In the 16th century the goldsmith-bankers began to accept deposits, make loans and transfer funds. They also gave receipts for cash, that is to say gold coins, deposited with them. These receipts, known as “running cash notes”, were made out in the name of the depositor and promised to pay him on demand. Many also carried the words “or bearer” after the name of the depositor, which allow them to circulate in a limited way. The link between gold and notes issue has been broken many times since their inseption but was finally severed in 1931 when Britain finally left the gold standard and the note issue became entirely fiduciary, that is wholly backed by securities instead of gold. Bank of England|Banknotes|More About Banknotes|A brief history of banknotes skb

A settled default is just as bad as a default in the eyes of a creditor, even if it is 3 years old. Get that removed then you'll be laughing skb

Hi Morgie Not heard anything bout the company but do make sure your GF goes through the terms and conditions of the cashback scheme with a fine toothcomb as they may try to wheddle out of paying if you dont stick to them to the letter skb

Hi Azure, If its everything that your after then try this,

The GF submitted her court bundle by hand to Sheffield CC on Tuesday 31st July and sent off a copy to cobbetts. All seemed to be well and we were preparing to apply for summary judgement against rbs for non submission of their bundle (hadnt received anything by friday) when on saturday she received a letter from the court (dated 2nd August so after the deadline for submission of court bundles) saying the case had been stayed pending the results of the OFT test case. Needless to say we are not amused, to put a stay on the case 2 weeks before the hearing and after the submission of court bundle seems to me to be deeply unfair and down right rude. Obviously she wants this stay removed and judgement brought against rbs for not submitting their bundle on time. She has invested a lot of money in this so far (£220 in court fees plus all printing and postage etc) and cant afford to wait around for a couple of years for the outcome of the test case. Neither does she want to have to throw more cash at it to try and get the stay removed when the request may well be denied so what can she do now?? Is there a way to remove the stay without having tho pay more cash over? Will she be able to file for summary judgement as rbs didnt submit on time? skb

Hi Dee, They appear to be confused and seem to think you are trying to reclaim bank charges and not PPI. I would send them a letter (recorded of course) detailling their mistake and that under the DPA they must supply all the information you have requested. I would attach copies of the original SAR that you sent and the letter you have just received from them in reply. skb

Received another letter from lloydstsb insurance over the weekend. They need another 4 weeks to look into the issues raised in my complaint. As im skint and cant afford to take them to court just yet I shall be giving them their four weeks skb

Hi Folks, Hope you are well & trust you are just above the flood-plain! Below are communications from those less well placed. We are currently gearing up for a visit from the lady who sent the "Flood Appeal". She is currently going through her 2nd divorce, which makes us feel sad & quite old-fashioned. Warning! Some of the language is unparliamentary. A major flood hit a couple of weeks ago . Epicentre: Hull , England. News of the disaster was swiftly carried abroad by the town's 35,000 racing pigeons, as victims were seen wandering around aimlessly muttering "fookinhell" and "chuffinnorah". The flood decimated the town, causing £30 worth of damage. Several priceless collections of mementos from the Balearic Isles and the Spanish Costa's were damaged beyond repair. Three areas of historical burnt out cars were disturbed. Many locals were woken well before their Giro arrived. Radio Humberside reported that hundreds of residents were confused and bewildered, still trying to come to terms with the fact that something interesting had happened in Hull. One resident, 15 year old mother of 3, Tracy Sharon Braithwaite said: "It was such a shock, my little Chardonnay-Madonna came running into my bedroom crying. The twins, Tyler-Morgan and Megan-Storm slept through it all. I was still shaking when I was watching Kilroy the next morning". Locals were determined not to be bowed, as looting, muggings and car crime carried on as normal. So far, whilst the British Red Cross has managed to ship 4000 crates of Sunny Delight to the area to relieve the suffering of stricken locals, rescue workers searching through the rubble have found large quantities of personal belongings including, benefit books, jewellery from Elizabeth Duke at Argos, and bone china from Pound-stretcher. Can You Help? Please respond generously to our appeal for food and clothing for the victims of this disaster. Clothing is needed most of all, especially: · Fila or Burberry baseball caps · Kappa tracksuit tops (his or hers) · Shell suits (female) · White sports socks · Rockfort boots or any other product sold in Primark Culturally sensitive food parcels are harder to put together, but your efforts will make a difference. Microwave meals, tinned baked beans, ice-cream and cans of Colt 45 or Special Brew are ideal. Please do not give anything that requires peeling. Remember: · 22p buys a biro for filling in compensation claims · £2 buys chips, crisps and a blue fizzy drink for a family of 9 · £5 will pay for a packet of B&H and a lighter to calm a child's nerves Urgently required: Tinned whippet food. Bones for Jack Russells Please do not send tents for shelter. The sight of such posh housing will cause residents to believe they have been forcebly relocated to Beverley .

Here goes: I would like to pick peoples brains on the possibility of using CPR 16.5 as grounds for dismissing the defences assertion that I am not entitled to CI as set out in my POC. My reasoning is as follows: When submitting a defence the defendant must deal with every allegation (CPR 16.5 (1)) set out in the POC. Simply denying an allegation is not enough they must also give their reasons why and put forward a different version of events (CPR 16.5 (2)). In relation to my claim for CI the defence was as follows: This to me looks like a denial and contrary to CPR 16.5 (1) & (2) as no alternative version of events or reasons for the denial are given. CPR 16.5 (3) would seem to give them a get out clause provided they have set out the nature of their defence in relation to the charges themselves, which I don’t believe they have (full defence here). CPR 16.5 (4) may be the stickler as it requires the amount of money claimed to be proven. Proving the sum of the charges is easy, proving the sum of the interest claimed is also easy, proving entitlement to the stated rates of interest is obviously much more problematic. The questions is do I have to as under CPR 16.5 (6) the defendant is required to state why he disputes the amount claimed. So the big question is would it come down to which takes precedence CPR 16.5 (4) or 16.5 (6)? Also as no alternative version of events has been given am I right in thinking that they cant submit any documents in their defence relating to CI (for instance the case referred to contractual-interest-precedent-lost.html) as I have been given no indication of what these might be and cannot therefore build a case against them? Full case thread here skb

Vodafone A massive £16.84 Account settled No charges involved. Used surly bonds letters. Vodafone initially refused quoting Information Commissioners Office announcement. Was preparing to go down the road of 'this default is unwarranted due to circumstances' when received another letter from their 'Quality Assurance Team' who said that due to the circumstances involved (ie default unwarranted lol) they would remove the default but late payment marker would remain. Full story here skb

Scroll to top of page an click on the red chilli skb

As far as I know they are required to supply your data in a form that you can understand, with explanatory notes etc where appropriate. So yes contact them if there is stuff you cant fathom skb

half empty half full half true half naked half dead

virtual reality plastic glasses work party green oranges

Received a letter y/day from lloyds, they have received my complaint and are very sorry that I am unhappy . They are looking into the issues I have raised and will get back to me as soon as possible. Better be quick cos my fingers are itching to send off LBA skb

Great Scott, think it will take me the rest of my life to read through that cheers skb

Where is this thread your referencing above, sounds interesting By the way it looks like a 7 to me, dont think you should get too hung up on it though cos they could always argue its a 9 in bad handwriting (although there is a hand written seven further up which looks the same) skb

For reference the relevant sections of CCA

Not sure I agree totally with you on that one, but then I do find the act to be very confusing. Too late anyway as letter was delivered today. Still need to clear this up though before LBA stage I think. From what i can gather a graduate loan is a multiple agreement as different aspects of the loan fall within different sections of the Act. Namely the cash loan, PPI loan and loan to pay off existing debt. I have defined each aspect of the loan as follows, are may or may not be right so feel free to shoot me down in flames. Cash loan: Unrestricted-use credit under section 11(2) Debtor-creditor agreement under section 13© PPI Loan: Restricted-use credit under section 11(1)(b). (This assumes that the supplier of the insurance is a separate body to the supplier of credit, which I believe they are). Debtor-creditor-supplier agreement under section 12(b). Loan to pay off existing debts: Restricted-use credit under section 11(1)© Debtor-creditor agreement under section 13(b) So the cash loan and any loan to pay off existing debts is a debtor-creditor agreement. However the PPI loan is a Debtor-creditor-supplier agreement. the pre-existing arrangements are by virtue of Section 187(1) and 187(5). This is my take on it anyway and allows use of section 75. Something which has always confused me is where does it actually say in the CCA that you cannot miss-sell PPI? I've also looked to see what other sections of the act deal with misrepresentation or miss-selling but cant seem to find any - do they exist? skb

Attached reasonings I also attached to this 18 pages of spreadsheets detailing the schedule of PPI, Loan payments and interest on a day to day basis skb

Copy of prelim

As the issues surrounding the miss-selling for the garduate loans are different from for the select loan im keeping them separate. Prelim for Graduate loans sent recorded delivery on monday for grand total of £2595.75. I am a bit worried though since I live in sheffield and the letter was posted by my GF at a post office in parkgate, rotherham on monday morning. Several hours later said post office, along with most of yorkshire, was several feet underwater and tracking system is showing item as yet undelivered. Fingers crossed my prelim is not another victim of the great yorkshire flood. skb

Claim has been allocated to the small claims track, court date of 15th August in sheffield. Hearing expected to last no longer than 30 minutes. The draft order included with the AQ and the reply to defence both appear to have been ignored, which is a crying shame as I spent ages writing the RtoD. skb

Graduate loan 1 comes to £444.49 to claim. Grand total = £3387.52

Hi Ellie This is the right letter yes. However Vodafone will dispute its contents. They will no doubt quote the following Information Commissioners Office report of november 2006 http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/credit_%20agreements%20-%20data_%20sharing.pdf Is worth sending the letters off anyway as a starting point. In my case they referred it to their customer relations dept who decided that given the circumstances around the default they would remove it - think that they could see it was unwarranted. Judging by what you've wrote about yours above I would say you have a pretty good case for justifying that the continued processing is unwarranted. These letters have worked quite well against other companies but it would appear that VF are right when they say they do not require your consent to process your data after the end of the contract by virtue of DPA Schedule 2 Section 6(1): (1) They would have us believe credit checking is a legitimate interest and I dont know how we would go about showing that it isnt. The onus is therefore upon us to demonstrate that the processing is unwarranted because it is prejudicial to your interests. Anyway as I said send the letters off and see what their response is, and in the meantime document your timeline of events that led up to the default and the payments you made etc and keep us informed on your progress skb