Jump to content

TheLeeds

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About TheLeeds

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I've been asked by a neighbour to see if I can find any contact details for a mortgate broker called Key Consultants, who I'm told provided advice and / or an intruduction prior to her obtaining a secured loan and PPI from a company called National Home Loans. She's been advised she may be able to claim PPI compensation, however the mortgage company has rejected her initial approach and stated that a 3rd party provided advice upon which her application was based. I've serched for 'Key Consultants' online and on the companies house website, and come up with a large number of possibles, but nothing conclusive. Can anyone point me in the right direction ? Many thanks in advance.
  2. So what about the supposed contract side of things ? For a contract to come into existence and be legally valid, there would have to be an offer, acceptance, consideration, and an intention on the part of the parties to enter into a legally binding agreement. It would be my argument that I do not have any business with the landowner, do not intend to enter into a legally binding agreement and I do not accept any of the terms of their suggested contract. Therefore, no contract exists. So come on, who agrees, or disagrees with this ?
  3. The original residents association formed a limited company, which then bought the land. It may be very well intentioned, and the stated aim of the parking scheme is to deter non residents from parking on the estate, however, as with many things like this, there's a danger that people who park there legitimately will end up being ticketed. I personally wouldn't be worried, as I'm quite happy to fight my corner in court, and have done on several occasions, but there will be lots of people who will simply pay, because it says so on a bit of paper.
  4. It doesn't. It says Parking charge. There's no edit button I can see, but if you're able, feel free to edit the wording.
  5. I'm currently living in a privately owned residential road / estate. A management company was formed last year which then purchased the common parts of the estate, ie roads and footways etc. The company has indicated it's intention to issue fixed penalty tickets to anyone parking there without a permit. This of course raises several questions, such as whether these charges would be enforceable. There are also various practical issues which I can envisage arising, for example, if a legitimate visitor was to arrive unexpectedly, or outside of normal hours, with no means to request or obtain a permit. Signs have already been put up on various parts of the estate, and amongst other things, they say that by entering onto the estate you are agreeing to be bound by a contract. I remain unconvinced as to the legality of this, on the basis that the situation is substantially different from the case of Beavis v ParkingEye, in that the Beavis case revolved around someone who had already entered into a contract for the parking of a vehicle, and paid money to do so, whereas in this situation, a man delivering an ebay parcel to me in his van does not intend to enter into a legally binding contract with the estate management company, nor does the window cleaner, and neither do any of my friends or relatives who may occasionally decide to visit. I'm aware of the basic elements of a legal UK contract (offer, acceptance, consideration, intention of the parties to enter into a legally binding agreement), and it appears to me that many if not all of them are likely to be absent in the situation I've attempted to outline above. Wording of sign in case photo isn't clear.... What does anyone else think ?
  6. Another illogical thing about their behaviour, is that if I phoned them, I could answer the security questions, and then they would credit the money to the card account of my choosing, however, the branch staff refusal to do exactly the same thing does raise the perfectly valid question, which is this. What's the point in having a branch if they refuse to carry out the legitimate instructions of their customers ?
  7. I visited a Barclays bank branch in February. Whilst there, I paid a cheque into my current account. I then asked for funds to be transferred from my current account to my Barclaycard Visa card, in order to clear the outstanding balance. The cashier asked for my debit card PIN, which I had never been given, after which she refused to process my instruction. This is despite my being able to use the card for online payments. By refusing to transfer the funds, the bank had effectively declined to allow me access to my own money. The cashier then said she could arrange for a new PIN to be sent to me, and then proceeded to ask for my mother’s maiden name. I told her I was not prepared to disclose this verbally in a bank full of customers. She then pushed a piece of paper under the window so I could write down the answers to the security questions. Once I had correctly answered them, she proceeded to order a new PIN for me, but still refused to process the payment I had requested. I wrote to their customer services department to complain, and to ask for their assurance that such a regrettable situation would not be repeated. I explained that there is no conceivable scenario under which anyone would attempt to pay off my Barclaycard from my Barclays current account for fraudulent reasons, and of course, nobody other than myself would attempt to do it because the only person who would benefit is me. I then received a text message from Barclays, despite having previously written to them to say I did not wish to be contacted by text. I followed up my original complaint letter and asked them to remove my mobile number from their system. I then received a letter from them in which they acknowledged my complaint, and asked me to confirm that the mobile number they had for me was up to date (yes, that’s right folks, the one I’d already asked them not to contact me on.) I didn’t get a reply to my next letter so I wrote again and asked them for their response. About a month later, they wrote to me and said that because they had taken so long to address the issues raised in my complaint, I was now entitled to ask the FOS to become involved. I wrote back and said I thought it was ludicrous that they were happy for this to happen rather than deal with it themselves. I asked for £150 compensation for the time I’d had to spend dealing with the matter. A few more weeks later, I received a letter telling me they’d finished their investigation. In this letter, amongst other things, they said, “If a customer does not have their PIN with them, we would then attempt to identify the customer by asking security questions instead.” This kind of misses the point I’d made in my initial letter to them, which is that the cashier did ask me security questions, which I answered correctly, but she still refused to process the transaction. The letter went on to say that no bank error occurred, and they thought they had followed the correct procedure. They did add however, that because of the time they had taken to resolve the complaint, they had credited my account with £100. The interesting thing here, is that they haven’t resolved the complaint. The statement in their letter regarding attempting to identify customers by asking security questions is at odds with what happened next. I visited the same branch yesterday, this time armed with the PIN they’d recently sent me. I asked if I could transfer funds from my current account to pay off a Barclaycard balance, a nd when I keyed in the PIN, the terminal said it was incorrect. I offered to sign for the transaction instead, but the cashier refused to accept this. I offered to answer security questions, but this was refused as well. I explained the statement made in their most recent letter regarding identifying customers by asking security questions, but the answer was still no. I told them I’d already made a formal complaint about the first time they’d refused to allow me access to my own money and that I intended to do the same again. By the time I left, there was a queue of at least six other customers behind me. One of them congratulated me for my persistence as I was leaving, and said he’d experienced similar problems with them. On the basis of the above, I have now filed a complaint with the FOS, who were very helpful when I had a dispute last year with Santander, and who obtained a satisfactory outcome for me. I’ll let you know what happens with this one. In the meantime, has anyone else had any similar experiences with Barclays or any of the other banks ?
  8. If a debt collector turns up at your house, don't let them in. They have no powers of entry unless they have a court order allowing them entry. Best to just not engage them at all. They will get bored and leave. They have better things to do, such as to harass people who might pay them. Don't be one of those people. If anything arrives through the post which looks like a court summons, read it carefully, to make sure it actually is one. Some debt collectors have been known to fake these with the intention of frightening people into paying. If in doubt, find the phone number on the summons, and if it says it's a court, look it up elsewhere to check whether it's correct or not.
  9. Basically, you only owe the money to them if you either, a) agree that you do, or b) a court decides that you do. One question to ask yourself might be this. Who has been scammed here, you, paypal or your bank ? I had a paypal negative balance once. It's not a long story, but it's not a short story either. I sold some genuine Microsoft software on ebay (purchased retail, had receipts etc). I was paid through paypal, and I used a small amount of the sale proceeds to make another ebay purchase. When the buyer received the software, he alleged it wasn't genuine, and as a goodwill gesture, I offered to refund his money if he sent the software back. The purchaser then filed a dispute, and because of this, paypal froze the remaining funds in my account (remember I'd already spent a small part of this money on something else). The software subsequently arrived back here through the post, so I logged into my paypal account in order to send the purchaser a refund, which I had intended to fund partly though my remaining paypal balance, and secondly through a credit card linked to the account. But because the existing paypal funds were frozen, and those funds were less than the intended refund amount, I was unable to issue the refund at all. This meant the buyer had to wait much longer for his money back, because paypal issued an e-cheque to him, and then eventually paid him out of their own money. When I received my next credit card statement, I noticed a payment to paypal which didn't correspond to any relevant amount. It wasn't the amount the buyer had sent me, or the amount I'd spent on my own ebay purchase, or the difference between the two, and because I didn't recognise the transaction, I rang the credit card company and instructed them to charge the payment back, which they did. I then removed the credit card as a funding source to the paypal account on the basis that I didn't trust paypal to only take amounts which were properly due. About a month later, I got an email from paypal regarding a negative balance, so I asked them to explain how it had arisen. They failed to do so, and they emailed again, stating they'd been trying to contact me by phone. We have a call blocker on the phone which means it only rings if it recognises the caller's number. Paypal is not a bank, and operates in a grey area in between the black and the white, the legally enforceable and the not so legally enforceable. The negative balance was the equivalent of the purchase I'd made, but due to their ineptitude, I didn't bother paying in any money to cover it until about a month later.
  10. I was just thinking about this the other day, and wondered if company directors ever get prosecuted for trading whilst insolvent. I've certainly never heard of any who have. In theory, there must be a huge number of insolvent companies which continue trading. Some are doing so because their directors are genuinely hoping for a turn around in fortunes, better times etc, but some directors just don't care, because they know they can recklessly run up debts, and can just pull the plug and call in the receivers when it all gets too much.
  11. I've sent this one out a few times. _____________________________ Dear Sirs RE Unwanted Telephone Calls My Phone Number XXXXXX XXXXXX I do not wish to receive telephone calls from you. Would you please note that I will file a complaint with the Information Commissioners Office for each and every unwanted call I receive from you. In addition, I will invoice your company for all the time I have to spend dealing with these unwanted communications. The invoices will reflect the loss of what would otherwise be productive time. My charging rate is £75 per hour. You are in breach of The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. I would refer you to section 30, with regard to proceedings for compensation for failure to comply with requirements of the regulations, and also the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. It is unlawful for a you to make unsolicited calls to me because I have not consented to receive them from you. Just to be clear, you do not have my permission to call me, and if you continue to call me despite my clear instructions to the contrary, I reserve the right to draw this letter to the attention of the court on the question of costs. Yours faithfully XXXXXXXX
×
×
  • Create New...