Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nomorecrooks

  1. Baba02, thank you for the update. I am considering a small claims approach: no costs can be awarded or claimed against me. I'll keep everyone abreast of things.
  2. Hi Baba02: I'm in a similar situation with KMC; please let us ll know how this works out.
  3. An update: after filing my claim on moneyclaimonline Orange / EE wrote to me denying it had done anything but offering to pay both the claimed amount and the costs of the claim. Impossible not to settle so I took the money and dismissed my claim. For me the moral of the story is: use MCO and Orange / EE will settle.
  4. OK, thank you. My immediate concern is if by requesting a judgement from the court on the basis that no payment has been received although Orange has "promised" to pay I would be acting contrary to the CPR system, you know: I should "give them a chance" or something.
  5. Thank you. No, no explanation has been given for the charges nor has Orange repaid the money. My inclination is to pursue a Jufgement at the earliest opportunity if this is lawful. I have made a claim. Orange has not defended or paid me the money. Some vague proposal from Orange does not constitute Orange's legal obligations. Therefore I am inclined to seek a judgement. Your thoughts please!
  6. Thank you; that said my existing POC's accurately set out my claim. The issue for me is am I obliged under law to wait while Orange takes its own good time or am I free to press for a Judgement on the basis that they have not paid?
  7. I've been an Orange / EE PAYG customer for many years, mainly because their service is really the only option where I live. In any case, I travel to Asia for work, typically 3 to 4 weeks at a go. During this time my UK phone is with me and off becaue it has no service where I work (and I mean no service, nothing). So, imagine my surprise to learn that on one trip while the phone was switched off it had used circa £70 in internet useage (and I have free internet as part of my PAYG). Endless calls to Orange and they acknowledge an error, my account will be refunded. No refund so another round of calls to Orange in India. The manager in India tells me "I'll make certain you never receive your refund". So, off to MCOL. Now, Orange has written to me: no acknowledgement of error just a "goodwill" gesture of my total claim amount. However, the letter states that I must alow Orange 30+ days to send the cheque. My question: - Orange has repeatedly not lived up to its comittments to refund, therefore I don't trust it; - A promise to pay is not payment, therefore I am not inclined to discontinue my claim. Therefore, my view is ask for a judgement if I do not receive payment with the 28 days from deemed service. I would be most grateful for CAG's thoughts on this. (Note: the service address of Orange is: Everything Everywhere Limited Hatfield Business Park Hatfield Hertfordshire AL10 9BW tel: 01707 317000)
  8. OK, frustrating news on this case: after a number of hearing judgement was made in favor of HSBC. the judge ignored my request for HSBC compliance under 31.14 as he (the judge) had not ordered it. I had evidenced to the Court that HSBC admits that it does not possess the documentation on which its case relies (such as account opening and O/D or loan paperwork). I would like to appeal because HSBC have lied and lied again to me and the Court. Any suggestions (PLEASE)?
  9. I'm glad. A word of caution: I've had a large number of battles with Kensington: make sure you get it in writing!
  10. Hello. A couple of suggestions: Make sure thatyou put everything in writing to Kensington and that you send it via registered mail. Do not rely on anything over the telephone. Are you the only person at the house? I ask because should Kensington attempt possession you need to be sure you receive the correspondence. I have asked Ell-enn of this site to respond to your post!
  11. @bhall: al of these are interesting. Thank you for posting the links!
  12. @ bhall: Thank you. I take your point entirely. I remain highly suspicious of my lender though less sceptical of its legal position. I have the impression that my lender is somewhat concerned about its own legal position (i do not think I am wishing this, my lender has repeatedly backed down when faced with court {granted it may be nervous of having a wild card judgement against it}). So, my final question: do you think is it possible that lenders consider that the Pender case is not just as solid as we may consider it to be? Many thanks!
  13. @bhall: I too have a mortgage with Kensington ("KMC"); I have read most, if not all, of the discussions between yourself and applecart. I am inclined to agree with your argument that the deen need NOT be signed by the lender. I have a letter from KMC which states: KMC “has passed the beneficial title to a third party“ and that KMC "retains legal title". My question to you: does the fact that KMC states it has no beneficial (is this the same as equitable?) interest affect the position of the lender?
  14. @rdm2006: you left out a few minor infractions by HSBC: admitted wilful violation of the trading with the enemy act (Saudi terrorists, Iran & Sudan); admitted wilful money landering for the murderous mexican drug cartels. I am so offended by HSBC, than any organisation would intentionally assist known terrorists and violent drugs gangs is beyond the pale. This is no longer about simple greed, HSBC is an admitted terrorist organisation which intentionally is attemting to put us all in harms way for a few pieces of silver. If there is any consolation: I imagine that HSBC officers are now afraid that the Israeli secret service might well kill them if they persist in knowingly assisting the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program. If our western Governments can't imprision these criminals who have admitted their guilt then perhaps all we can hope for is that Mossad will deal with them via violence I can say that if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons as a result of HSBC's assistance then I hope they have acquired sufficent gold to live alone someplace far far away. ****!
  15. Nav110: I have recently received my SAR bundle from Kensington and surprise: there is no information about securitization. I have therefore written a CPR 31.14 letter to Kensigton requiring copies of the relevant documentation. I'll let you know how I make out...
  16. @ Apple: OK, for me your final statement was most interesting (perhaps because I find the split between legal & equitable interst confounding): "Yes, that's correct, After an outright sale, neither the Original Lender of the SPV have anymore than at best an equitable interest, neither have a legal right to possession of a borrowers House/home" Am I correct in thinking that this statement, though interesting, is somewhat irrelevant since there is probably never an outright sale? Finally, together with another CAG'er ("Mr X") I am involved in a fight with the same mortgage lender. I have been battling with the lender for many many months as has Mr X. Mr X recetly had a superior court require that the lender prove that is it the appropriate party to the dispute. The lender was required to offer this proof to the court within a limited period of time which has nmow elapsed without the lender furnishing the court or Mr X wth the required proof. My point: it would appear in the case of myself and Mr X that lenders do not always complete the documentation in a manner in which they would wish a court to examine it. Both Mr X and I would be interested in your thinking on this. Thank you for your thoughts and assistance.
  17. @ Nav: you will be interested to learn that a case has been heard this year whereby the Court ordered Kensington to disclose that it was the appropriate party to the court by the end of January. Surprise: Kensington has not responded to the Court. you will alse be interested to learn that I have been pressing Kensington on this point since November of last year and Kensington squeals like a piggy (have you seen Deliverance?). Your arguments are being tested in and out of the courtroom as we speak!
  18. Carlos, do not despair! You need to do the following in the following order: Obtain an N244 and complete it; In your statement in the N244 you must refer to "Cheltenham & Gloucester v Norgren" Obtain and complete a financial statement which proves you ability to repay the mortgage arrears WITHIN THE TERM of your mortgage. This means that if your arrears were £12,000 and you had 12 months of term left in your mortgage then you must pay your usual payment plus £1,000 per month. If your remaining term is 10 years and your arrears £12,000 then you would need to pay £12,000 / (10 years * 12 moths per year) = an additional amount of £100 per month. This mathematics is a result of the Cheltenham & Gloucester v Norgren case. File the N244 and your financial statements at your local court (you will need to pay a fee) Attend court at the appropriate time (which you will be advised of by the court) Do not despair, many have been down this path!
  19. @ DonkeyB: thank you do you mean request a stay "unless" or request claim is struck out "unless" (thanks again!)
  20. An update of sorts: I sent a SAR in mid January; I reasonably expected to receive among other things the following: Account opening paperwork Documentation relating to the overdraft Account monthly statements [*]Surprise, or not, I dod NOT receive any of the above three sets of documentation. Given that this is a live court case I propose to seek a stay on the basis that the claimant has not fulfiled its obligations under CPR 31; the claimant has failed to supply dovcumentation to which its claim refers and which I have requested namely the account opeing documentation and the overdfaft documentation. By way of an aside the HSBC compliance department has hinted that they may no longer possess the said documentation. Thoughts PLEASE!
  21. Apple, may I see if I understand your point in lay english? I think what you have said is that: if the SPV fails to register its interest (as will almost always be the case) then the interest of the SPV is an equitable interest (only). An equitable interest DOES NOT have the right of possession. Have I understood you correctly?
  22. An update for you all: I have agreed to not disclose the outcome (CAG's will understand the meaning of this!); I withdrew my claim. I can afford a nice weekend in Paris!
  23. I think the following article may be of interest to all those CAG's who are interested in HSBC's penalty in the United States. This is from Forbes magazine which is a pro-business pro-capitalism publication: http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2012/12/12/final-thought-on-hsbc-settlement-how-much-bad-behavior-will-we-tolerate/
  • Create New...