made using that aforementioned card covering the aforementioned period (since it being reported lost) so that I could ascertain that all the authorised payments where initiated by ourselves, and that someone else hadn't been using that card. I think its the implications of admitting their bumbling in-competencies that has them really scared and thus the complete unwillingness to assist me in this endeavour, just incase I decided to kick up a stink or, even worse, I found that someone else had indeed found and been using the lost DC. Furthermore, I was under the impression that where specific information is requested, and with information being supplied by the person (making the SAR) to render locating such specific information reasonably feasible, that they where under the legal obligation to make reasonable efforts to highlight such information and represent it in such a manner that the general 'layman' can understand/interpret. They have done no such thing, and infact, although they supplied me with a list of commonly used abbreviations and their respective full terms, there are many abbreviated terms used throughout the data where their respective full terms have not been listed and neither can the meaning of these abbreviations be deduced from their context. All the data supplied took the format of screen shot print outs, bar the statements. All the things they did not supply, or in the manner of which I was under the assumption I could have expected, I specifically asked for, as it was such information they had thus far refused (by way of action/in-action/neglect) to give me. So, I wonder if someone could advise me as to the best course of action now, and in what order. Here are my thoughts: 1 - Simultaneously write to santander (detailing exactly what has occurred since my last correspondence with them; of course having escalating the complaint to the highest level (considering the amount of times I have contacted them regarding this matter, most of the time in complaint, and they have already stated that they are treating this matter as an escalated complaint); and that in their cover letter to the late-past-deadline SAR information they stated that, unless I could provide them with proof that they have authorised payments on the DC we reported lost, they will consider the matter closed and if I disagreed then I could go to the OFT (or whoever it is); that I have made a complaint to the OFT and my MP detailing your conduct causing the debacle in the first instance, and your conduct throughout my attempts at mutual resolvement leading to my investigation/SAR; and also a complaint to the ombudsman regulating the data protection act (whomever or whatever) regarding the wilful non-compliance of the guidelines regarding SAR's as per the law.), the OFT and the regulatory body for non-compliance/breach of the data protection act, and possibly the police? 2 - depending on santander's reaction to 1, publishing the story to as many public places as is possible (news papers, rags, internet both on forums and creating a webpage, magazines, TV, radio.... santanders response to 1 had best be very favourable to us to prevent this. I think they are going to lose a lot more reputation and custom as a result of this if they are not very careful. I have given them every reasonable chance,and beyond, to remedy their mistakes. I would suggest to the OFT that they undergo a full investigation into account negligence of this magnitude by santander, and if they are found to be negligent to an unacceptable degree (whos margin had aught to be very small, considering their business and that they are meant to be a professional body) that they are to have their license to operate in the UK revoked. Oh, and incase anyone was wondering as to wording of the SAR, I have reproduced it here, minus identifying details of course: Please supply me with copies of all the data which you hold on me in relation to any matter and in any form and for any period of time. Please note that I require disclosure of any personal data which you hold on me or my husband for the entire period of my dealings with you. The Subject Access is not limited to my transaction history and it is not limited merely to 6 years of historical information. Additionally, where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any member of your staff, or any other person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my banking business with you. This is to include either a written transaction of or a copy (either on audio tape cassette or CD/DVD in a format that can be played on any common stereo cassette player/cd/dvd player, or in a digital format as an mp3 file on a CD/DVD or USB flash memory stick, or if the SAR information is to be provided via an electronic means, the recording(s) can be on the same medium as the rest of the information) of the recording of any phone conversations between myself and yourselves and between my husband and yourselves. In addition to, and not limited to, I require all debit card transactions covering the period from 01/10/2010 - present, detailing the specific card used for each transaction - for this, the name of the card holder and the last four digits of the 16 digit card number for each card/transaction will suffice. Also to be included and not limited to, is a list of all cards myself and my husband have, or have had, with you, including their card numbers and respective card holders name, when they where issued, if and when they where reported lost, stolen, expired or otherwise withdrawn from use, and when they where respectively and officially blocked from further use. If you are unable to supply data from manual intervention because there has been no such manual intervention, then please be so kind as to confirm this in your response. I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties or charges which are invalid under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations against me, then I shall be reclaiming them together with any interest charges which you have levied on them. As it is your wrongdoing and mishandling of my account which has created the necessity for this Subject Access Request, I shall also be reclaiming the enclosed £10 DPA Subject access request fee, including the cost of the postal order and its assured delivery method (special delivery). If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable. I would be happy to collect the Data from my local branch. Yours faithfully,

OK, SAR sent, special delivery with the requisite £10 PO, should be with them, at the very latest, by tomorrow 1pm, apparently. Although still no written confirmation as yet from paypal, I did managed to get a list of the last four digits of all cards (and the respective card holder name) for all cards we have held with them. Going through the paypal statements/transaction history, I have deduced that the bank most certainly have indeed, with irrefutable proof, authorised payments on the card that was reported lost in december, right up to at least June. Lets see what the SAR turns up, and, if as I suspect, a case of gross negligence on their part, in light of which, should they not wish to appease me with a satisfactory conclusion, a feast for the papers and even more damage to their already gargantuantly negative reputation. I had given them ample opportunities, comunicated with them on numerous occasions, with no more from their side but empty promises and around a £30 "goodwill" gesture, of which I stated specifically was accepted in no way a settlement of the issue, and as just a show of their will to deal with the situation appropriatey (and that goodwill gesture was months ago). How they can continue to mistreat customers and overcharge them rediculous amounts for even the smallest "violations" of t+c's, yet be so lax in their handling of peoples account security and still get away with it is beyond me....

I have made the relevant information request from paypal just for further comfirmation. I just hope I don't have to go down the SAR route with them too....however in previous phone calls with them they have confirmed that all paypal transactions covering that period where made from a card ending in four digits not concurrent with the (supposed) only card current at the time. However, santander seem to be very reticent at providing us with the last four digits of the card we reported lost.... Thanks for that citizenB, I will get onto to that. However I won't be able to send it until thursday, as it will only be then I can spare the £10 to cover their costs for the SAR.

Hi guys, A little input as to what should be my course of action would be much appreciated. Background (the abridged version): Around december 2010, we reported our debit card as being lost. When the replacement card arrived I updated paypal and alertpay with the new card details. Upto around May 2011, paypal and alertpay payments had gone through as usual, no issues. One day in May 2011, I tried to pay for an ebay item and the payment was refused by the card issuer (santander). A few seconds later, the phone wnet and it was santander's fraud dept stating that our account was on hold pending investigation of fraudulent activity. After several phone calls, the account was unfrozen as we verifid the payments where not fraudulent, i.s. we had initiated them. Second attempt at paying for the ebay item (through paypal), same issue, payment refused, followed by fraud alert phone call. after a few days of this reoccurring pattern, I contacted both ebay and paypal. Paypal helpfully informed me that the bank had refused payment, I had already ascertained that there was sufficient funds to cover the transaction, and so through paypal double checking the information they held on us, we worked out that the card i had on file was indeed the one I had reported lost in december 2010. It appears that I must have deleted the wrong card details after updating paypal with the replacement card. So, after much a-do on the phone to santander and visiting the local branch several times, our replacement card was destroyed and a new one issued. Keeping in mind that during this we had been accused by santander of fraudulently using two cards on one account etc.. I made a complaint to the staff in the branch, and wrote a letter to santander headoffice, asking why it took them 5 months to discover that they had been authorising payments on a card reported lost and to request statements covering the period with the last four digits of the card used for any card transactions. Understandably, we were concerned that if someone found that lost card, and the bank had been authorising payments from it, especially if they were small local transactions, we would be none the wiser. They finally, after again, much to-ing and fro-ing, sent me our transaction history covering the period in question, however what they sent us were just regular statements, with nothing identifying the card used for card transactions, as requested. Furthermore, in the cover letter, they ask for us to provide evidence that the lost card has had payments made against it, even though they have previously admitted it in a phone conversation and that the case is considered fully closed since they fulfilled our request (of which they have not) - the cheek, and thats without even addressing how it is that they allowed such a thing to occur - or even refute it having had occurred. Up on phoning them, and being pushed around complaints dept.s and managers, they are still very non-committal to resolving the issue, despite me stating that we have now reason to refute their claims that they are a professional and responsible body and that we feel, without just explanation or due customer care, we can no longer trust them to process our banking needs and they risk losing us as customers. As well as feeling that we now have no option but to issues them with a SAR (costing them considerably in time and money), as they have explained to us that they have no system with which to deal with our requests (only revealed during todays phone conversation) and that it would take someone to manually trawl through the account to discover the indescrepancies - why they did not do this in the first place knowing our requests, and that not just their reputation are at stake and that they don't have the system to automatically do this. In addition, I feel the regulatory bodies as well as the newpapers may do a better job of getting to the bottom of it than them, as our faith and good will in them is running dangerously thin. There has been still no real attempt to deal with our complaints, fulfil our requests, compensate us for time, money and reputation loss nor even a partial apology. It feels that my only course of actions now are to issue a SAR for ALL notes, conversations, computer details, branch visits etc., regarding our account covering this period, issue complaints for how our initial complaint was ignored and a separate one for how the complaint they are currently bungling has been dealt with, then escalating all three complaints to the ombudsman on top of informing all the papers of said fiasco. If you've managed to still be reading thus far, well done. I also wonder if this has happened to anyone else. Maybe you didn't even realise. Have you had a fraud alert for a transaction you have made? Did you report a card lost or stolen, and if so, are you sure that it is actually blocked?

As soon as I have the funds to do so, I will take this npwb to court, its what exactly I take him to court for. Providing it would cost less than what I am awarded, I'd even sue for as little just the costs of my fees due to the no-sale, its the principle and how he dealt with the matter (or, rather, failed to). and still no further communication. The 'other' ebayer has contacted me again asking many specific questions about the vehicle and its state. strangely he is asking questions where.by the answers are all ready covered by the listing details. it does seem as though the two ebayers are in collusion and this one is scouting for info the npwb may be able to use as "not as described", however, tyhe vehicle is exactly as described. any thing else wrong with it is so minor as to well fall under caveat emptor or as such that I am reasonably unaware to. Just to point out, no one has as yet actually viewed the car, nor actually asked any questions before the auction had ended, despite me pointing out that viewing before bidding is recommended as is asking any questions.