Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Zodiac


Community Reputation

86 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ibsys

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I know there has been a lot of trouble with Concentrix. My daughter had a demand back for tax credits and she got out of it, never paid it back. I think there was a rule about if it was their mistake it made a difference but I don't know exactly what it was. I make it a rule not to deal with third parties nor pass their "security" as I have no contract with them (contract law). beyond that I don't know the answer. In a dispute I always ask for full accounting and terms and conditions, what laws are they using. Do everything in writing. I sign everything "without prejudice" and write that partially overlapping the signature. That means you can't be held liable for anything said if they don't fully disclose everything. Put the onus of proof on them. HMRC books are in such a mess they don't know what they are doing and they find it difficult when you don't speak to third parties.
  2. Talking about cash, try "abolition of cash" on Google. Money Week "The Indian government has removed from currency 1000 and 500 Rupee notes and put a limit on ATMs of 2000 Rupees Chase Manhatten, in half of their branches they neither accept or pay out cash and car loans, credit card bills and mortgages cannot be paid in cash, David Cameron has told Police that if anyone is carrying over £1000 they demand to know where the cash has come from and if it cannot be verified they will confiscate it (Professional Builder) Bank Of England hasn't printed any £50 since 2015 In France and Spain it is illegal to pay a bill in cash over 1000 Euro's or there is a fine of 25% and 40% (respectively) of the value of the bill. (Guardian of Telegraph) I have had a letter from Barclay's that if I owe the HMRC or any other authority then they can demand Barclays take it from the account. What I do owe the HMRC and what they think I owe are two different things! People really do need to take notice of what is going on.
  3. This latest thing with diesels and charging extra for parking etc, what about those with light commercials, as in Ford Transit, full of tools going to customers homes and premises. Thye don't do petrol versions and in country areas it is too far to use electric vehicles.
  4. To save bank "bail outs" and save taxpayers money there has been devised "bail ins". There has been a law passed both sides of the Atlantic where if banks get into trouble they can bail themselves out using depositors funds. When people put their money into the banks it gets put on a loan ledger where the bank has "borrowed" your money so when in trouble you become a creditor just like in a bankruptcy and the "loan" (your cash) would not be paid back.
  5. My son moved back home so my wife phoned Dial-A-TV to purchase a TV on a rent-to-own basis. Dial-a-TV were asked by her "will I own the TV after the installments?..Answer "Yes, after 18 months." "How much will the TV cost per month?" Answer " £30.48" So to confirm the "TV will cost £30.48 for 18 months as a rental then after the 18 months I will own the TV" and they said "Yes". The agreement came in the form of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. She signed it and returned it. I only saw it when the problems started! She was telephoned by Dial-A-TV to see if she wanted an upgrade to which she said "NO, and when is the last payment?" and the reply was "August (2016). " 18 payments. This flagged up something to me so I asked her to cancel the final payment on direct debit and that I would pay the final payment by cheque and written in it "FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR GOODS RECEIVED) which I scanned and filed. It was only after the DD was cancelled that Dial-a-TV wrote to say the direct debit had been cancelled and that there were another 39 payments of £35 to be paid for rental. I phoned Dial-a-TV and was met by a tirade of abuse so I hung up and re-dialed and got put through to a manager. Unfortunately a firm like this prey on those who have to use firms like this and don't know their rights! I had said to their manager that their operative had called about a TV upgrade and the question had been asked about final payment. The manager said " the operative would say (in this case August) but that was the minimum term was 18 months so there were 39 further payments owing" Lets look at this: if the question was asked "when is the final payment?" and the answer was "August" then a reasonable person would believe it to be "August) So the Law of Contract is based around what a reasonable interpretation is so anything else meant but not said is NON-DISCLOSURE. On the agreement there was no mention of "39 months payments @ £35" NON-DISCLOSURE. The agreement did not say anything of the further 39 payments or the total amount payable. This suggests it is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s79 (a rolling contract like credit cards) until you read the total amount of payments are 999 months. But no, having a total amount of periodic payments @ £30.48 shows it comes under s78 in which case those 999 payments should be calculated to a format showing 999 payments of £35? or £30.48?, the total payable under the agreement and the interest charged. Incidentally if all the payments were made the TV would cost £31000+! The agreement fails to be enforceable under the Consumer credit Act 1974 because the information is not on the agreement as required (S60 Prescribed terms) If Dial-a-TV try to enforce the agreement under s64, and goes to Court, s127 precludes a court from enforcing the agreement. So where does the cheque come in with the words FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR GOOD RECEIVED? The payee, Dial-a-TV has about 7 days from cashing the cheque (unclear in law as to the time) to state they accept the payment but refute the cheque being FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT. They have to object to the statement on the cheque quickly or they have tacitly accepted it as FINAL. obviously if Dial-a-TV try to pursue the payment or return of the TV by specialist debt collector then there is always the CCA 1974 s70 (misrepresentation) which states where there is misrepresentation then all payments shall be refunded and the goods (TV) returned. See what happens next. On their next contact they will have the full, legal and lawful response!
  6. I was sent a Summons to Appear once. In August 2012 I went into hospital for major surgery and when I got home, I opened a Solicitors letter accusing me of ignoring their previous letter which they had also had sent whilst I was in hospital. They wanted me to go to Birmingham High court to be "financially examined". I got the court papers and I told them I was not going due to illness. I told the court by phone as I couldn't write at the time, (pens don't work upside down!) For months I was travelling by ambulance as a stretcher patient, couldn't sit down, couldn't stand long periods, walked with a frame and had nurse visits daily and slept on the living room floor so the solicitor said the judge would "do something about me, I would be in contempt". OK-whatever! I could not travel 130 miles so the solicitor went to court and won judgement but she used fraudulent figures to win her case. (£12000) I can prove this fraudulent activity but was off sick until 2014 but still couldn't travel this distance until 2015. They have never enforced this. I complained to the court much later on,I was given contact numbers for about seven organisations and every organisation passed me to someone else. I have been wronged but I shouldn't be asked to foot the bill to put it right. We are talking perjury, fraud, defamation, derogatory treatment and the judge has gone along with it and clammed up. Disgraceful!
  7. I went off sick in 2012 for two years and didn't get any benefits so I opted out of Income Tax. I haven't filled in a tax form for three years now and I put it in the Conditional Offer & Notice of Terms that I would not be liable to income tax, form filling or penalties. I will not be part of a scheme which takes my money when working then gives nothing back when off sick. It is a breach of contract and as there is no contractural consideration, therefore unenforceable. I paid into the system for 38 years. And no, there isn't a law which say a human being should pay tax!
  8. On a point that Default Charges shall be no more than £15 from PayDay Lenders, what about Mortgages with Banks etc? Halifax used to charge £25 for a default against a mortgage and the account where the "failed transaction" came from could be charged up to £35. On the rule of a limit on the amount to be paid back shall be no more than borrowed, a 25 year mortgage will require more than 2 1/2 times borrowed. In conclusion, payday lenders have arisen because banks wil not lend small amounts to ordinary people and although the new regs on PayDay Lenders is good, banks are playing by different rules and they caused the problem in the first place.
  9. So trader gets sacked for gold price fixing. A family of bankers meet in London every morning for two things: 1. To fix the price of gold 2. Decide what the FED (Federal Reserve) is going to do next. Why does this family not get the sack? Because they are the Rothchilds, part owner of the Bank of England! Anyway, what it the difference between the man in Barclays, sacked and the Rothchilds?
  10. Hi, I had a similar issue with the tax office. The form was submited and I got a penalty (they lost it) Firstly i didn't appeal, I refused to pay and rejected it. Then when the man asked could I prove I sent it? so I replied "can you prove you haven't lost it" and generally asked one question in reply to his questions. They gave in! Anyway, firstly, something posted with the correct address is deemed to have a delivery date so you are absolved and further action. AND It is statute barred. Send a conditional offer: CONDITIONAL OFFER; I will pay what I lawfully owe on condition that you will send me proof that you didn't receive the required document. That the records you have do not have errors and/or omissions on them and this needs to be proven. I give you seven days to provide all proofs and all documentary evidence. Failure to provide all documents as required will invalidate your claim and you will forfeit any recourse through the courts and forfeit any further right to restitution in any form. That should you not comply within seven days I shall take it you have dishonored me. Note: he who dishonors, loses!
  11. It is totally illegal and unlawful. Quote "No Government official or Agent shall seize anyones property without lawful judgement and if he does, that property shall be returned forthwith" (Magna Carta) and "Promises of grants, fines or forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void" (Bill of Rights) and lord Justice Laws in 2002 said these laws of special status cannot be repealed impliedly so still stand.
  12. By looking at your pdf, which show only an Application Form, this does not constitute a Credit Agreement/Contract. What you have is all there is. Credit Card companies used to send out Application forms, process them and send the PIN No's and card and that was it! This amount is unenforceable because it was a credit application/card which started before April 2007. It has no "prescribed terms" required under Section 61 CCA 1974. Under Section 127 CCA1974, the alleged agreement cannot be enforced where an action/claim is brought to Court because a Court is precluded (barred) from enforcing the alleged amount due to non-compliance of Section 61. Prescribed terms are signatures by both parties entering into a credit agreement/contract. Terms about interest charges and variations and when the amounts become payable, what is owing and what interest is owed etc. Section 79 regulated credit cards but we ask for s77/78.
  13. Halifax ...Bank of Scotland. (HBOS) A mere matter of £20bn on the takeover of Lloyds, a further £17bn and the takeover.
  14. I had an identical letter from Capquest then I had a phone call. They ring and every time they want to get me to go through security to which I refuse as they are a third party. Their letter was responded to and I have copied it below: Please find my response to your letter of DATE AND REFERENCE I have no contract with your Company and do not wish to contract with you. I am not one of your customers. This e-mail does not imply contract. Should you need to contact me again I will need the following; A valid copy of a contract, signed by both parties and giving acceptance by both parties of a contract. Lawful terms and conditions which are not based on fraud. Validation of the contract with full accounting and full disclosure of all material facts. Prove a valid consideration of the contract. An invoice attached to the above in accordance with the Bills of exchange Act 1882 (as amended 1992) and proof of claim. Without you fulfilling all these requirements I cannot discuss the matter further. Neither shall I disclose any details to any of your telephone operatives over the that method of communication. AND I must reiterate the contents of my e-mail to you which was sent on September 19 2013. It means what it says and still stands. It would be remiss of me not to inform you that the alleged balance with Lloyds is in an unresolved dispute and they have broken OFT Guidelines by not only passing the balance/file to you but actually selling something to you which is defective. They may have misrepresented the full facts surrounding the matter which is unfair to your company and have not afforded you full disclosure which is a requirement of and contract. I would suggest you go to Lloyds and get your £500 back which you paid them for the alleged balance. As to me you are a third party I see no obligation to discuss anything which is not of your business and I advised this to your caller yesterday and now confirm that the dispute is between Lloyds and myself. Should you or your agents wish to contact me again, all the requirements of the e-mail of September 19 must be met. I have no contract with your Company and do not wish to contract with you. I am not one of your customers. This e-mail does not imply contract. Capquest are a third party (interloper) to you and they have no jurisdiction or contract with you unless you discuss the matter with them which then implies contract which you are not obliged to do. Capquest, like all other debt purchasers, buy the debt for 10p in the £ (10%) and aim to collect the full amount. In my case, Lloyds have tried to obtain £5000 and couldn't, they could not resolve the dispute so sold it for 10%. There are requirements of a contract which are ; Full disclosure........how much did they acquire your alleged debt for? List all material events of the contract so you can accept the information/ contact OR reject it. Consideration........Unless there is equal consideration the contract is unenforceable. Consideration means if you pay them what are they going to give you? If the answer is nothing then it is unenforceable Lawfully binding and signed by both parties........ do you consent to this contract with them so agree to pay this debt? NO as why would you enter into a contract when they are giving you nothing in return. Full accounting and validation....... Why do they think you owe this amount, can they prove it, did they bring anything of substance to the table beyond a bank credit/debit? The letter you have received just has different words on it so just reply as I have done. Using this tactic, I have a backed off solicitors who when reading my replies as posted, have dropped their cases and sent back their files to their clients unwilling to act further.
  15. Watch out! The tax office lose forms sent so they can say they never had them so they then estimate tax owing and demand penalties.. It is a [problem] used to get more money just the same.
  • Create New...