Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jordibird last won the day on June 28 2015

Jordibird had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

51 Excellent

About Jordibird

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thanks King for flagging that up. There is a reason why I did not notice the cracks etc when treating the shed, it might not be a solid one but it's the only one I have got. I treat the shed with spirit / oil based preserver via a spray system and was kitted up in the necessary gear coveralls, face mask goggles etc. I didn't get close up for obvious reasons and with the preserver soaking in I honestly couldn't see properly, I noticed the excessive use of glue in gaps and splits the day the shed was delivered but I have no experience of the woodworking industry so apart from hoping they would be sealed ok never inspected the panels close up. As I said earlier I do appreciate you bringing that up and I will definitely bare it in mind.
  2. Thank you DX and Conniff I will get my reply sorted out and will send it to them tomorrow. I will also include the additional photos to back up my claim and the 14 day deadline. I will not forget to include the cost of erecting the shed if it goes to court, which I have a feeling it will, but I will see this through to the bitter end. I will keep you all posted throughout. Thanks for the support
  3. Funny how things happen I just received an email from them this afternoon. I had to read it 3 times as I honestly thought they were taking the proverbial. they deny that the shed is substandard and then waffled on about the natural changes wood goes through and how they although they try to purchase wood without knots, splits or cracks unfortunately the odd one does get through (I must have all the odd ones for the past 10 years making up my shed). The reply is honestly beyond belief and then they had the audacity to tell me to fill in the defects with wood filler which they would supply if I got in touch. The wood filler needed would have to come in a cement mixer for the amount that would be used - pardon the pun. I am livid I really am. I have additional photos now that show severe cracks in the frame and cladding it's a disgrace. I will try to post the reply minus personal data on here and a few of the photos. What would be my best course of action now I am fully prepared to take it to court if need be
  4. Thanks for that DX, it was paid online via my Mam's debit card and the supplier/manufacturer is Tiger Sheds. I think I might be outside the 30 day period however. Cheers
  5. First it is not up to your ex solicitor to demand any admin fees from you, nor should you pay them any fees. It is between you and your pension scheme administrators. Before the implementation period of pension share can start (for public services schemes) as you correctly said fees must be paid by the person who is a member of the scheme. You have 2 options here. 1. Ignore the demand for the fee, in which case the order cannot be implemented but will still be valid, this will mean that your ex will be forced to apply to the court for another order for you to pay, it will also mean that you may lose more of your pension as time passes based on the cash equivalent value increasing (this is the amount used to base the percentage share on). There is ni legal obligation under the pension sharing legislation for you to pay the fee, it would have to be ordered via the court in new family law proceedings. 2. Contact your pension administrators and inform them of your situation and the payment of the fees would cause you severe financial hardship ie you just have not got the money. The administrators of public service pension schemes are legally obliged to provide assistance and can waver fees under the new secondary legislation. Please remember that this is between you and the scheme administrators not your ex solicitors. Their duty is to provide the administrators with all the required legal documents ie decree absolute, financial order and consent order which should include the pension sharing annex (the specific order to share your NHS pension). I have dealt with pension sharing since it's implementation in Dec 2000 albeit from the State Pension side but have gathered an extensive knowledge of all aspects along the way. Good luck and I hope you get it sorted to your satisfaction
  6. Hi, My Mam purchased a shed online in July this year as a gift for me. It arrived with no problems with delivery or times on the requested date in August. The shed was stored for 2 weeks in my garage and spray treated 3 times as advised with wood preservative. Only when the shed was actually erected (by a professional firm) did the numerous faults and defects come to light. The wood used is way below standard and has multiple knots generating cracks and splits, these are also present in the supporting framework. There are numerous holes in the tongue and groove cladding whereby nails from manufacturing have split the wood. None of the panels supplied are free from defects, there has been numerous attempts to patch up the splits with glue which has now started running out and causing more problems. All in all it is an absolute disgrace. It is nowhere near any of the descriptions on the firms website and I am very annoyed and upset that they had the audacity to send a product unfit for even pallets. I have sent an email detailing the defects together with photographic evidence to the firm yesterday. I have not received an acknowledgement as yet although it is early days. However today I have noticed even more cracks and leaking glue all photographed. I am really furious now as it seems that even with my costly intervention this so called superior products will not survive the winter. Plus it was money paid by a pensioner who can ill afford it. I would just like to know what rights I have to get a refund either full or partial for my Mam, as it is totally impractical to repair or replace the shed now that it is in situe. Thanks in advance
  7. Hi, Just a quick question I am missing some bank statements that I need to cross reference with the monthly payments, or to use in the event that MBNA is not forth coming with the SAR data. Would I be right in thinking that a SAR to my bank with the precise statement dates would be the best option and cheapest considering the charges they levy for duplicate statements. Thanks
  8. Hi DX, I am still at the same address I was when I took the loan put, sorry should of said it was a loan not a credit card.
  9. In August 2012 I sent a SAR to MBNA and received a letter back refusing my request on the grounds that they had passed all data onto Moorcroft who had bought the alleged debt and that I should send my SAR to the latter. I sent another letter which demanded MBNA send me all the data as they were obliged to keep records for 5 years under the Money Laundering Regs 2007 and failure to do so was a breach of the regs and would be reported to the FCA/HMRC. I didn't get a reply but received a statement from Mcroft. I didn't persue this due to circumstances at the time. I am now eager to take this up again and have masses of paperwork to collate etc. Will post when I have got it in order. I am going to send a SAR again as it is important that I get all their data from 2006 to 2012, is there any advice you can give me regarding an extra paragraph in the SAR letter regarding the keeping of records for 5 years and to force their hand to comply? Cheers
  10. Please bear with me and I apologise if this is in the wrong forum (feel free to move it to the correct one). This wonderful website has helped me in so many ways over the years and hopefully I can help others with this, as it is my area of expertise (for the past 15 years). Although this may only affect "a few" hundred compared to the thousands affected by the Inherited SERPS fiasco of 2001, it has very worrying similarities i.e. mis-informatiom and down right hoodwinking of the general public. Therefore I have to inform persons out there of the unfairness and loss of accrued State Pension under the "New State Pension (nSP). This new State Pension scheme will be introduced on 6/4/2016 and will apply to all persons who reach State Pension Age on or after that date. The Act that brought in the nSP scheme is The Pensions Act 2014, it completely changes the current pension system replacing that scheme with another thoroughly more complicated scheme. Please do not be taken in by the claims of the Government and Department heads that this will give everyone the same weekly amount of state pension (first quoted at £140 per week, now envisaged at £151.00). That will only happen in 2040, whereby anyone born on or after 6/4/2000 would have not paid into the current scheme and would have their pension calculated totally under the nSP scheme . All of the rest of us will have the most complicated methodology seen since1948 (when the state pension was introduced) applied to calculate the award of nSP, simple my friends it is not. Apart from the ludicrous calculations contained in the Act, there is also provisions in relation to the sharing of the state pension via a pension sharing order issued as part of the financial settlement following a divorce. It is those legislative changes that I urgently need to convey. The provisions will affect any person who will retire on or after 6/4/2016 and who has had a pension sharing order made and already implemented against their Additional Pension (SERPS and State Second Pension). By this I mean any person who consented, agreed or had a judgement made to the sharing of Additional Pension (AP) and has had a letter from DWP informing them that the pension sharing annex has been received and the order implemented and this will mean that a weekly deduction of whatever amount will be made to their AP when they reach State Pension age and claim their State Retirement Pension. If this is you, or, you know of someone who this will affect please read on. I will try to make this less complicated than what is dictated in the Act. Basically it has been officially announced that any order which falls into the category above will be honoured. The label given to this is "historic share orders". But put bluntly, if you were the party who incurred the deduction then the order will not be honoured at all. This is all documented in the 2014 Act and no committee or any other family law institutions have raised concerns over this. To explain what will happen when you reach SPa and claim your State Pension I must first try to give a simplified explanation of how the nSP is calculated. Here goes, When you claim the awarding section will do a calculation to obtain what your entitlement would of been under the current (old system) using the assumption that you retired in the 2016/2017 tax year. They will use all the contributions and credits up to 5/4/2016 to assess the Basic Pension and Additional Pension (after any periods of contracted out employment have been taken into account). The 2 weekly pension components are then added together to give the weekly amount of state pension that you would of been entitled to had you reached retirement age in the period 6/4/2016 to 5/4/2017 under the current scheme. However this is not a true reflection of your entitlement under the current rules. The Pensions Act 2014 expressly prohibits the weekly additional pension deduction (as decreed by the court order and already implemented) to made to the total additional pension calculated at this stage. Another calculation is performed to see how many tax years from 1978/1979 to 2015/2016 qualify for the nSP (I will not go into the methodology here). The 2 amounts are then compared and whichever is the highest is deemed as what is known as the "starting amount". If the starting amount is below the nSP rate (currently stated as £151 per week), then any qualifying tax years from the 2016/2017 one will be added until the £151 figure or lower is attained. If the starting amount is above £151.00 then that amount is your nSP entitlement. The proportion above £151 is known as a protected payment. Any qualifying tax years from 2016/2017 will not be taken into account. But the Pensions Act has legislated that the weekly debit ordered by the court and implemented and calculated in relation to the weekly additional pension accrued prior to the divorce, be deducted from the overall nSP award. By not applying the debit to the correct component a person will be prevented from accruing further nSP entitlement years i.e. by correctly reducing the additional pension at 6/4/2016 and therefore giving a correct result could mean the starting amount will be below the £151 and the qualifying tax years after 6/4/2016 could rightly be taken into account. There is also the fact that the debit is being applied to a pension that did not exist at the time of the court proceedings and cannot be legally binding as the legislation in the pensions Act is retrospective. There are a thousand issues and concerns in respect of the provisions and the legality. They have been proposed, drafted and finally brought into law by persons totally ignorant of the pension sharing process and the different areas of law that govern it. Now one party of a settlement agreed in the past will be penalised and that goes totally against the Clean Break principle of which pension sharing is one of the solutions. Sorry to harp on and for the very long post, which has took ages using my mobile. I just hope that this might help someone who falls into the category above, or, prevent anyone from being misinformed and starting proceedings that would also fall into the above. The above information on honouring pension sharing orders also applies to any that have been part of proceedings under Scottish Family Law and made under that jurisdiction, it seems no consideration has been made of the fact that family law in Scotland is devolved from Westminster and protocols must be followed if a reserved matter infringes on devolved matters. I shall end this here, as I it will be a War and Peace post if I start on the devolved areas. If this helps just one person then in the words of a famous quote "my job here is done" Best Wishes Jordi B
  11. Hi, My 75 year old Mam bought a laptop from Argos on 9/2/2015 via their own Store Card, she only used the laptop twice and due to family reasons has been away from her home for a few month. This week when she tried to use the laptop again it will not boot up at all, either the laptop shows the message "Toshiba diagnosing problem" and the screen hangs and the cycle starts again or it requests a HDD password. I along with my Mam took the laptop complete with original packaging and the receipt to the store where it was purchased and that's when the fun began. The 3 staff who eventually dealt with us opened up the laptop messed about with it,kept repeating that it was out of the 30 day period when it wasn't under it in the first place, lied about info on the receipt and disagreed with me about the contract i.e. between my mam and argos and not Toshiba, at first said they would send it for repair then together decided that as printed on the receipt we should contact Toshiba to sort it and Toshiba will give us a ref number, what the heck?? Basically before I lose the will to live what are my Mam's Stat Rights concerning all this please? Any advice to the legal side would be greatly appreciated. I think that it should be Argos that deal with the contacting of manufacturers etc ultimately I want a replacement for this laptop which is defective and not numerous repairs and telephone calls. Will be contacting the customer helpline and would much appreciated the ammo to help me out with it all. Cheers
  12. Funnily enough Bankfodder your comment on the change of lock definition was the exact circumstance that I was going to contest with. I know these bespoke (for wont of a better word) policies for bikes have been around for years, it makes me wonder how many more folk out there have had their claims turned down for that reason? Before everyone yells "you should've read the policy conditions forst", I honestly did as I am very strange, that's why I went to said cycle shop for advice on the lock I owned. Therefore I armed myself with allsorts of facts, figures etc in relation to all this sold secure stuff, and came away with the realisation that the definition is simply how long it would take for a tea leaf to break the lock using a specified range of tools , i.e. bronze level tools were classed as simple tools and should hold out for at least a minute, silver (which my bike came under) the tools were not heavy duty and the lock should hold for at least 3 minutes. And that was the whole basis of my case. Just thought I would have a "get on my soapbox moment" it makes a refreshing change to see Joe Public fight back, rant over I promise and thanks again to the CAG
  13. Hi, just to update everyone on the forum that the insurance company have now settled my claim in full and with cash into my account. By a strange coincidence they actually contacted me the following day after I posted on the forum asking for help and advice. I emailed the company and requested that all correspondence be in either writing or via email. A few days later I received an email the main points of which I have copied out below:- "Having reviewed your claim the information supplied with your claim submission meant that we were unable to determine the make and model of the lock. Whilst there was a clear demonstration of the forcible and/or violent entry provided the policy requires that the lock be Sold Secure silver rated. This information was conveyed to you and the claim remained for the proof to be provided, by you, to demonstrate that the lock held the necessary Sold Secure rating. We are always speaking to our customers and looking to improve the insurance we provide. Subsequent to your claim submission in November we have since reviewed the lock requirements that need to be demonstrated in order for a valid claim to be made. 1.6 Approved Lock – means any specifically designed Bicycle, motor scooter or motorcycle lock including Sold Secure rated Locks. Sold Secure lock means any Bicycle, motor scooter or motorcycle lock that has been tested and approved to the Sold Secure testing standards. (a) Bicycles valued up to and including £1200 – A specifically designed Bicycle, motor scooter or motorcycle lock or above. Bicycles valued up to and including £2000 - A Sold Secure bronze rated lock or above. Bicycles valued up to and including £5000 – A Sold Secure silver rated lock or above. Bicycles valued up to and including £12,500 – A Sold Secure gold rated lock; or (b) any other specified lock accepted by Us and specified in an Endorsement. Whilst these terms are not yet applicable to your policy we can look to apply these terms to the instance of your claim. As your claim meets the improved terms I am pleased to advise that we can look to settle your claim, in line with your policy requirements." I don't know if the info above will be of help to anyone going through the same situation at the moment but thought I would post on here just in case. Thanks for all the advice and support you gave me and thankfully it has resulted in a replacement bike albeit 7 months after the theft of the other.
  14. Thanks I will do, they were really helpful when I reported it stolen so I will see if they will help me.
  15. Thank you for your help with this, I will go to an independant locksmith and see if they could help me with what you have said. I did look on the Sold Secure website and one of their tests for locks in relation to bikes uses lighter tools and no power drills so I could use that as a base. The police said that it was likely that an angle grinder was used so that may help me as well and that it would of taken over 5 minutes to cut through. I will get a letter off to them today and demand that they give me everything in writing and then take the lock and get it verified. I will post any developments here.Once again thanks for your help.
  • Create New...