that under S117A(5) SSAA 1992 the proceedings be adjourned generally until such time as the decision is known. The claimant then be at liberty to restore the proceedings.this really means that the mortgage company know if they try to enforce any sort of court action they would more than likely end up with massive cost that cant be held against you and it is sensible to drop the case with the agreement that both of you have satisfaction.........dont worry you wont have anymore comebacks and you can go about living a normal and healthy and happy life so stop worrying nout to worry about ok here is some other cases just to give you a good sense of how the judge sees things( or google the meaning of what they say )The Court Service - Court of Appeal - CIvil - Judgment

ooops sory rory i got the wrong thread i thought their was charges to answer to on the DCA s charges and overcharging

you can also write to the bank ofering to continue to pay your rent this will be in your favour to pay direct to the bank or mortgage company

yes good luck to you we all support you now YOU ARE IN CONTROL not them and it is on YOUR TERMS and do not accept any phone calls nor discuss your business over the phone from now on letters only

seahorse has a gripe with cabot worth reading her threads and see if you have the same probs

yes it means if you default again they can then enter the case back to the judge for a hearing presumably to evict if this was the origional intentions ,so keep up the payment you can afford and if you do get into dificulties go and see whoever and explain the reasons why but it is advisable you see them before you leave it too late to stop the action well done you now have your home good luck in your future patrickq1

hi martin can you put a thread in here their is a few threads around from people asking the same qusetions thanks patrickq1

truly unsure how to answer that one accept to say if it is a job for an accountant or banks type of work your default available to these types of organisations but check with the moderators send them a PM

if you wish to pay just for peice of mind then do pay ,but this is not an enforcable debt and if you claim against them you may be entitled to receive all monies paid to them as their is no contract nor agreement ,but the choice is yours patrickq1

i understand what you are saying seahorse this is why and one of the reasons i point out that this data processing was not a matter "of I think you are confusing the right to process data with the right to share data" it is a subject of the contract signed was not what you thought it to be it was what they presume is their rights to be ,to either share /process or do whatever they wish even to use a third party,this is why i ask that it should be a singular contract seperate from your contract / agreement otherwise it is mis leading...and strips you of your rights to make an informed judgement

terrible spelling sorry you all have to put up with my use of spelling incorrectly but i will improve as i get well in health very soon after my operation well hope so its been a great thread upto now

just had a breif look at the new proposed outlines..firstly i will write a leter to them and hopefully cag can produce something practical,but my first thoughts are that as i have said before in other threads that their SHOULD BE A GOVERMENT AUDIT int experium and all other data precessing companies as they have exceeded their authority on to many occasions and it is time the door was closed on this sloppy use of processing data without any true authority i e as sehaorse stated by defaults not being regulated in a lawful manner and the culprits are mostly BANKS AND FINANCE COMPANIES ,and looking at the Data Protection it is a totally seperate contract and should be deemed as such and should by using the fair practice method come a week after any exchange of contracts in order for us to assert our own will and rights to the terms of data processing ,i am glad this came out this morning isnt it weird perhaps they are looking at our threads lol,thanks everyone..we all now have a chance as a group and as individuals to put our point across and thanks to the ICO for this golden oppertunity to put things right or to wahts acceptable patrickq1

good morning seahorse lol nice to see you back and on form first thing in morning

i have one more thing to say for the last 10 years or so we have all learnt from our experiances that the BANKS/FINANCE CO have not been processing our Data in a fair balanced and transparent maner ,so why should we allow them the opportunity to continue to process our data as the last paragraph and as they see FIT ,this should now be a matter of a seperate contract thus it also proves that their has been a seperate booklet of such containing the terms and conditions of OUR DATA PROTECTION RIGHTS and we if we wish to abide by this seperate agreement we can sign but also gives us the right to enter into this seperate agreement that we understand our rights and that the sharing of our data will be fair and balanced and if we have objections we can agree and disagree on a point this allows you then to write your objections but you can still safely sign this because your objections are noted this makes the whole contract fair ....

i think you will find we are all glad of your input and really do apreciate all that you say and it also helps us all to beware the pitfalls that can occur and i and i imagine all of us here thank you for your input which is valuable to us all ,but the data processing is i feel another contract it should be as has been pointed out in a booklet form and then it is up to you to decide to sign the data protection if you sign a contract it is signed for the sole purpose to benefit/to make use of from the rewards ofered in that contract, but the data protection is another contract on its own would insure your rights to giving informed consent to the process of data ,which i always thought was for the purpose of giving consent to share with the POLICE/INLAND REVENUE SERVICE/and a Court plus other goverment institutions ,any other passing of Data where a Default has been entered without your knowledge or without your right to challenge the lawfulness .as this goes to the heart of what we consider unlawful charges and entering defaults without your right to challenge.or when you do challenge it is too late since the default has been registered and you know yourself it is then up to you to try and get this removed which in most instances the DATA PROCESSING COMPANY will not remove it without the banks/finance co say so ,this is one of the main reasons i disagree with the Chatrer /Petition Written by cag and others at the moment ...we are not getting a fair crack of the whip concerning this contract our Data is being unfairly processed with inpunity with regards to the Law .for this reason i think it is a seperate contract.

pyrrhic victory phew!!! will have to look that one up lol i aint that clever would nt even know how to pronounce it but thanks Per i just hope we can re write the charter ,their is over 10,000,000 bank and credit card accounts awaiting a fair and balanced charter/petition we all depend on it being right ,but as it stands it is a TROJAN HORSE and good morn midge and muggy lol

have just been reading through some threads then i happened to pick up an old contract 1999 and lo and behold what did i find, the data protection act but it was in a box where you put your signature ,this is what is known as deception by stealth...to sign the contract you must first and lastly agree to their terms and RIGHT TO PROCESS DATA...forgive me this is not and neither is any other contract THE BANKS/FINANCE CO RIGHT to process your data .you may play the devils advocate moon my freind and i know you are quoting as corectley as you beleive and see things .but i question this statement of the right to process data for ever being on a contract as far as puting this into a contract it has no right because it has redressed the balance to what has become an inbalance to your rights you have no rights on this subject because 9 times out of 10 the statement you agree to them processing the data .because you have no choice but to agree,because it is normally the last words on the contract ,would not a fairer system be if this is so important a clause (as i feel it is) to your rights then it should come a week after any contract giving your informed consent to the process of data i would be willing to bet that at least 90% plus would never sign knowing now what we do the information is not being processed fairly nor honestly as and is being proven on a daily basis so this should be in the charter petition and for good measure a GOVERMENT AUDIT into the DATA PROCESSING COMPANIES should also be demanded as to the unfairnes and bordering on unlawfulnes,considering the associations between the data processing companies and the DCA or debt chasers ......the whole BANKING System needs a complete overhaul by law and goverment when you also consider the CREDIT CARDS at 12 pounds .we know this isnt fair and lets not forget the CREDIT CARD COalready profit from the shopkeepers by making a charge per sale of aprox 1.5%-2% i will again get of my griping and moaning box but i feel that we are being led down the path where it is too late to win anything by agreeing to charges and data processing.perhaps this is why the Banks are continuing with their still charging whilst in dispute is it a case of WIN WIN WIN for the Banks ,i for one will not lie down and accept this been fighting to long ,perhaps some of them here may want to allow the banks to whittle away what little rights we have left but that is all it is LITTLE RIGHTS ..we will be giving any right thinking judge no choice but to deem the majority of contracts legal and fair for the simple fact is we agree to penalty charges....i have had my say thanks to everyone for being here and taking part in this informed debate but i would ask that this petition however good intentioned it is thanks to michel but it is wrong patrickq1

i have just been reading through some threads then i happened to pick up an old contract 1999 and lo and behold what did i find, the data protection act but it was in a box where you put your signature ,this is what is known as deception by stealth...to sign the contract you must first and lastly agree to their terms and RIGHT TO PROCESS DATA...forgive me this is not and neither is any other contract right to process your data .you may play the devils advocate moon my freind and i know you are quoting as corectley as you beleive and see things .but i question this statement of the right to process data for ever being on a contract as far as puting this into a contract it has no right because it has redressed the balance to your right you have none on this subject because 9 times out of 10 the statement you agree to them processing the data .because you have no choice but to agree,would not a fairer system be if this is so important a clause to your rights then it should come a week after any contract giving your informed consent to the process of data i would be willing to bet that at least 90% plus would never sign knowing now what we do the information is not being processed fairly nor honestly

.tell them when you do write to them that you are now in a position where you have to re think your situation and to send them a SAR notice since you have (i presume no paperwork to what you have paid to date)and also photocopy the envelope with the date ..but as i said you are in a position now where you have to re negotiate your payment structure and because of further intrest rates home expenses etc you may now have to reduce the payments even further to say 25% less than what you are paying ,but you will try to maintain a the current payments but will review it in six months and if you feel you are strugling to meet these demands then you will have to reduce your outgoings and your family and home come first...see what they say then i think you will get a result patrick but do sar if you do not have any details of repayments because you also need to know what charges they have added which i am not sure it is legal for them to do this since they bought the debt cheap good luck

Although we believe the charges are fair, transparent and lawful, since we last wrote to you the banks have became involved in legal proceedings with the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") in relation to the charges which we believe will resolve the legal issues regarding the fairness and legality of your charges. the banks love this statement because they are ommiting the TRANSPARICY PART at the end and looking at the OFT they also ommit TRANSPARECY so it wont go in our favour as this was not or is not going to be discussed in court looking at the OFT complaint they will not be looking at the TRANSPARENCEY so any case now must be based on transparencey and that input should have been in this charter proposed by the action groups everyone knows the charges are unfair and are penalties this is what it was all about so the OFT have done no better than agree to the banks will and to this proposed charter/petition...it is mis leading to attempt to pass this of as acceptable OFT... The OFT and certain banks have now announced an agreement to start legal proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales for a declaration to resolve legal uncertainties concerning the level, fairness and lawfulness of unauthorised overdraft charges (the "test case"). Those banks have also announced that they will seek a stay of all current and future court proceedings against themselves regarding these charges (a "court stay") and will request the Ombudsman not to proceed with consideration of the merits of the relevant charges complaints referred to him until the resolution of the test case.

ive seen all this before in 1992/03 when the "bank action group"and as a former member then begun to agree to certain things happening to the account and accepting the banks proposals but then the internet was not as readily available like it is now we relied on post and by the time your letter arrived it was usually too late we did not have the abilities to research data like we have now we certainly did not have some of the consumer regs we have now ,but through these type of actions things are changing ,i remember sitting in the managers office he did not sit me down and point out all these little miniscule charges.20 pounds 30 pounds he just couldnt wait to get his grubby little fingers on my money doh! another sucker (like that add on telly for shabby)its not worth an arguement but once you give up this right your rights then you might as well phone your bank and tell him you accept 5.00 charges

the 12 pounds figure was not set in stone it was meant to be a temporary guidline and only to aleviate the multitude of complaints they were getting they could nt cope with the overload Five pounds is a fair maximum amount for bank charges you are accepting the five pounds period ...you are also accepting the twelve pounds ,banks are having a laugh at this they see a way forward where they can still charge sooner or later the charges will mount up and another charge due to the collapse in the housing market and they decide the charges are becoming pitiful they must increase with inflation or creep in by another guise ...no charges unless the charges are costed and shown how they arrive at the figures perhaps it is 35p possibly 65p then yes i cannot escape that but certainly not a penalty charge as is being proposed here

be it .99 p or .0099 p their is nothing unreasonable in having a reasonable bank if for figures sake you overspend on your account by 0. 10p and you think this a reasonable action to charge £5.00...The Bank gladly took my money when i had it they did not get charged by me for every pound i lent them they were in my debt then could nt be nicer now we are in their debt with ficticious charges that they refuse to account for is this not unreasonable not a penny more than zero pence to charges

National Debtline this would be a far better aproach it may be you will get more help than you thought bankruptcy is a bit harshonly use that when their is absolutely nothing in the pot not even a teaspoon lol good luck

cant sign that details and content have been rushed and like said £5.00 is still their ........so in other words this is a non negotiatable petition because the input has been decided from day one only a couple of weeks and all the red additions have not been considered from the other threads ,Bankfodder did point out a particular one but has that been added to this petition no thanks no sign end of