Jump to content

PhantomReclaimer

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by PhantomReclaimer

  1. Quick question. Has anyone ever had legal action brought against them by a collections agency to recover a debt? I ask because it seems quite rare.
  2. Probably. It's not the charge I'm querying with them though - it's the actual service its self.
  3. Well, I'm back after quite a while of being busy, ill, etc. Don't know if this has been discussed at all, apologies if this is old ground. Me and Mrs PR have a joint account with Nat West. Over the past few weeks we'd had one or two charges for unpaid DD's - my fault mostly as I forgot to pay in, we don't keep a lot in the account (it's just for paying the household bills), and once when her pay didn't go in on time and a payment was rejected. Anyway, I had a read up on their T's & C's to see what it said about the nature of the charges. I knew they had changed their tune as
  4. If the the police had behaved reasonably, even though they were wrong, you don't have any cause of action, I wouldn't have thought. It could be worth finding out why they believed it was reasonable to stop you though. If it was because of duff information given to them from someone else, such as store staff, then you may have a shot at a defamation action against whomever supplied that information. P.
  5. You make some good points here. I have been of the belief for a long while that there is far, far too much cheap credit about. Not only that, but most of it isn't being used to fund sensible capital purchases like property, or investments like businessess, but rather in material goods such as household electronics, new furniture, cars, hobbys and intengibles such as holidays and nights on the p***. All are things which become basically worthless the minute you buy them leaving you with nothing but a big interest bill. Unlitimately, it's the individual who's at fault for running up t
  6. I don't think it's quite correct to say that Governments through the years were responsible for destroying certain industries. Heavy industry, such as steel, coal and ship building, for instance, are simply not viable in this Country any more because Indian and the Far Eastern producers are willing to do the same job far cheaper. Also, on a pragmatic level - why do we want those industries anyway? They are dangerous, dirty and polluting - visually as well as environmentally - and just unpleasant generally. We are well rid of most of them, quite frankly. P.
  7. Northern Rock haven't been "bailed out", as such. They have been given a loan by the BoE and at a punitive rate of interest at that. I don't claim to be a finance industry expert but this seems to be a problem entirely - or at least mostly - confined to Northern Rock and the way they run their business. They, apparently, re-finance their lending every few months but can't now that all the banks have stopped lending to one another. Banks aren't going to permenantly stop lending to one another so as soon as this goes back to normal so will the situation at NR. It should be noted that a
  8. No I think you are missing the point. It's irrelevant what policies the DVLA have relating to the provision of information to third parties - you can't automatically justify the release of information as being proper simply because internal DVLA policy says it is. The Law is perfectly clear on this. DVLA can ONLY release information if the person requesting it has "reasonable cause" to have it. It is incumbant upon the DVLA to satisfy its self that each applicant does indeed have reasonable cause and if it fails to make proper enquiries as to the use that the information will be put to,
  9. Well, obviously you are able to define "reasonable" and use it in it's proper context in two examples so why can't a DVLA lawyer? As for them being arbiters of a civil action you again have just suggested that they should be by considering signage, ownership of road, etc. You are correct in that DVLA have no discretion in the matter of giving out information. They are bound by the Law. If the person requesting it cannot demonstrate "reasonable cause" then they MUST NOT release the information. DVLA should NOT be releasing information purely because the applicant says he has reasonable cau
  10. I don't think the term "reasonable cause" is at all woolly or indistinct. You just have to apply the common English definition to the words. The word "reasonable" means...well... reasonable. Therefore, you have to have reasonable cause to get the information, rather then unreasonable cause, good cause or just some cause to want it. The law requires that only someone with reasonable cause may be supplied with the information. Clearly then the person requesting the information has to demonstrate to the DVLA that they do in fact have reasonable cause and if they say that it's for pursuing a
  11. This is just so much horse****, from both the banks and the OFT! For years and years the banks made no suggestion what so ever that these charges represent a fee for a service. Every letter Northern Rock ever sent me regarding charges said I was being charged "in order to cover our costs". Moreover, the charge simply cannot be one for a service because there isn't any service that is being provided that is capeable of accurate definition. Returning a DD is not a service, it's the refusal of a requested service, you wouldn't go into a pub and expect to be charged £30 for the "service" of b
  12. DVLA are only allowed to release information to persons who have "reasonable cause" to have it. If you take an example relevent to many of us here - the pursuing of a "penalty charge" by a private individual or fim for over staying, failing to display, etc - then it is difficult to see how the pursuit of an obviously unlawful and unenforcible debt could ever be regarded as "reasonable". Such behavior is, by it's very definition, entirely unreasonable. P.
  13. The point is though that the debt in question doesn't exist. No one has a right to pursue a debt that you know is unenforcible at law. If the debt is enforcible then they have the right to use menaces, such as a threat of legal action, to get it. Making a demand for money by using menaces is the crime of blackmail, unless the use of such menaces is reasonable and using menaces to pursue something you have no right to in law can never be reasonable by any stretch of the imagination. P.
  14. Personally, I would write to them one more time (actually I would ignore them but it's good to be seen to be givng them every opportunity to go away) and mention that you have previously pointed out the unenforcibility of their charge to them and that you will not be paying it. Point out that continuing to pursue payment of a sum of money by threat of legal proceedings, or any other form of menace, that the creditor knows is not lawfully due may constitute blackmail and criminal harassment both of which are arrestable offences carrying serious penalties. That being the case you will infor
  15. Ok, in brief from memory. Ordered a section of exhaust from an online retailer in March. Exhaust was for an '89 Merc 500 SEC and was selected from their online catalogue after me having entered the make, year and model of vehicle. Part was specifically described as being for that car. Recieved part, took to garage to have fitted - it didn't! There are 3 model variants in the range. The "SE"(4 door saloon), "SEL"(Long wheelbase 4 door saloon) and "SEC" (2 door coupe). Upon further investigation it turned out that the part concerned was a part for the SEL model and was too long
  16. Does anyone know anything about the potential liability of a local Council as regards it negligently signing off on substandard building work? Here's the story. I had a very interesting conversation with a roofing contractor today regarding a potential HUGE problem looming round the corner for local Councils. The chap was round at a property I have quoting me for a patching job on a small leak on a flat roof and told me about this little problem. Back in the 80's it seems that the Government had a grant scheme that dolled out vast piles of cash to householders to have their pro
  17. I've just found this on the Telegraph website. It's very difficult to comment from only a brief newspaper report; we don't know how well the guys case was put to the Court or any of the precise details. The reports only mention "overdraft fees". Was his claim only for overdraft fees or was there more that the judge did allow? We don't know. What is correct is that this does not in any way set any sort of precident. No Court, including the other County Courts, are bound by this and the guy has been given leave to appeal. A litigant in person loosing in front of a district judge (s
  18. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years. We must read the same articles! If, in the very unlikely event that the banks were becoming threatened by all our reclaiming, then you can be sure that Parliament would step in and stop it. The risk to the economy in general would just be too great if the big banks started crumbling. P.
  19. Ok, late so quick post as I'm knackered. Basically, a business can still deal as a consumer. If the business is purchasing an item or service that isn't directly related to it's business activities it can still be considered to be dealing as a consumer. The case that comes to mind is the case of a shipping/exporting company which bought a couple of cars for it's directors. The company was held to be dealing as a consumer in the purchase of the cars as the purchase was incidental to it's main business activities which was export. The business was the "end user", I suppose you could s
  20. The charges are just as unlawful regardless of whether the account holder is a company or an individual. A breach of contract is a breach of contract and a penalty imposed for such a breach is unlawful regardless of what legal entity caused said breach. You would need to look at who was legally liable for paying it off I would have thought. If you are jointly and severally liable along with your employer, which means that either or both of you are liable, then I guess you could make a claim yourself. If it is only your employer (the company) who is liable, and they were just giving you
  21. I would presume that if this debt is fifteen years old and you have not been contacted, and no action has been taken to recover it for that time, then it would be statute barred long ago. P.
  22. I agree entirely and have pointed out that it is no excuse for the banks, especially given that it's all due to their unlawful charges to begin with. However, you have to accept the reality of the situation. The banks are being flooded with requests and no business can magic up hundreds of staff over night. Yes, they should be getting the book chucked at them by the Data Protection Registrar but they are stowed off with complaints too. How do you know anything they send you is correct? Just because it's in one format dosen't mean it's correct. As long as they send you what you have
  23. Yes, because they were applied under the purported terms of your banking contract and the bank claims they either constitute charges for providing a service or to cover their costs incurred due to your breach of the contract. P.
  24. I think that the problem the banks are having is that the sheer number of requests for information is just bogging them down. No excuse, of course, but you can understand why it's happening. Remember you don't have a right in law to demand information in a particular format, the bank can provide it in just about any format they want as long as it's legible. Printing individual statements is a much more long winded and expensive (for them) operation than simply doing a list of transactions. P.
  25. The limitation Act provides that contractual debts are statute barred at a point six years after the cause of action arose - ie; when the debt was run up. Sec.32 postpones the start of the limitation period until such time as the fraud, concealment or mistake was, should or could have been discovered with reasonable dilligence, so it's six years from that point at which the debt becomes statute barred. Where precisely that point of discovery should be will be dependent on the facts of the individual case and what would have been reasonable in the circumstances. The concensus of opi
×
×
  • Create New...