I hope you can see where this points to if the bank is claiming that this is part of a service then they must show this to be the case, and not rely on cloked, or as may be best described as "Crooked charges"

In view of the above and taking a look at the Royal Mail website it may be a good idea to use their special delivery service. Although it may cost extra, You can get an elctronic proof of delivery within 2 days as opposed to 5 with recorded delivery and as their website suggests that electronic proof is not always available for recorded. And if the bank decide to take it all the way to the wire and settle before the hearing you can always apply for a wasted costs order and claim for your postage as well as your time.

Their appears to be a lot of talk about what is morally right, However my opinion is when the financial institution start behaving morally towards their customers with regards to bank charges et al. Morality is a two way street, You can't have a sittuation where the banks are charging their customer unlawfull and immoral penalty charges, then cry foul when these very customers request their agreements under the c.c.a, after all, this is why the consumer action group started out. You may indeed have an obligation to fulfill your credit agreements, however I wouldn't go so far as to say morally so. With morality comes responsibility, the banks and financial institutes claim to be responsible lenders but at the first signs of trouble they will drop you like a stone when you most need their help. 90% of people who end up in financial difficulty, do so due to a life changing event I.e divorce, redundancy etc however these same institutes treat you like a financial lepper, imposing charges, and defaults without offering any real help to the situation. I ak where are their morals then ?

But also by virtue of the fact, the landlord has no reason to expect the tennant to default on any payment arrangement they have agrreed. As you have assumed that so far they have been happy so far with their payment artrangement. so what is the need for a gurentor.

Thats ok Mr Shed I for one value your posts And may be in need of some advice from you soon, But sometimes needs a second view or playing devils advocate. But non the less your posts on here are 99.9% accurate take care simon

Mr Shed, please dont take this the wrong way but my interpretation of the initial poster was that they had an initial tenancey without the need for a guarentor, however because the have made a complaint the landlord now requires a guarentor. In my view this is not only unfair but potentially illegal under the race relations act, and i for one would consider making a representation to the racial equality board.

There may be a number of reasons why a tennant would not want their previous landlord knowing their new address, But lets not speculate here. I for one dont see a problem of using a care of address, especialy in light of the actions of some Vitriolic landlords.

You can use your parents address on the County Court Claim form Just as long as you Mark it C/O Care of. i.e John Smith C/O 123 Any street Any Town xx3 2xx. Unless the rules have changed in the past 6 months

Please sign this. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Amend the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill. After all it could affect YOU. !!!!!

Please sign this. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Amend the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill. After all it could affect YOU. !!!!!

Please sign this. We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Amend the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill. After all it could affect YOU. !!!!!

If its about Right and fairness, why not serve the landlord with an official Statutory Demand. As the amount they owe you is over the lower limit of £750 for bankruptcy proceedings the ultimate aim being to file a petition for their bankruptcy. However this method has its pros and cons. For this method: The landlord may be more willing to sit up and take notice of your resolve to reclaim your money you are owed At this stage It doesn't cost you much If your landlord has more assets than liabillities then you have a very good chance of recovering what is owed to you Against: If the Statutory Demand is ignored, then you have to be willing to go to the stage of Bankrupting your landlord. This can cost from £1500 Your landlord may have more financial liabillities than assets, In which case you would not recoup your costs. I would seek further advice from a legal professional as to the route which you should take. Incidently, do you have legal protection cover on your home contents inssurance. ? If you do then they can give you free legal guidence as part of your policy. Hope This Helps. sim.

Have you given the tennant the opportuinity to claim Housing benefit Or do you have a no benefit policy. ? I only mention this because a friend of mine who is a landlord, fell foul of this with one of her tennants. Her tennant was 5 months into a 1 year tennancy and subsequently lost their job. The tennant subbsequently approached the landlord and asked if she would accept housing benefit, she refused. The tennant had no opption but to look for alternative accomodation and left after a few weeks. The lanlord then tried to sue for the remaining time left on the tennancy. When the case went to court the landlord lost the case on a technicality that as the tennant had no other means to pay the rent, other than housing benefit due to the change in the tennants circumstances and the tennant had made an equitable offer to resolve the issue, which the landlord refused

Considering the foregoing posts, there seems to be a degree of uncertinty that if a particular bank wins any claim against them that it may signal the end of any future claims against them... However this is not the case. The majaroity of claims will be heard in the small claims court, without costs implacations. The banks are relying on the fact that most claimants will not go all the way and may accept a setllement before it reaches final proceedings. For those that have the stomach, to go all the way the Banks usually cave in at the eleventh hour. Ask yourselves why ?. The Banks Know that they are on Shakey ground, while they could win a case here and lose a case there, This does not set a precedent.This is one one of the reasons why they want to Hold everyone, with a strong case, one which the banks can't possibly defend, in limbo with a mercantile court hearing. My view is: when the banks come out all guns blazing, defending each and every case, Then we will Know that we have both rattelled them and that justice will be achievied

Thanks for the advice, I will pass it on to my friend. I thought it was a bit odd considering the policy restrictions and his age.

I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about payment protection insurance and we got on to the subject of Cap one and their payment protection, which as I understand is usually a percentage of the outstanding ballance. He then started telling me about his fathers situation with cap one. Basicly, his father who is 72 took out a card with cap one about 3 years ago and currently he's upto his credit limit and paying the minimum payments this isn't a problem in itself however £40 a month of this is going towards payment protection insurance As I have a cap one card I thought id look at the terms and conditions of the payment protection and it says that it will only pay upto the age of 64. So onto the main question: 1) Is it worth while him continuing paying this extra £40 a month, considering that he wouldn't be covered in the event of a claim and can he cancel the payment protection ?. 2) Could he claim back his previous payments ?. Your help as always is much appreciated.

I think the best policy in any sittuation like this is to ask that the till is reconciled straight away, whether the establishment is busy or not is their problem. Whats from stopping the person who short changed you, If they are light fingered, from putting back the amount, so that the till ballances later in the evening.

Could I suggest that any future protest be a peacefull protest outside the Houses of parliment, as it appears that these are the only type of people who may be willing to hear our voice. As these are the people who also canvas our votes for election to their positions. As long as it is a peacefull protest it will/ may attract more media interest, at the seat of power and why not get some M.P s involved, I mean they had enough to say prior to the Iraq war, so why should they not speak out for their constituents. ?

Lol

I used to work as an engineer for the electric utillites and unfortunately under The Electricity supply, safety & Continuity regulations 2002 They are allowed to do this I think that its Disgusting that they are allowed to do this for a debt as small as £100. I could understand forcing an entry if there was suspicion of abstracting electricity or on safety fears. However Before it gets to that stage the supplier must follow a strict procedure before forcing entry Stage 1) Is to send a final reminder bill Stage 2) Is to send out a warning letter saying that they may disconect your supply and apply for a warrant at the magistates court. Stage 3) Is to send out an engineer with a pre pay meter. If the engineer can not gain access they must post a pre- warrant warning card through your door . Stage 4) Is a further visit by an engineer with a pre-pay meter, If they can not gain accsess on this visit then the engineer must post a card through the door warning that they will apply for a warrant to force entry within 7 days. Stage 5) The warrant is granted by the magistrate and is usually enforced within 3 days. Although the damage is now done and they have forced entry, I would advise your friend to send a Subject Accsess Request to the utillity co. Because at stage 2-4 they need to provide documentry proof that the engineer paid the visit, and posted the warning cards this will either be in the form of paperwork completed by the engineer or a computer record at each visit. If they can not provide this proof, then you may be in the positon to have the chages cancelled or refunded. HTH

However, sec. 24(1) of the statute of limitations act 1980 say's Time limit for actions to enforce judgements. " An Action shall not be brought upon any judgement after the experation of six years from the date on which the judgement became enforcable". What this means in practice is the creditor or their agent has 6 years to enforce the judgement via: 1) warrant of execution 2) attatchment of earnings order 3) Third party debt order So in the case of a Default judgement( one in which you have not responded to the court claim) and if you have not paid any sums due to the creditor and if they have not taken any action to enforce the judgement. Then the creditor can take no further action. However, If you have Paid any sums due under the judgement or the creditor has applied for an attatchment of earnings order Then the 6 years starts from the date of the last payment that was made to them. If you stop paying a judgement it is then down to the creditor to take further enforcement action. If they dont then after 6 years they lose their legal right to take any further action. http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp151apa.pdf

Husandkhan, although many people would feel like taking this kind of action, "We, and I hope that I speak for the majority of people on this site" can not condone this type of action. this is tantermount to common assault. If these are the type of actions that you condone then please keep them to yourself. If only to keep the rest of us from going down your route of action, and, landing ourselves in hot water. "Please think before speaking. my dad had a saying: " Think before activating your Brain!!!!!."

Yes, this was reported on lastnights Spotlight regional news. In the report: The claimant already succesfully received a refund from the abbey bank for unlawfull penalty charges, However she also made a claim for distress that the charges had caused. Sitting at the Truro county court, The district judge Found against the claimant, citting, "That as the claimant had already received a refund of charges from the Abbey bank, and that there was, as of yet ,no case law to determine that bank charges were unlawfull" ( Yes, I know. But these were the reporters words not mine.) That the district judge found against the claimant. The claimant was supported at court by Bob Eggerton, who said outside court. That we have at least 18 Other cases in the pipline.

What concerns me is, "what have they done with my two forms of ID. Both the council tax bill and water bill" as they were the originals. I posted the originals so they could not come back with the excuse that they would not accept copies!!!