Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by podgydad

  1. Yes bookworm, I think thats obvious from my first response, as I said I'm hardly impartial. But its good to have an alternative views and opinions surely? We do still live in a democracy don't we? I don't hide the fact that I run one of these companies, perhaps I should mention it in my signature along with a link ;-) I'd also stress that I've never come on here and attempted to promote my company.
  2. I think the reason people don't mind it is because in their head that money has long since gone, on a perceptual level they aren't really losing anything as it was lost already, any money they do get back is a windfall. As I say, this is a perception and that's why people don't mind paying 10-40%. Also, us Brits are a cynical bunch, we believe you don't get nothing for nothing. If someone makes the decision that 20% of their claim is better than 10 hours of their time thats up to them really. On another matter, I had a bill from my solicitor the other day for £500 for 2 hours work and the advice basically boiled down to 'we don't know either'.
  3. For what its worth, and I hope I'm wrong, I think the judge will tell him to go away and stop wasting his time.
  4. Identity fraud isn't quite as simple as the media will have you believe, an account number and sort code is pretty useless on its own. A bank statement is only one proof of ID. Identity theft is the medias latest hobby horse and as with many things the fear is greater than the reality. If the media was to be believed there would now be an identity fraudster joining the pedophile and terrorist around every corner. I remember watching Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine and thought it was very interesting when he compared US and Canadian news and their correlation to fear and perceived threat.
  5. I think it is underestimated how difficult it is to setup such a business and the time and expense involved. As almost 30% of claimants are with Lloyds or Barclays I can safely say that the time spent on claims is way in excess of 1 hour. Its one thing managing a couple of claims, its a whole different ball game managing hundreds. I would estimate that your average CAG member spends about 10 hours on this site getting advice and learning the process. Some people can't be bothered to spend that amount of time, surely if they can't be bothered then they don't deserve to get the full amount do they?
  6. That's human nature for you. Dare I say thats why many people get in to this situation in the first place.
  7. No and thats a fair point ladybird. However, it doesn't change the fact that such companies exist and people want to use them. Sometimes even though you don't agree with something you have to be pragmatic and make the best out of that situation. Not liking these companies isn't going to make them go away is it? Far better to team up with a reputable one and get some kick back? Or how about teaming up with a firm of solicitors and setting a fixed fee for people referred. I just don't think its good enough to slag these companies off, some who will be reputable, some that won't without offering some alternative to doing it yourself.
  8. I'm from one of these companies and just for the record I'm totally against unsolicited marketing whether that be via post, e-mail or telephone. Actually, I don't mind it too much by post apart from the environmental angle of paper wastage. Nearly 80% of our customers come from recommendation and the other 20% from Google. Must work though or they wouldn't do it would they?
  9. The guy has quite clearly stated that he doesn't want to do it himself and yet everyone keeps trying to badger him to do it himself. I don't really want to debate the rights and wrongs of such companies as I'm hardly impartial. However from what I've seen companies charge anything from 10% to 40%. If you are set on using such a company find one that is regulated by the governments claims regulation monitoring and compliance unit http://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk (although the one on Watchdog the other week is regulated) then give a few a call and see what impression you get from them. Its about time some people on here realised that as with many things in life, sometimes people pay other people to do jobs that they don't want to do, I can't see why this is any different.I'm quite capable of washing my car but often I get someone else to do it for me. I think it would be a far better idea if CAG teamed up with one of these companies to offer those that don't want to do it themselves another option. Alternatively they could set up their own company offering a similar service. Its no good sticking your head in the sand and telling everyone they should do it themselves if they really don't want to. Out of interest, which bank is your sister with?
  10. I'm from a NWNF company and to be honest, you won't get it back any quicker. Lloyds are right bug**rs and mess you around something rotten. They refuse to send us the statements and send them to the customers directly. I think they are just trying to be as awkward as possible, most banks are taking a sensible approach to dealing with us, the exceptions are Lloyds & Barclays (surprise, surprise). The industry is about to be regulated and I can see no reason why the banks should send not data to a company that is regulated. You can find out if the company are regulated here http://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/
  11. We have made numerous claims and they have paid 29.8%. They don't seem to check the rate of interest, they just pay which seems very lax to me. I'm not complaining ;-)
  12. It is highly likely they will offer the full amount when you call them.
  13. I've been speaking to them today and they had 980 statement requests yesterday alone. I think they are struggling to cope!
  14. They refused to pay out £450 for one of our clients, started court action and they paid £950 the next week. This included contractual interest.
  15. So what you are saying is the law doesn't apply to banks? As long as you get free banking and your pension does well the banks should not have to adhere to UK law? What an utterly ridiculous argument.
  16. Now, thats interesting, I've found Natwest to be very slow and unhelpful. Bring up an interesting issue with unjust enrichment though doesn't it? If they pay up at LBA and you're not claiming contractual then they have been unjustly enriched by the profit on our charges. You almost don't want them to pay up at LBA unless you somehow add interest at the LBA phase. Perhaps this needs to be thought about with regards to adding interest at 8% at LBA on the basis of unjust enrichment.
  17. Yes, but just because something isn't tried and tested, it doesn't mean it won't work. CAG is not a corporate body, it is an internet community and as such is going to have differences of opinion and debate stuff from time to time. When the 2 letter approach was developed, it was on the basis of being reasonable and expecting the bank to reasonable and enter in to a meaningful dialogue. Who has had some meaningful dialogue with Barclays, Natwest or Nationwide that prevented court action? Now, at no point have I advocated that people do this, I'm asking the question, stimulating debate. The current course of action is tried and tested, its safe but thats not to say that a different approach might work. The FAQ's are clear and that's what the majority of people will follow.
  19. Glenn, I believe I was only kicking an idea around, last time I checked, it wasn't a crime to do that. Plenty of ideas have been kicked around and developed on here over the last 18 months, some don't go anywhere, others do. Lets face it, the banks have been guilty of abuse of process for some time now and yet the courts don't seem to be coming down to hard on them do they? The banks seem to have a blatant lack of respect for procedure, and yet get given a lot of leeway by the courts, surely the same should be true in reverse? Quite frankly, with the court system in crisis, I feel the banks should be getting a much harder time from the courts. Perhaps if they did, we would see a lot more settlements prior to issuing proceedings. But, just for clarification, what is the legal reasoning behind the 2 letter approach as opposed to a single LBA giving 28 days? As I have already said, I doubt the lawyers even check with the bank to see if a previous complaint was made. I'm not suggesting everyone rushes out and tries it but rather than just rubishing the idea, perhaps you can point us to the legal basis of your opinion. Is there part of the CPR that covers this issue?
  20. Well I have already dispensed with the 2 letter approach and simply send a single 28 day LBA. Doesn't seem to have made any difference to their response. If they asked the case to be struck out, surely you would simply request the strike out be denied on the basis they have not shown any willingless to negotiate and settle out of court, regardless of your actions, the result would still be the same, it would appear before the court. In all honesty, I think the banks are so disorganised that its highly unlikely that the legal department even check to see if the matter was handled by the complaints department in the first place. Will have a word with my solicitors on Monday, see what they think.
  21. As it is quite clear the likes of Lloyds, Barclays, and Nationwide amongst other have made it their policy not to repay prior to court action, is there not an argument for jumping to this phase and bypassing the prelim & LBA? It would be a simple matter to show the court that this was bank policy and so there was little point in contacting them to negotiate. I actually managed to get a Nationwide to admit on the phone the other day that they wouldn't negotiate with me prior to court action as they had worked out how many people would give up versus the additional costs of paying out after legal action had been commenced. And no I didn't record the call as I normally do, I could kick myself. I'm going to give them another call and see if I can get them to admit it again.
  22. This is a common scenario for retailers that accept credit cards. The retailer is always the one at risk of a chargeback for fraudulent card use. In essence the burden is on the seller to ensure the transaction isn't fraudulent.
  23. Did anyone hear Judge Paul Collins on R4 talking about the system being in chaos? Its also on the BBC news site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6353597.stm I have had loads of problems with Birmingham County Court such as returning N1's asking me to clarify the legal status of Nationwide, despite they have processed previous claims against them without a problem, and on occasions ignoring the correspondence address box if that address is different to the claimants. We have all read threads were the judge seems to have been disinterested in the claimants arguments, unprepared to punish the defendants for serious abuse of process and breaches of orders, perhaps this goes some way to explaining it.
  24. Handling a claim for a client and we recieved an offer before even sending an LBA! Halifax normally settle at the LBA stage but I've not heard of anyone settling at the S.A.R stage. Maybe its for claims under a certain value or just a one off.
  • Create New...