Jump to content

pj2017

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    187
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About pj2017

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thank you. I'm rather glad the bank will have to pay £550 for an FOS complaint regardless of outcome - when the dispute is only over £21!!!! Honestly, it would have been cheaper to give the £21.
  2. I thought the FOS and the FCA were the same? Are they separate?
  3. Citibank does not have a large presence in the UK, but it is my bank, and I have had a problem with them refusing to cancel a continuous payment authority. I decided I didn't want to carry on paying £20 a month to an organisation, but they refused to cancel it, saying it was technically impossible. I lost £20 because of that, and to stop it happening again I cancelled my card. I've complained to the FOS who have now got to the stage of forwarding my complaint to Citibank. I'm claiming £21 including postage fees. Just £21. I just don't understand this. Banks have to pay the FOS £550 per complaint whether they win or lose the complaint. It would be cheaper to give me my £21 than pay £550 - and yet on principle they have refused to pay me the £21 They claim the direct debit agreement means that they have to pay any debits on the card that come through, but I sent the bank a printout from the FOS website showing the FOS has previously ruled this to be an inappropriate response. I hope the FOS continue with their approach when it comes to my case. Let me just clarify these are not direct debits. The bank didn't refer to the direct debit agreement but rather the agreement governing use of the card (probably their agreement with VISA). Citibank said these are actually not CPAs. But I understand that banks say this all the time when refusing to cancel CPAs. As a CPA is just an authority that the company can take any amount at any time in the future, it doesn't have to be announced to the bank as a recurring payment from day one - as long as they have your debit card number they can simply continue to debit the account. And yet the bank will say it is not a CPA. Whatever it is - it's not legal. Fingers crossed for the FOS to bank me - I'm not asking for the world, just £21.
  4. Well, I sent a CCA to the Halifax in 2012, and I've agreed to pay £10 a month ever since. Now they've sold the debt to RW. They've told me the existing arrangement remains in place. But I bet they bought the debt cheap.
  5. Hi, Hoist or Robinson Way recently bought an old debt I owned to Halifax and have been paying £10 a month. The letter from Halifax said any money I sent to the credit card account would be forwarded on to Robbers. Today Robbers say they didn't receive my £10, even though it is shown in my account that my standing order to the Halifax went through. I've sent Robbers £10 and set up a new standing order once a month, but now I'm £10 down. Is this a con?
  6. Yes, the letter says "due to Halifax, amount due XXX", and says "our client is today offering". But I will email Halifax instead! Thanks for the suggestion.
  7. It was an old credit card debt, I did the SAR and all that years ago. The balance has been frozen and I've been paying a set amount each month. I'd like to pay it off half and see the other half wiped clean, but don't want to be doublecrossed by Robinson Way. they asked me to phone them, but I'm not going to do that. Maybe I should suggest a 70% writedown? And payment over, not 3, but 6 months, in order to get them negotiating on my terms?
  8. The client is Halifax. I've received letters before saying "contact us, we may be able to agree something", but this is the first I've received specifically offering 50% off.
  9. I had to reregister. I was pj2, but CAG no longer has a password renewal option (or it doesn't work, as the page doesn't exist), so there was no way I could get back into the forum. After years of paying an old debt slowly, Robinson Way sent me a letter: "our client is today offering you a 50% reduction of the balance you owe in settlement of your account. Paying XXX will clear your account and you save XXX and become free of this debt. Please note that where this account is recorded on your credit file and you pay by reduced settlement, this will be updated as partially settled with a zero balance outstanding, and not as settled or satisfied however our client will not pursue you for any remaining balance. We may even be able to accept this over 3 monthly instalments... when you contact us, one of our customer contact representatives will discuss your current financial circumstances with you to ensure that any reduced settlement arrangement you commit to remains affordable". I would be very grateful for advice: how can I make sure I can't be pursued by anyone for the balance and that the balance cannot be sold on to a DCA. Shall I write and say I would like reassurance on this point specifically? Also, how do I avoid full disclosure of financial circumstances? Maybe email is better than phoning them but I don't see after years of paying that they have the right to trawl through my circumstances.. Could I just say, "I could raise" the money to pay it (without stating whether I already have it) and don't wish to discuss further, but agree to their offer? Thanks for any help.
  10. Exactly! The HMRC people get their wages from the public purse - as do the judges and the police - and so they're all in on it!
  11. My problem is that contacting them to "beg" for a delay validates demanding money with menaces on their part. To do so would reinforce their own narcissistic views about the rightfulness of their imposts and their salaries, pensions, expenses and jollies. There is no such thing as a tax "debt" - it is not consumer credit you've taken out - it is just an impost - no different to a criminal gang demanding protection money from businesses.
  12. Common law is not just case law - a lot of case law is judges substituting their personal opinions for centuries of precedent. What I'm talking about is how the relatively recent introduction of personal taxation and everyone having to report their incomes to the state is a complete overturning of the traditional rights of the Englishman. It was established in the Peasants' Rebellion in 1389 there was no authority for personal taxation. The land tax and indirect taxes were the only forms of taxation in centuries past. It has most emphatically not always been held that Statute could overturn the Common Law - see the comments made on this by Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice in the early 1600s. So how has it come about that the state and the judges (who live off the taxes and don't want to shut down their own gravy train) have all agreed that the former understanding of the Common Law is no longer valid? Income tax is just emergency legislation - you could imagine it being introduced in a major national crisis or war - but not renewed again and again and again for more than 100 years. BazzaS is misinformed if he thinks the state has no sources of revenue other than personal taxation, which is less than half the total. Heard of VAT? Heard of corporate taxation? You seem to think the huge state spending half of GDP is "just how it has always been since the Norman Conquest". The state has the money to pay for roads without personal taxation - and medical care should be an insurance system as elsewhere in Europe.
  13. There are no penalties for payments on account, right? And this is the 1st payment on account for the year ending April 2014. It is very frustrating to have to deal with these people.
  14. Cat10, what are the penalties involved in it going to a DCA?
  15. BazzaS - what personal taxation laws? The Queen is required by the Coronation Oath to govern us according to English Common Law and has no authority to institute a permanent income tax. Clearly, you don't have an answer to my question!
×
×
  • Create New...