Wilsonio, was it made clear to to you at any time that the deposit would be taken at that point? Did you give your consent to the sum being taken from you?

"The facility of credit is their consideration. Your promise to meet the bill is yours."

 

How can there be consideration if it was your promise to meet the bill that created the credit in the 1st place, not from the reserves of the bank but from nothing?

 

Rubbish. Of course the bank has the money in reserve to lend to you, if only the right to draw that from other banks

"Names are case-insensitive."

 

So what is Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN DOE or DOE JOHN)?

 

It's a term from Roman law relating to the status of Roman citizens and so is about 2,000 years out of date. It means the maximum loss of status but doesn't have anything to do with capitalization. "Capitis" in this sense refers to "Status"

"The banks can't validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; ..." - agreed

 

"other than that which arises from the money of theirs you have spent."

 

 

You have not spent their money - you have spent the money you enabled them to create, it did not exist before the signature and in fact you only accessed a small proportion of the money that your promise to pay created.

 

Thus, can the debt be validated if there was never a loss showing in the accounting?

 

Your gain on a bank statement does not show their loss.

 

Utter drivel.

I have sent a copy to the Court but I wondered if anyone had heard of anything like this before?

Evening all,

I am being chased by a utility company for an unpaid bill from a property I lived in a couple of years ago. I don't dispute that I owe them something, however they have never sent me a closing bill and I believe the sum they are claiming is incorrect. I have asked for a correct bill but they have ignored my letters and just kept threatening me with Court. Finally a few weeks ago they started proceedings against me. However they have misspelled my name, and in the meantime I have moved again.

I have entered a Defence and told the Court of my correct name and address. I have also given the Claimant this information.

This morning I received an Allocation Questionnaire from the Court and notice that the case is being transferred to my local court - all issued to my correct name and address. However, in the same post I received an envelope from the Claimant containing a Judgment by Default allegedly made by the Court - in my old name and address. What's more, the Court stamp is not right, the typeface is different, and round the edges you can see the marks where the original image has been scanned before being overtyped.

All in all, it doesn't look a bit like it came from the Court.

Any ideas, anyone?

Thanks

B-B

I agree with Andrew. The long (16 digit) number is the card number. The purpose of quoting it is to demonstrate that the card was present when the cheque was signed. Not all guarantee cards have the small number at the bottom, and in any case this is usually the account number. As this is also printed on the front of the cheque there would be little point in writing it on the back too.

No. The right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute. Furthermore with regard to S3(A), the question is whether the L/Ls request for access is "likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household". A short visit necessary for the L/Ls business does not fall into this category.

I would suggest that those who claim that the Landlord has no right of access read the very helpful sticky on this point :-

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/landlords-tenants/74053-access-property-landlord.html

Reasonable access from the L/L, after due notice has been given, does not breach the Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment. This would only be the case if the frequency of the L/L's visits were unreasonable or notice were not given.

The long number does not make it a guaranteed cheque and therefore the bank does not have to honour it. The long number (which includes the actual account number within it) is for switch transactions. The shorter card number (at bottom of card) is the number to use to make a cheque guaranteed.

Sorry, but this could not be more wrong. The long (16 digit) card number is unique to the card and does not contain the account number. The short number is the account number. It is essential to quote the long number as the account number is obviously on the cheque itself already.

You really need to take more water with it.

Ashford County Court are staying claims if requested by the Bank, not automatically. However the DJ did instruct us to use the extra time to reach a settlement and told us she would award Wasted Costs against a party which refused.

Hi everyone,

 

I have my court case here in Trowbridge, Wilts. I phoned them on Friday 10/8/2007 as my court case is 31/8/07.

 

Asked what I should do, whether they require me to send in the Court bundle and also whether to send the copy bundle to Barclays, and they told me that unless I hear anything from them, the court case is going ahead as per instructions. I have not heard anything from them, so it is obviously going ahead.

 

So I have been doing rather a lot of photocopying as you can imagine?

 

My query is will Barclays show up on the 31st August 2007

 

If they don't have I won:???: , as before if the other party don't turn up we win by default and Judgement.

On the other hand . I expect that I shall get there and be told this that and the other and told that I will have to wait for the final decision after the OFT case, obviously I expect on three years time:mad:

Don't you think that this is a complete utter waste of my time and the Judges, as its not his fault is it? as like all of you many many hours of work has gone into this.

My claim is for £3000.00 so I will keep fighting.

But what are your views on the fact that I still have to go to court:confused:

 

Bi for now

 

Jay

Barclays will be there and will request a stay. If you do not agree, they will apply to have your case struck out on the basis of the decision in Berwick -v- Lloyds. Be sure to have your case against a stay ready, and also be ready to defend yourself against a strikeout. (Remember, the Berwick decision was made on the basis that he was not in breach of his contract with the Bank. You disagree, you definitely are in breach, so it does not apply in your case.)

If they have taken Crossie's £1 as a payment on the account, they will claim that the clock has restarted and there is another six years left to run before it is statute-barred. IMHO it is imperative to point out to Crapbot that this was the statutory fee - do not just ignore them because this will come back to haunt you later.

I would definitely report this bunch to the DTI. If they are serial offenders they can be disqualified from acting as Directors.

However I'm not sure that it will be possible to pursue the Directors personally for the unpaid wages. Normally Directors do not have to meet their Company's debts except under very specific circumstances, usually allowing the company to trade after it has become insolvent ("wrongful trading")

Whether the clauses are enforceable would be a matter for the court, so obviously they would have to hear the case in order to decide whether they are enforceable or not. Clear?

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. A precedent is a definitive statement of the law, binding on lower courts. As such, it is the law of the land.

You may well have the inalienable right to take your case to court but, in deciding your case, the court will have to follow the precedent laid down by the higher courts. If there is a precedent about to be set, the courts are entitled to wait for it, in order to ensure consistency. Like I've said, there are excellent resources here for resisting a stay. But this isn't one of them, quite frankly it's just a lot of woolly words without any real meaning.

A precedent is the law of the land to the extent that it states the law definitively. Courts lower in the hierarchy are bound to follow that precedent.

Well, it's wrong to the extent that none of it is actually right.

It's just plain wrong to say "there is no such thing as a test case". The courts are entitled to stay actions if there is a precendent about to be set by a higher court. Whether it's right for them to do so in each case is a different matter, and there are some great resources on this site to help people defend an application. However this is not one of them.

This is just so wrong!

Guys

I must confess I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments in this thread. We have been pressing the OFT for some time to take action on bank charges, and now that they have done so we're up in arms about it.

I agree that the delay will be a bit of a bummer (and I speak as someone who was due in court next week), but to be honest I feel it's unreasonable to expect the courts to continue to decide cases when the High Court is about to decide the law once and for all. Some people have complained about a delay until Christmas as though it were the end of the world, but as far as the courts are concerned that's really quite a short time. And as far as the FOS is concerned, it is up to the courts to determine the law - so their view, not unreasonably, is that they should allow them to do so now they've been asked.

Let me put it this way - how would those who are pressing for their day in court before the High Court decision feel if they were to lose their case - and therefore all their money - only for the OFT to win a little later?

We have been confident all along that the law is on our side. We should have confidence that the High Court is about to give the banks a bloody nose - almost every judge up to now has jumped at the chance.

Let's get a bit of perspective and give up on the conspiracy theories.

What a ridiculous jobsworth.

 

What about the stinking diesel being ommitted by filthy trains?

 

And I bet the enforcement officer got into his car when he finished his working day and polluted the air, and people, whilst at the same time lecturing about harmful emissions.

 

Claptrap.

Why is is being a "ridiculous jobsworth" to do the job you're being paid to do, and to uphold the law? Is it so unreasonable to object to going to work spending your time inhaling toxic cigarette smoke, before coming home stinking of other people's fags?

I think you will find that the Train Operators have banned smoking on platforms using their powers under the Railway Byelaws rather than the new Act. Consequently the platform need not be covered.

There are also several links to commercial sites in the "Quick Links" section of this site:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/

B-B

Next instalment - have received the following from Patrick Hill at Cabot :-

I write in relation to the aforementioned and in response to your letters dated 19th January and 27th March 2007. Initially please accept my apologies that you have not received a substantive response to these letters.

And what about my letters of 6/10/06, 16/10/06, 23/10/06, 05/04/07 and 10/05/07?

 

I regret that you have felt cause to complaint to Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited ("Cabot") and apologise for any inconvenience that you may have experienced in relation to this matter. I am disappointed that Cabot has not been able to satisfy your concerns on previous occasions.

Not half as disappointed as I am!

I understand your concern relates to our failure to comply with section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, stating that Cabot has committed a criminal offence by failing to comply. Your credit reference file shows two defaults, the first relating to the HFC store card and a second default described as "bank." You state that you have not had a credit or store card with HFC during the relevant period. As Cabot is unable to provide the Credit Agreement you state we are claiming for a debt, which you do not owe and request a refund of all payments you have made. With regards the second default, Cabot has not claimed on this and you deny that you owe any money.

You also state Cabot registered these defaults without any documentation to substantiate them and therefore Cabot is in breach of its responsibilities under the Data Protection Act. You ask that the defaults be removed.

No. I insist that they are removed

Account aaa is in relation to a HFC store card, which was opened in October 1997 and subsequently assigned to or purchased by the Cabot Financial Group in October 2003.

Untrue. Mrs B has never had a store card with HFC or anyone else.

The original balance was £xxxx and the current balance stands at £xxxx after taking into account six payments you have previously made to Cabot totalling approximately £100.00.

Except that the statements show the original balance about £300 less! The last entry shows the whole amount outstanding being “charged off” I.e. that HFC have written the debt off against tax as a bad debt. And don't you just love that "approximately"?

The very fact that you have made payments to this accounts shows that you have acknowledged the debt with us and therefore Cabot cannot agree that you dispute owing this debt.

Maybe for the purposes of the Limitation Act. But completely irrelevant for the purposes of the CCA.

Account bbb is a Hitachi Nova Retail Credit ("Hitachi") agreement which was signed and agreed to in August 1999 and relates to products bought from Time Computers Ltd at the time you signed the agreement with Hitachi. This account was assigned to or purchased by Cabot Financial Group in March 2004 with an outstanding balance of £xxx. Cabot did make attempts to contact you on this account, to no avail.

So let’s get this right, Cabot have been unsuccessfully trying to contact Mrs B for the last three years about this account, at the same time as actually extracting payment for a different account. This just isn’t true!

 

I note that you have requested information under section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). However, I respectfully advise you that Cabot has no duty to supply this information as it is not the creditor for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore has no obligation to supply this information. The reason being is that only the rights in collecting a debt has been assigned to the Cabot Financial Group and not the duties of the creditors, HFC Bank and Hitachi.

 

Wrong.

 

Furthermore, I note that you have at no time provided the statutory fee for such a request and in any event Cabot would not accept such fees for the reasons set out in this letter. These CCA requests should be made with the original creditor. Please also be advised that section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act does not apply to the Hitachi agreement.

 

Also untrue. Crapbot signed for a letter enclosing the statutory fee on 09/10/06. The serial number of the order was stated in the letter. Crapbot replied the next day stating that they were requesting the original agreement from HFC. Nowhere in that letter do they deny liability under S78 or mention that the fee was not enclosed.

 

Notwithstanding the above and in order to assist you, I have requested copies of the credit agreements from the creditors as an urgent request and Cabot shall forward these as soon as we receive the same. I have also enclosed copies of statements for the HFC store card and the Hitachi account since Cabot's ownership of the account.

 

Not “in order to assist”. Because they are obliged to! There are some crappy printouts about an account with HFC, but not a store card account - but nothing about Hitachi

 

In relation to the defaults registered with the credit reference agencies, you are concerned that Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited has no right to report to the credit reference agencies. Please be advised that Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited does not report to the Credit Reference Agencies, as only the legal owner of the account can report, this being Cabot Financial (UK) Limited (formerly Kings Hill (N01) Limited). Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited is the contracted agent and servicing company of the Cabot Financial Group. Furthermore, Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited and/or Cabot Financial (UK) Limited did not register the original defaults on your accounts. However, Cabot have continued the reporting of the original defaults which were previously registered by HFC Bank and Hitachi. Accordingly the Cabot Financial Group are entitled and obligated to report your accounts in the same manner as the original creditors.

Cabot are obligated? But just now, Cabot had assumed the rights but not the responsibilities!

You have also requested that we remove the entries with the credit reference agencies. Regrettably, Cabot cannot honour your request as the entries registered with the credit reference agencies are accurate. We disclose information to credit reference agencies on our customers' conduct of their accounts as disclosure is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by Cabot, other members of the credit industry and the credit reference agencies. Credit reference agencies hold such data and disclose it to prospective lenders as is, similarly, necessary for the purposes of the same legitimate interests. Accordingly, the Data Protection Act permits disclosure of such information to and by credit reference agencies without the customers' consent.

Crapbot only have a legitimate interest if, and only if they are the owners of the debt. And that doesn't absolve them from their responsibility under the Data Protection Act to ensure the data is accurate - see the 4th data protection principle

 

Please be advised that once your accounts are paid in full, Cabot will update your credit files to show the entries as satisfied. I would therefore recommend you contact the Customer Assurance team in order to discuss the options available to you in settling the outstanding balances.

 

Basically, we can't prove you owe us any money, but please send us some anyway

Currently polishing off a reply, will post when it's done.

B-B

The level of the Penalty Fare is laid down by law. Equally, the National Conditions of Carriage and the Railway Byelaws make it clear that tickets must be bought before boarding where facilities are available.

Being made to pay the full fare isn't a penalty as such, but it is a sad fact that many of the people who board without buying a ticket first are actually trying to get away without paying at all. Passengers who have queued up deserve protection from passengers who drive up fares by not paying at all.

As far as commission is concerned, i think all Conductors get 5% of their revenue in commission. But that's mostly an incentive to actually go through the train checking tickets as opposed to sitting at the back drinking tea. I don't think that the level of commission on an individual ticket (which is likely to be few pence in any case) makes much of a difference when selling a ticket.

I can't see that this is a breach of their Franchising Agreement - they're just upholding the law, albeit harshly.

They are entitled to make a profit, they are a private company after all. And in the case of SWT, they aren't subsidised at all, they pay the Government a premium for their Franchise. I think part of the background to this is that they are struggling to raise the revenue to pay the premium and make a profit, and passengers are being squeezed. But that doesn't make it illegal.