yes indeed

I know this is an old thread going back a few years, but I came across whilst searching for info on ebay. In this thread it is claimed that ebay can only be sued in Luxembourg. I believe that is untrue. I believe the Hague and Lugano conventions apply in their remit to harmonize European laws. Wikipedai says about the Lugano convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_Regime) "The Brussels Regime covers legal disputes of a civil or commercial nature (article 1). There are some exceptions limiting the scope of this; where the principal matter of a dispute is one of family law, bankruptcy or insolvency, social security, or relates to arbitration, the case is not subject to the rules. Article 2 prescribes that a person (legal or natural) may only be sued in the member state in which he or she is domiciled. Domicile is determined by the law of the national court hearing the case, so that a person can be domiciled in more than one state simultaneously. Article 4 preserves the traditional rules for defendants who are not domiciled in a member state. That is, if a defendant is domiciled elsewhere, then the Regime does not apply and the national court hearing the case is left to determine jurisdiction based on the traditional rules otherwise governing such questions in their legal system. Article 4 also allows a person domiciled in any member state to take advantage of another member state's exorbitant bases of jurisdiction on the same basis as a national of that state. This is useful in cases where a member state, such as France, allows its nationals to sue anyone in their courts, so that someone domiciled in a member state like Finland may sue someone domiciled in a non-member state like Canada, in the courts of a third party member state, like France, where the defendant may have assets." I believe therefor that court action can be instigated in the UK courts. You may also find the following useful: http://www.thewholesaleforums.co.uk/forum/ebay-and-online-auction-discussion/44565-how-sue-ebay-paypal.html Companies House website gives the following details: EBAY (UK) LIMITED 107 CHEAPSIDE LONDON UNITED KINGDOM EC2V 6DN Company No. 03726028 For about £2 anyone can purchase a report on the company giving the names of the Directors.

wasn't saying he didn't.

The OP would need evidence of such things to include in his case. The fact that you know such things happened is no use to him, he needs to put it before the court himself. All such knowledge helps breakdown the perception that banks have rigid, watertight policies and procedures that are always followed - but only when put in front of a court.

check the ICO website to see if the solictor is registered: http://www.ico.gov.uk/ESDWebPages/search.asp if they are, the site will give details of how to contact the data controller. If they're registered, SAR in the normal way. If not registered, phone the ICO to ask if they should be, and what you can do to get info if they;re not registered. Many solcitors prostitute their stationery by letting DCAs use it. The letter is never seen by the solcitor, and they will never of heard of you, and have no data about you. The key is that the stationery will direct you to contact the DCA to discuss the letter, and most/all DCAs simply ignore whatever you write, because the letters are churned out by computer. You can write to them in response, but chances are it will simply get ignored as they churn out more letters to you according to their schedule - one every 8 days or so. Thats why the letters you get don't answer your letter - they're just template letters. you can write to the MD of the DCA, or simply wait a reasonable time for them to reply, and then complain to the CSA, their 'governing body' (ROFLMAO). It won't achieve much but gives you a sense of satisfaction. I understand DCAs have to send a summary of the number of complaints they receive to the FSO. You can also complain direct to the FSO. If a 'real' solcitor is writing to you, the info they have would be minimal - name address, amount owed, account number, just the basics that they can quote in their letter. You can also complain about the solcitor to the Solictors Regulation Authority. First of all, complain to the MD/Senior Partner/ in charge of complaints, and then after a reasonable time, to the CSA. If more people complained about solcitors when they get these letters, perhaps solcitors would work out that they cost of dealing with teh complaints was more than they got from prostitution

Thats why it needs to be brought into the public domain, so the bank's 'infallibility' is exposed for what it is

thanks guys, that's the baby. As I said, the bank gifted this money to the customer, be means of a crooked or incompetent member of staff. No signature = no agreement to repay and no agreement to report his data to a CRA. It also is first class evidence that the banks are not infallible and they can say that the customer MUST have signed an agreement otherwise he wouldn't have got the money, all they like. It doesn't make it true, and this forgery proves it. I hope that letter is produced in court.

More to the point, if presented in court, it can also be cited later as proof that it isn't safe for a bank to say that the customer MUST have signed the loan/card agreement otherwise they would not have been allowed the facility. It highlights the fact that at some point, a member of staff , not a computer, decides to provide the credit facility, and that that person can make a mistake, or deliberately break the banks procedures and provide the facility without a signature. And all this can be done without concrete proof of where the signature came from. This case only goes back 4 years but they don't have records of what happened. How could they - someone is not going to break the procedure like this and send an email to the boss admitting it are they? Do you notice the bank is still saying that the money is owed because the customer benefited from the money? What is that quote from a judge about a bank advancing money in ways that it cannot expect to have it recovered and have made a gift of it. If Natwest want the money, they should prosecute the member of staff who falsified the document and sue him for the loss. Doubt that they will because it would attract too much publicity.

perhaps writing to the head of Trading Standards would do the job, or contact your local councillor and ask him WHY it isn't a TS matter

but they are also debt collectors, their website makes that clear I saw a moan from the CSA in response to some consultation document from the OFT complaining that the OFT want to have controls on tracing agents as on DCAs to prove their competence........ I think someone needs to have a word with the OFT about things like "controls" "competence" etc. DCAs are hardly good examples of competent, effectively controlled companies

Thanks for the info. Neither friend or daughter know of any reason why the DVLC would be chasing after about 4 years. She is assuming it is chasing her bank debt. They are members of the CSA but not under Civil Investigations: Company: InterCredit International Ltd Services: Consumer Debt Collection, Business to Business Debt Collection, Court Action, Status Enquiries / Company Searches, International Collections, Debt Purchase, Tracing Region: South East They will be ignored I am sure What seems disreputable is that they don't identify their purpose or their client, only that after my friend has contacted them to confirm residence at the previous location will they be authorized to disclose their instructions. I thouhgt debt collectors had to identify their intentions, not fool around with cloak and dagger stuff, though even if they are supposed to, its no wonder they dont- what sanction is ever applied to these ****?

Thanks I couldn't find them on the CSA website. Thought they had to be a member, or is there more than one 'association' so it is a phishing trip... (actual fact the letter was to my friend's daughter who DID live at that address. Freind and daughter have same first name and letter didn't have any Mrs/Ms etc so friend thought it was for her)

Ive just found this thread, and it highlights the disgraceful lack of diligence of these ****. What I would be inclined to do would be to say he's moved on, and give either the latitude/longitude co-ordinates of his grave (say you don't know his address) or the crematorium, or the info in the following way "C/O Plot 123/Remembrance Garden, City Council, Any Street, Town" plot 123 being the grave plot, or garden of remembrance, and the road where the cemetery is. I wouldn't point out its a cemetary. Hopefully they'll write using the address you give them and get a reply from the appropriate office. Not that it will do any good because the monkeys are de-programmed when they start work so that only basic life support functions work, conscious thought and reason is not required.

My friend has just received a letter from the above asking for her confirmation that she lived at a previous address. Is this a ploy by a DCA to get her to respond so they can confirm her new address?

The problem is that the banks have a procedure that satisfies the DPA. Any deviation from that procedure means they may not satisfy they DPA so they won't deviate. Thats how they get round it. If their procedure says that only a handwritten signature in ink is acceptable to verify your ID, they can refuse everything else. My friend pointed out to the ICO that if the bank had a procedure that meant you had to turn up at a named destination hundreds of miles away, with 6 proofs of ID a policeman and a JP who both knew you, and you had to attend at precisely 12.37 PM on the third wednesday of the month, (unless it was raining in which case it was the 2nd Thurday of the following month at 11.23AM,) then they had aprocedure that they claimed proved ID and thus satisfied the DPA. The fact that it was extremely difficult to follow the procedure and give satisfactory proof of ID meant that it wasn't fair and was thus not in the spirit of the DPA, was lost on the ICO person. The fact my friend has lost much use of his writing hand was also lost on the ICO.

I have a friend who had problems getting his SAR from the bank because his signature didn't match the one on record. He explained that due to medical conditions the only sig he could make was the one on his request. The fact that he hadn't signed anything to do with the bank for several years (cheques, cheaque card. letters etc) meant he couldn't remember his old signature anyway. He made a thread on here about it. He made a complaint to the ICO and they believed the bank was ok as verifying the signature was part of their procedure for proving ID. He provided all the stuff mentioned above (Chris Reed, work of some DTI committee looking into e-commerce etc) and pointed out that the bank were happy enough to write to him to chase debts, to pass his details to collectors, and to respond to letters (with his new signature) about other matters, and according to the ICO a matching signature for proof of ID was only suitable when the info would not cause loss or embarassment if revealed incorectly, ie a signature is a low level of proof of ID. He made the point to the ICO that the bank DID know who he was and had no reason to believe his mail was intercetped or ID theft had occurred and that they had enough proof, including his past addresses for 8 years, and security info provided to the bank (passwords). The ICO ruled after 12 months that the banks procedure was not unreasonable and that they were correct in requiring proof of ID before processing a SAR. My friend said that having a procedure that cannot be followed by the applicant is hardly fair, nor in line with the DPA requirement to ID the person. Got no where. In the end he wrote a letter to the MD of the bank literally telling him to take the DPA, and the procedures and stick them in his rear end, forcefully. He got a reply saying they were sorry he felt like that but had done all they could within the limits of the DPA. He suspects that the bank couldn't supply the DPA and were looking for excuses not to. The problem is with the DPA and the ICO who literally don't want to upset the banks and look for the easy way out. Any hope of changing the situation must start with reforming the DPA and the ICO If you consider that all a banks dealings with a customer is covered by the DPA, then all transactions should be to the same level of security. eg, if they doubt someone is the account holder, then they cannot reveal any info about them or the account, including sending demands for payment. Similarly, if they are confident the account holder lives at the address, then they should process a SAR arising from that name and address, providing other reasonable info can be verified, eg you make a request, they phone you on your usual number, ask verification questions. If they are unwilling to accept your ID when you make a SAR, they shouldn't be sending demanding letters to the same address. They shouldn't be able to send a demand to your address with no verification, but then create an obstructive procedure so they don't have to process a SAR. It should work both ways. Without a common sense approach from the ICO and better calibre staff, things won't change

Can't read the letter, its too small.

Nicely avoiding the question... I assume therefore that you did not disapprove of the DCA passing itself of as your company, and they haven't been criticised by your company for their actions. So they live to harass again. DCA **** only exist because companies keep hiring them, even when they know of the disreputable tactics they use. Companies that hire them are as guilty as the DCA.

its good that it was sorted out, but what about Lowell pretending to be Vodafone? What happened to the complaint, was this another DCA that just got away with it? Did Vodafone impose any sanctions on Lowell, or did Vodafone actually allow Lowell to act like that?

reduce your offer and pay it in. in a month or two, you may well get a letter saying they accept your offer of payment and give you a whole load of conditions you must meet. justpay what you can realistically and realiably afford to pay, and err on the side of safety - if you think you can pay £30, then pay £25. If you leabe your self short, and miss payments, they will just start the aggro again. If they are getting something, they will likely leave it for a while and then ask for more. Just ignore their demands. it is likely if they went to court, the court will Order less payment, and then the creditor has to accept it, and has to go to court if they want the amount increasing. So the chances are they will accept what you pay, and try to pressure you for more. They're not likely to go to court if you voluntarily pay something.

you are quite right teaboy, and many others have probably thought the same, but the judge decided that brandon had not suffered any disadvanatge or prejudice and therefore the errors didn't matter. of course, as you say, if brandon had known that he actually had 21 days rather than less than 14 that the faulty DN allowed, he may well have been able and willing to to rectify, but he could only assume as you point out, that he had only the time stated on the DN. Many others with faulty DNs may well have been able to resolve the matter if they had know that the bank weren't going to act on the DN for weeks or months, but they didn't and could only go on the contents of the DN. In any case, I and many others fail to see how being sloppy, lazy, or incompetent and choosing not to enforce a DN makes the DN vaild regardless of it's errors. Thats a bit like sending any piece of rubbish titled Default Notice and enforcing it 6 months later on the grounds that the recipient hasn't been disadvantaged because of the passage of time - not only did 6 montsh give him time to fnd the money, but also to research the Notice and find out the correct wording and extent of its power. Alas, common sense seemed to be absent in court on that day. In this instance, the bank are not likely to act immediately, and certainly not to go to court. MBNA have a reputation for selling debts quite quickly, and it may be best to sit tight, do nothing, say nothing, and wait for the Brandon appeal and to see what MBNA do. Of course, if you can make payments, you may choose to negotiate a payment schedule, or you may choose not to, and see if they go to court or sell the debt, at which point you will have the option of payment schedules either Ordered by the court, or by discussion with the new owner. An alternative is to engage the services of someone like PayPlan or another non-fee charging company that will negotiate payments with your creditors after taking your circumstances into account. They can often take the strain off you because the bank deals with them, and doesn't bother you as long as you keep the arrangement going. You simply pay the money to PayPlan and they pay it to the creditors. You can also get advice from the National Debt Helpline who will go through the options. As far as I know, only forums like this will help you decide if the agreements are valid and enforceable, payplan, and debt helpline won't consider that the debts may not be enforceable, they will assume they are In the short term (next few months at least) there is likely to be a lot of chasing and what may be described as aggro or harassment before MBNA decide what to do. Of course, your reaction to their activities helps shape what they do.

this is an interesting and sad case. as there hasn't been any updates, I thought I'd reopen it. IMHO I think your friend needs to find out his exact position in law regarding the original amount. as someone said, he may still be liable for that as it was paid off by fraudulent means I also don't think there's any point in sending invoices unless you are 100% determined to follow through with legal action - to do anything less simply sends the message to the bank that it is safe to ignore you. Once that first batch of court papers arrives at their desk, the will sit up and take notice. However, you need to be absolutely sure of what you're claiming in court, else you could end up losing and paying their costs. I also think the proper way of dealing with this was to contact the police and report the fraud. For that amount of money, the police would not have ignored it, and they wouldn't allow the bank to ignore it either. A police investigation would have determined the facts and been an escape route for your friend - he could simply point to the police report that would exonerate him from the fraud and the resulting 'loan'. I would also mean his ex was MUCH less likely to do it again in the future. As it is, the bank obviously see your friend as more likely to pay up than his ex, hence they chase him, or else simply do not know where liability is so chase both, or maybe they don't know who is liable but see him as more likely to pay so they chase him. Either way its the same old story of the banks not knowing or caring about the facts and chasing someone not liable. In such a case, its quite possible that the bank doesn't actually know the law and are simply going through the same round of paper template letters they usually do, like hamsters on a treadmill - they don't it won't get them anywhere but don't know what else to do.

There's never been any dispute with this bank That's how it looks, judging from what they sent, and what they say. My understanding was that they had to keep the whole set of records until 6 years after the closure/last transaction, rather than, after the account closure, being able to destroy each record as it became 6 years old. I thought that was due to money laundering regs. Am I wrong about that? Are they able, the day after the account is closed, to destroy all records 6 or more years old, and then destroy records as they becomes 6 years old? (which is what they seem to have done?) Or come to think of it, are they allowed to destroy all records 6 or more years old, regardless of whether the account is closed or not? Obviously, if you have an account for say 17 years, and then close it after an argument about say charges, and then do a SAR to look at the record of charges, its a bit of a shock to find they destroyed everything 6 years or older. I know the regs are about money laundering, but destroying records prevents their access for any reason

Hi, for proof of payment/purchase of various things.

I'm glad I found this place, looks like there's plenty of good stuff on it. I made a SAR a couple of months ago. The bank intially replied they could find no details of the account and asked for more details. I found a letter from them dated April 2006 confirming the closing of the account. I sent a copy of that letter. I've had the SAR back now, but the bank says that they do not have any records for the account prior to May 2005 as records prior to that date have been destroyed. Now, I'm not in any dispute with this bank, so I can't think of any reason they may want to withhold any info, but I thought banks were obliged to keep records for 6 years after the account was closed. By that, I mean they should keep _all_ records for the account until 6 years after the account closure. Is that right?