Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


10 Good
  1. I've found myself in an odd situation which no-one seems to be able to give a straight answer on. I've googled endlessly and found no similar cases. I'm sure my situation can't be unique but maybe it is. I was made bankrupt in 1998 and as a result the forfeiture clause in my personal pension with Prudential (originally Scottish Amicable) kicked in. This just meant that they would hold my pension in trust while it carried on building as before. The only difference being that on redemption any lump sum would have to be paid to someone else. Now I want to take advantage of the new rules by taking small amounts as and when but the Pru are adamant I can only buy an annuity or have the whole amount paid out to someone else. They say they cannot transfer the pension to another provider and cannot pay it in installments, drawdown fashion. The problem with this is: The pot isn't big enough to make an annuity worthwhile. They say that payment of a lump sum will not qualify for any tax free element per the new rules. I have letters from both the OR and the TIB confirming they have no further interest in my pension and I am free to do as I please. The fund is worth about 80k. I am dealing with an independent financial advisor and he has been tearing his hair out from talking with the Pru. He feels the next step is to go to the ombudsman. I've dealt with ombudsman services before and know how long it can take. My question is basically are the Pru just being awkward or should it be possible to reinstate my pension and thus benefit from the recent changes in law, without having to lose half of the pot in tax? Will going to the ombudsman be likely to produce a result? I would be really grateful to hear from someone who knows about this subject.
  2. Now that makes sense. I can go into the weekend happier now. Thanks very much.
  3. That's fair enough but it would have been helpful if he had mentioned it in his judgement. I can only assume that he didn't believe my income and expenditure. After all, if I can only afford 5 a month I certainly can't pay it in full. I'm going to send a new N245 with a covering letter to put some more meat on the bones of my financial position. Hopefully that will do it. The only other option for them would be bankruptcy, which will get nothing for them but probably benefit me more.
  4. Thanks. That's how I was going to do it. Just concerned why my 5 a month wasn't accepted first time and if that means it won't be accepted again. I can't manage more because I have no income of my own. Bailiffs won't do any better if they get sent in. Do I have any grounds for contesting the costs? Thanks.
  5. I assumed it was not necessary to attend as I was admitting the debt and included the income and expenditure information on the form. It just seems like that was ignored by the judge.
  6. An old debt, now owned by Marlin, resurfaced earlier this year. They issued a claim in May. I wasn't sure I remembered it at first (it was an old HSBC account) and the information suggested it was over the 6 years anyway. I put in a defence to this effect and they sent me information to confirm the debt was still active. I ignored this and they did nothing more within the 28 days they are allowed. Subsequently, they applied for the stay to be lifted and defence struck out, which was transferred to my local court and I put in an admission and requested time to pay (£5 per month- I have no income of my own). I couldn't attend court. I just received the judgement, which gives me until December 11th to pay in full and has added £1100 for costs. There is no mention of my offer to pay, which is what concerns me most. I also think the costs are ridiculous, especially since they are the ones that failed to meet the first deadline. The debt amount was £2000. My question is what should I do now? Do I assume that the offer to pay was missed and put in a new application? Is there anything to be done about the costs? Thanks.
  7. I successfully prevented a warrant of entry being granted for a disputed electricity bill earlier this year, quoting the Electricity Act 1989, section 6. I am in a similar position with gas at the moment but can't seem to find an equivalent act for gas, which clearly states a warrant cannot be issued when a bill is in dispute. Scottish Power have ignored letters and emails regarding a wrong charge for a very long time and are now seeking a warrant since I stopped paying their bills in protest. Is there a similar act which I can quote, other than the 1954 act, which doesn't have a specific section to spell out when a warrant can not be issued? If not would quoting the 1989 act be valid? Thanks in advance.
  8. Thanks. Yes I understand it is for both of us. I have gone well over the 13 weeks now. They sent me the form automatically after the 13 weeks. Guess I'll have to talk to the benefits office tomorrow about what to do.
  9. My wife cannot claim JSA because she is over 60. I know she can claim pension credit but the office advised I was better to make the mortgage relief claim myself as the limit is higher (200K). My wife obviously did give the lender written approval.
  10. Thanks for the response. No, it is a single application.
  11. I've been on income based JSA for a few months. The jobcentre have given me a MI12 form which I have to fill in and send to the lender for them to fill in. Although I queried the fact that the mortgage is in my wife's name the jobcentre said that didn't matter. The lender (London Mortgage Co administered by Capstone, now renamed Acenden- hard to keep up!) sent the form back uncompleted as I am not a party to the loan. My wife returned the form and insisted they complete it, since it was not up to them to make that decision. They have now returned it again and when I spoke to them today they say that they would be party to fraud if they complete the form as they would be being paid by the DWP for a claim which is not my wife's. Obviously I will need to talk to the jobcentre again but I don't see why they are being so difficult when all they are being asked is to confirm the details of the loan. Surely it is up to the DWP to decide if it is valid or not? How can I make them complete this form? I feel powerless here as the DWP seem to leave it up to the claimant to sort out. I'd appreciate some advice as to whether I and the jobcentre are right or the lender are right. Since I don't have a lot of faith in either I'm really not sure. Thanks
  12. Foolishgirl, thanks for that. He has stopped using the account and has a Lloyds account now. I will ask to move the post as you advised.
  13. Yes I think his feeling is that if they have no intention of allowing him to use his card and he does nothing there will come a time in the not too distant future when the debt will pass to collectors and won't accrue any more interest, whereas if he carries on paying the monthly minimum interest will continue to be added for a long time. He's not so concerned about his credit file. Well, yes and no. This is where with everything they do and say they contradict themselves. Good point and yes he has. It amounted to 100 and he told them he wanted them to send him the amount rather than crediting the account but they won't do that for obvious reasons. I have dug out the correspondence and this how it went: 23/7/8 Wrote requesting 100 charges refunded 10/8/8 Statement showing 1500 limit, balance under limit and minimum payment required by September. Subsequent statements show exactly the same credit limit. 13/8/8 They sent 'without prejudice' letter saying charges are fair but as he is 'valued customer' they will make an offer of full settlement once they have checked his account. 13/8/8 (Same day) they send a letter telling him that following a thorough review of the account they are ending the agreement. 8/8 He responds with a letter pointing out the fact that he is a valued customer and insisting they reinstate his card as it has run correctly for some months. 8/9/8 They write and say due to the automated nature of their system when his account fell into arrears in March it initiated a process which resulted in generic letters being sent including a demand letter on 18/8. there seems to be no such letter and this was 5 days after the termination letter. They quote 9a of the T&C 'We may cancel or suspend the use of the card and/or cheques for all or any purposes or refuse to replace or reissue the card if there is a breach of this agreement, or any other agreement between you and any member of the HSBC group'. they say as soon as an account is in arrears they put a stop on it, which is not what happened-they did it after it had been back out of arrears for a while. They also say it has nothing to do with his charges claim. 9/9/8 A letter confirming they will pay the claim in full ('valued customer' again) by crediting his account, which they did. He wrote and said he couldn't agree unless they sent payment by cheque or similar. 23/9/8 letter saying account was overdue by 36 and still stating the credit limit as 1500. It also states that the account is now closed. 4/11/8 Default notice. Limit 1500. breach 73. Their position seems to shift depending on which department the letters come from (It was even worse when he started reclaiming charges on his current account- outright lies). He's given up trying to get sense out of them and just wonders what the legal position is and what he can do now. Obviously he wants to keep the card if he can, because it is the only one he has and it has been very useful. Sorry this turned into such a long post.
  14. Can someone offer some advice on this one please? My son had his HSBC credit card 'withdrawn' two or three months ago, coincidentally at the time he was challenging the charges on it. Every statement he's had since shows his credit limit unchanged at 1500. At the time they told him he could no longer use the card he was up to date with payments and under the limit. Their story is that it is an automated process which started some months before when he was behind and there was nothing that could be done to stop it (yeah right). They say he should carry on paying as normal and they will carry on charging interest as normal and maybe sometime in the future they will reinstate the card. He has now received a default notice. As far as I can see it complies with the requirements of the CCA but it states the credit limit as 1500 and the amount outstanding as 1429.10. The breach is for an amount of 73.91, which must be paid by the 18th Now as I understand a default notice under the CCA if the remedy stated in the default notice is actioned ie he pays the 73.91 it is as if the breach never occurred. This must legally mean his card remains in force with the limit as stated on the notice- as I see it. We'd like to know exactly where he stands since it seems HSBC keep contradicting themselves and he says why shouldn't he let it go into default and further interest be frozen if they will not allow him to use the card anymore. Thanks in advance.
  • Create New...