Jump to content

cchange

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    38
  • Avg. Content Per Day

    0
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About cchange

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thank you for pointing out the issues. Any suggestions on making a N244 application for an order directing email service considering 1. The defendants legal have accepted email service in other cases. 2. Service is essentially sending the defendant copies of documents it already has. 3. The defendant is just being arsey. No one takes any notice of service rules. For example, parties will serve the court and the other side on the day or day before by email when practise directions have expicityl said documents bust be served a week or 14 days before the hearing.
  2. Looks like you've been shafted and if you loose the application, your up for £1500 of costs as its not been allocated to track. Best bet is a charm offensive on the defendant if you have no case. This is the first cyber judge order I've seen. Didn't know Civil Money Claims Pilot had judges!
  3. A defendant ('s legal representative) won't accept service of legal & court documents by email but will accept all other emails otherwise. What options do I have to force email service (England & Wales).
  4. I've just tried Santander and can confirm active OTP is needed to use an existing payee. The reasons for using OTP is that banks don't trust their customers (or anyone else). Using a mobile leaves an additional trace to pin point who authorised the payment setup (mobile number, location of cells used, signal strength, phone IMIE, sim card number etc). For anyone interested in this thread, I can tell you this security bypass using switching service works for (not specifically OTP banks): M&S bank (HSBC) - Payees are transferred in the current account switch and low value payments don't need Secure Key/pass. Lloyds bank/Halifax - transferred payees appear without phone authentication for payments. RBS/Natwest - payees transferred but need card reader to make 1st payment. As your hard of hearing, the bank has already made reasonable adjustments for you by providing online banking and OTP etc (with a cursory glance at the situation) so you couldn’t use the Equality act 2010 as a starting point. I know this will be a commercial decision but have you had a look at the FOS view of the matter by searching Santander OTP on http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org/ ? With your legal and ADR options now numbered, moving business is your only choice. They do, for card purchases but banks have been doing that informaly for years.
  5. I've not tried this for Santander but if you use the current account switching service from a (donor) current account at another bank, direct debits and standing orders (setup to pay £1 two years in advance) will be transferred across. In some cases, your payees transfer also which bypasses the OTP requirement (to create them anyway). It works for other banks who use 2FA type additional security. As suggest by others, setup all your payees with a burner phone and tell Santander you no longer have it as subsequent low value payments might not need additional OTP with existing payees. You won't reverse Santander’s policy so the alternative is to leave as the trend is OTP even when your shopping with plastic cards.
  6. Thing is with money claim online, you have to use a postcode in England or Wales for the defendants service address (registered address). Theres no other way round this with mcol. I've bypassed this for companies registered in Scotland by using one of its England offices for paper service and then emailing a draft copy of the N1 claim form downloaded from mcol (telling them you'll get this in the post soon). I email serve at the weekend hoping to get an out of office acknowledgement or use a generic address that gives auto-receipts as proof of service (to be filed with the N215).
  7. Since the court staff understand pro-forma language better, might be a good idea to speculatively serve (by email) the current hearing centre and respondent to the application with a directions questionnaire (say N180) http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk which has a field for hearing centre and why.
  8. You'll need to go through Barclays complaint system before approaching the FOS. Once at the FOS, ask for Barclays case file as your entitled to it.
  9. Why did you not serve the court (hearing centre) by email - most in England and Wales have an auto-responder (invariably setup badly) to acknowledge (service) receipt. Any original documents can be taken to the hearing (just putting this paragraph in for anyone using the forums for guidance). Reading the certificate of service may help: http://formfinder.hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/n215-eng.pdf I suppose costs can be claimed if the application (N244) occurs before allocation (directions N180 etc) to track (historically small, fast and multi-track). So if not allocated to small claims track, the other side will try and get away with the highest cost basis it can, adding in pre-court action costs (not allowed) rather than using standard basis costing.
  10. Your out of time with the energy Ombudsman - 12 month limit applies. Having had legal advise on a simular matter, its news to me that good will or full and final settlement offers can be perused in court. I think I could go as far as to say even if a cheque was sent that you didn't bank in time could not be reclaimed via court action if it was compensation. Anything 'leagalish' would have without prejudice prefixed to it so it can't be mentioned in court. Be careful, but having said that you can send your threat email (letter before action) to SSE legal at liz.tanner @sse.com
  11. I don't know how this affect you but Ofgem remove the requirement to inspect meters every 2 years from the gas Standard conditions supply licence. This was under revision of the gas SLC 12.8-12.16 as per this url: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/97556/reformingsuppliersmeterinspectionobligationsfinalproposals-pdf So no health and safety issues exists.
  12. Even if you have a cheque book, most banks allow withdrawals via cheque to named person - counter check, warrant etc are the names.
  13. Your actually on quite shaky ground because complaints must be taken to the ombudsman within 12 months of making them (its was 9 months prior to 2015), regardless of deadlock letters. Its quite feasible that your supplier could dispute the ombudsman having any jurisdiction if the initial complaint is the same as the current one (as you were out of time with that one). Your Ovo rep experience sounds funny and reminiscent of one of them high court bailiff TV programmes. Note the magistrates court only has power to issue warrants. It can't make orders about requiring contact with the ombudsman etc. On a practical note, if I was in your position, I'd 'move out' and get someone to 'move in' by switching to a supplier like Utilita replacing meters with smart meters after they take supply. Then move 'back in' to another supplier of your choice. With prices going up, easier said than done. I don't know yet why the CAG site team removed valid urls [Removed]
  14. If you haven’t done already, see if you can get (by ringing) Ombudsman services to commit to emailing you with an update to present in court. You should have access to its portal so you can download all your correspondence? This will be your vital evidence for the adjourned application hearing. You don't run the Ombudsman and can't influence execution of this statutory ADR process so the delays not the respondents fault. Your experience about having to wait and no one turning up is just about right. The warrant process is a rubber stamping exercise and as you have pointed out is abused by energy suppliers as money owed should be reclaimed using civil litigation. If asked why your attending again, perhaps tell them your solicitor can't attend due to a shortage of lawyers caused by Brexit challenges:-)
  15. Strike out and or summary judgement is the pitfall of starting a small claim as they occur just before allocation to track meaning costs can be claimed for. It is possible and it happens all the time leaving the losing side down by £1500+ (the applicant applies for more but has difficulty getting it through due to cost basis) only a few weeks after the claim is started. In these circumstances, judges seem to dispense with all the service rules and paperwork, witness statements, skeleton arguments etc are served days or minutes before the hearing.
×
×
  • Create New...