Jump to content

marylikes

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    136
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, i've a couple of questions if thats ok. I took out my mortgage in January 1989. I've tried to understand what rules apply, when, and what don't. I've found it confusing. My mortgage was regulated under the CCA(1974). I think its known as a "Legacy CCA Mortgage". As such am i still afforded the protections of the CCA in regards to "Unfair Relationships"......... have i got that assumption right ? And next question: My mortage was for £13,375.69 @ 12.75% for 25 years. I was quoted and paid £118.69 . Now , MIRAS needs to be taken into account and it was 25% at the time. I've tried several calculators and still come up with a different figure to what i was quoted and paid. Here is what i get: A monthly repayment of £148.34, of which £142.12 is interest, remove 25% of the interest portion (i.e £35.53) that would leave an actual expected payment of £112.81. So how accurate do the figures need to be or is near enough good enough ? Many Thanks.
  2. HI, Mr.A asks me to do some work for him, he is the director /owner of company B.Ltd. He follows his request up with emails from his company B email adress. I do the work, i get paid for some work and not other work. I need to claim for the work i have not been paid for. Do i claim agaimst Mr.A , or company B.Ltd, or joint i.e Mr.A of Company B.Ltd?
  3. Doesn't look to me like you have a defence based on what you've said. You seem to be concerned with what other people will think? You hope that moving and them not getting your updated address even though you have moved and are getting the mail might be a defence? The answer is No, its not a defence.
  4. Hi Angel, yes a lot of work was done on both sides. It could of been agreed without recourse to a Court, so yes a lot of wasted work and fee's. A simple letter would of done the trick. But hey ho. Regards the PPI, yes i'll fill in one of those questionaires, that seems the easy way to go. And yes, by knock it off the tab, i mean knock it off the balance. As of course if i owe them an amount, and they have to repay me PPI they will offset it ? As they say, Tescos not Lloyds, every little helps !!
  5. What do you think Angel235 , good outcome ? You might be able to help me with my next question. My DSAR to Lloyds reveals approx £1500 of PPI on a credit card i took out in 1996, i was self employed (usually) and at the time out of work, as the DSAR and agreement show. Someone had ticked the PPI box for me. Obviously being unemployed it as no use to me, nor was it any use to me in my usual self employed job when i was employed. How long do them queries take to be dealt with ? I'm hoping i can reclaim and knock it off the tab ?
  6. All done and dusted. No trial, sorted out by way of consent order before i went through the court doors. I'd already guessed it would be. I was quite impressed by the solicitor who dealt with me, he was very straightforward, he explained to me the costs he would apply for if he won, he said what he would definateley get i.e ACTUAL costs as regards hearing fee's etc.and explained what he could get .He also outlined the case with me and picked up on strenghts and weakness in my case. He also suggested i could take a punt and go through the court doors to fight my case. Give my witness statement and defence acknowledged the debt and my attempts to try to repay it, i thought it prudent to agree some sort of settlement rather than deny and fight it totally. I'm happy with the outcome of it all, no CCJ and an affordable figure to pay. The Judge thanked me for agreeing an order rather than put him through the process of a trial. I found this bizzare. Having said i am happy with the arrangement, i still have a winge !! We could of come to this arrangement very easily if they would of spoke to or contacted me over the matter. Someones gonna say...you got a letter before action didn't you ? Why didn't you respond? I'm gonna say..i did !! And i also paid!! Its not fair to leave something to a state of LBA, then act quick on it. Whats that gonna achieve, a court action ? Thats precisely what we (claimant and me) should be trying to avoid? Its also become apparent to me that most people, even literate, educated people when faced with a court claim might write to a court and explain issues etc.. This infact doesn't cut the mustard as far as Court Procedures are concerned, your acknowledgement, defence, WS all need to be CPR compliant. Who the **** knows that if you're not a solicitor? The amount of claims awarded on this basis alone must be staggering. Thankfully due to some research i was able to find out what i had to do. Here's a thought !!! The LIP guide produced by the courts, should they send one through with every claim issued ? I think they should, by the time you find it you're generally deeper in the ****. Just like a DN say you should consult CAB, the Pope, or whoever a claim form should have all the relevant info too. Another thing i thought worth mentioning here, although i never debated it with the solicitor. He was under the impression that my DN argument was a strong one. From a lot of reading i come to two conclusions, 1) If a Claimant has pleaded a document in his case then he should produce it. 2) A Court will accept a computer dump that one was produced. In the case of 2) (above) it wouldn't negate a Claimant from demonstrating what was sent. (thats my opinion). This seems to be backed up by what the Solicitor said to me...........if the DN is found to be non compliant, or no proof of it being compliant then they (the Claimant) will re issue a compliant one. This was a moot discussion for me regarding my own case as i was happy to make an agreement. But it does set out the stall of how, at least Lloyds (SCM) see things. I'm well aware of all the counter arguments..agreement has been terminated already, agreement may have contractually expired anyway etc.. Not to lose sight of the fact that the DN was neccesary for the court procedure in the first place, so how would it happen? Would they find it duff, stay proceedings, issue a new DN, re plead then carry on ? I don't think so. But there you go anyway. Like i say i'm happy with the outcome, but thats only due to hours, days, weeks of research and complex arguments to come to this conclusion. If i hadn't of done that i'd have a CCJ now and owe a few grand more. The system is [naughty word].
  7. Check out http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1981/1687/part/1/made
  8. ......... Sorry Mary, I am a little confused. If a default notice [or particularly the interpretation of normal post] is not part of CPR as you assert, why are the 1985 Pratice Directions (essentially a practice direction to the 1985 Civil Procedure Rules) being quoted/relied upon? The 1985 Practice Directions instruct, direct,interpret s7 Interpretation Act within the context of Civil Procedure?
  9. Yes i'm broadly agreeing with you here. I think with a lack of anymore knowledge on it i'd intend to put forward the information (1985PD), as Richard says in post #21 on this thread, it will be for the Judge to decide. What seems obvious to me either way is that the onus is on the server of the notice to quantify its postage method, and not the other way round. I've searched and up until now i can't find that the practice direction we're talking about has been revoked?
  10. wap, nothing you've said above makes any sense to me. People are mentioning CPR. A Default Notice is not part of the Civil Procedure . Nor is it neccesarily part of pre action protocol. So how everyone is mentioning CPR in relationship to DN's baffles me. Its merely a Notice that you have Defaulted, it may or may not lead to further action, its a step a Creditor needs to take before he can assert his rights. So whether CPR says documents need to be served in a bright yellow envelope is neither here nor there. The CCA itself spells out whats acceptable for Documents served under the Act. Seems straightforward to me, Documents required to be sent under the CCA can be sent by post? This seems very straightforward to me. The only thing it doesn't address is how it was sent exactly as there is a few methods of "ordinary course of post". You could not prove the contrary unless you knew what it was supposed to be? Thats where the 1985 Practice Direction helps, it clarifies it. ......... It should now be a straightforward matter. The issuer of the Default Notice will have a Affadavit of service or they have not. Service of such Document can be worked out from that very easily. Its either two days from posting or four days from posting. Thats my take on it now from all the reading i've done. Unless i've missed something?
  11. Actually, thinking about it. Many large organisations are not asserting anything other than a reliance on s7 of the Interpretation Act. And thats it.
  12. What is the criteria for posting a DN. Is it enough to say "it would of been sent ...xyz", is there a need for an affadavit of service? Would the sender of a DN need to keep a record of sending/postage, would it be prudent for him to do so? Just to establish that situation really. Many creditors now will rely on (and apparently satisfy ssome courts) producing some sort of record to say one was produced, and further rely on "would of been sent"...
  13. It may be fair to also say that (in the case of a large Bank etc.), they use a type of "Buisness Post" service, this is not "normal course of post" ?
  14. I'm still struggling with the relevence to CP6 section 88 Goode
×
×
  • Create New...