Hi thanks i will get on with doing just that.. they sent another letter to my sisters today? this is a large envelope with county court judgement information in it and they say they are going to issue a claim form within 3 days? how can they do this when my sister has told them countless times that i have never lived there? she has even started putting the phone down on them and her OH has sworn at them a few times too...they just wont stop. its driving us all very angry! especially me has i thought this was over and done with in 2004. i also feel bad for my sister and she is falling out with me through it. help asap would be great.

Hi yes two different addresses which is why i think the bank passed that one onto their other bank.. My sister however has rung me again upset because these people who are now identified has HFO are still ringing her daily and sending letters there. which letter do i send to them from my sister warning of harassment? which i would copy the TS into it with a complaint. she is worried so i have told her i am coming back on here for the next step. I dont want to ring them myself until i find out the dates to make syre it is statute barred which i am sure it is. thanks

Hi thanks for your replies. I understand what you are both saying. i only mentioned the bin because i do not see what i get from the council and i havent ever asked them for anything, so basically after bad experiences with them i washed my hands of them. its a disgrace they put costs on top so quick though. Thanks.

well that ruined my cry for help didnt it...thanks jtors65

I rung the council after getting a letter saying i was in arrears of £35. The lady said i was supposed to pay near £4 a month and i was £ 36 behind and if i didnt pay there would be costs and further action, i told her that i was awaiting advice from the cab and i would get back to her. I said i was on incap ben anyway and the assessment said i should pay 0. 3 days later they have now sent a summons with £30 costs on top!!!! i also said not only do i not have enough to live on but i do not and never have had a bin and i take my rubbish to the tip. I live alone on £87 p.week and my outgoings mean that i am -£27 each week and i cant afford to pay some bills or buy enough food and its getting worse. any advice

would hitting both the company and the the hospital/medical with a commercial lien work?

The thing is that it is only from this company that i recieved the dca correspondence from.. like i mentioned the other was sent to my sisters house which leads me to believe they worked between each other and surely that cannot be right under the data protection. would that show up if i did a subject access request?

Hi Thanks for your reply. I am working out just what to do here so the first thing is the HFO problem. I am trying to get over to see my sisters neighbours. i will post what i get back if thats ok. A

Hi Well i have found out that the legal people defending my employers also do government outsourced work for the dept of justice and that they do the DoJ and tribunal payroll! So they virtually run the DoJ and tribunal service?? doesnt that amount to a conflict of interest? because like i have said it seems like i am fighting against my employers as well as the tribunal who are clearly biased and block any attempt i make for disclosures or anything and seem to want to throw my case out at the first excuse.

Hi I am trying to get to see my sisters neighbours to find out more and if any names were mentioned. I will call welcome and ask them for any details but it was from that long ago that i dont have anything in writing or any details of account etc, would they still give me any details? I'll get in touch with the oft too after I get some details and then I will then call back here and post my findings. But firstly I have just been knocked over and in shock by 2 letters that have come to my house over the last 2 days from a company called Capquest. I have only been here for 6 months and I have not given my address out to anyone I am not even on the electoral role. this concerns 2 crazy amount debts with the royal bank of scotland again I havent banked with them since 2004 for certain. I had a lot of difficulties where i for a few years i had to live with my girlfriend so again i had no contact address. but I now bank with the Nat west and I gave them my new address only 3 weeks ago because I had rung them because my card had stopped working, They said they couldnt give me any details over the phone and that i had to call into a natwest branch with proof of who i am. so now a couple of weeks later I get these 2 letters through! Nat west are the only people i have given my address to so i am now putting 2 and 2 together to think that nat west gave my details to the RBS and capquest. can they do this? has i know they are in bed with each other so to speak. again those new debts are from 2003/2004 and i have not been in touch since so they are definitely statute barred what do i do with those? anyone help god knows whats going on and where they are coming from. Thanks in advance A

Hi Coledog and dadofholly Thanks for your replies. Did this letter come to your correct address? No because I have never lived there ever, I asked to use it once as a postal only address because I had split up from a then girlfriend, it was only an c/o address. Did the people who contacted your sister's neighbour say they were from HFO? I don’t know this but cannot think who else it could be especially has that letter came through, I don’t know this neighbor. Do you know when the last payment was made on this? I am pretty sure the last payment made was in 2004. What exactley did they say to these neighbours? I will try to find out exactly as I have never spoken to them, but apparently caused a lot of distress. When in 2005 did you contact welcome - do you recall – I think April 2005. have you checked your credit file? I haven’t looked at my credit file for a while now as when I tried online they said that I had to provide my passport or ID and an present address even though I had at one point a few years ago paid to see my file and was given a username and password and I just thought they were being sneaky and I don’t trust them. A

Thanks GH Well done on your case stayed outcome I read with interest the great work that was done from coledog, brig and donkey et al. I think in my case as others, its another typical rush tactic for them to get money in by any means possible before SB, even if it involves harassing people you dont even know who may or may not live in your district but are close to a relative!

HI After seeing the great help you have given others to beat these animals can you help? My sister is in a panic because one of her neighbours contacted her and said they had been getting harassed by 2 blokes on the phone 06/09/11, who were asking about me and my whereabouts and whether or not i lived at my sisters. Well i have never lived at my sisters but a few years ago i used it as a C/O address once to something not connected. My sister does not know these neighbours and neither do i, yet they are being harassed by phone. It concerns a Loan I had in 2003 for a car which was wrecked and i complained and refused to pay. I contacted them in 2005 and asked them if they had sorted it out and didnt contact them again so i havent heard anything until now. so out of the blue i get the attached letter. ( the only letter i have received) do i just carry on and ignore this although they seem to be just contacting strangers and telling them all the details which i thought was covered under the data protection anyway? what is the best way to deal with this? my sister is worried and so is the neighbour. hfo.pdf

Hi when i was phoned and told my case was struck out prematurely the lady said i could appeal. I did this in writing and by email the same day with an email receipt from them confirming their receipt. when eventually i received a reply they stated that if i complied then they will allow my case! They never mentioned anything about the appeal that i had put in they seemed to ignore that and my questions also about not following procedures etc and basically are treating me like **** because i am not represented, its all of them against me. I had sent them a letter from my doctor confirming that i wasnt in a fit state healthwise to conduct my case at that time due to all of the stress also, i even backed it up citing cases of cases being stayed temporary for health reasons. Yes i always cc/copy the respondents in. can they throw a case out without contacting you in writing? and then ignore an appeal and reinstate the case if they want to without following procedures?

Hi No not complied yet as i told them if i was to comply then i would take the time given in the last order because i was sick, awaiting a reply on that.

appreciated a lot thanks.

Hi I hope some one can give me a little advice on this. I have been conducting a tribunal and because i was not well i sent a request to ask for an extension, they did not get this and on the friday before the pre hearing review the following monday i received a phone call from the tribunal saying that the judge had struck my case out and i shouldnt attend the hearing on the monday. I was not happy about this and i told them i wanted to appeal straight away over the phone. I wrote them an email the same friday saying i wanted to appeal against the strike out. I didnt hear anything for 2 weeks so i rung them and they said that they had emailed me ( but sent it to a wrong email address) And the contents of that email was that a judge had seen my letter and has said that if i comply with the last order then they will think about proceeding with my case? I said i was ill and that i needed time. so 2 weeks later i recieve another letter saying that my letter had been sent to the respondents for their comments on the matter and they had 7 days to reply, no reply as yet. As always i always CC the respondents as to CPR. The tribunal havent even acknowledged that; A. i appealed. B. i was not happy with the tribunal failing to follow its own procedures. Can anyone give advice please as the tribunal are being run by the people i am against! and that there is a massive conflict of interest. Thanks A.

Can anyone put more input into the following? I know there are a lot of you who have worked so hard against LBL it seems a shame we cant sell the vehicle without this nuisance? If i own the vehicle outright because i am the owner of the vehicle, and like the rep told me " and that never changes" then why does the HPI act ignorant by saying nowt to do with them contact LBL? is it true that anyone could contact them and say i have an interest in so and so's car, because i like the colour! can you mark it Mr HPI man! " doh! of cause I will Mr Conman", "the real owner idiots cant contact us anyway to complain hee hee hee!" any help to clear this HPI up?

i will try to open a new thread with this, because so much hard work is being put in by the caggers it seems a little wrong if we cannot sell the car? do you agree?

if i own the vehicle outright because i am the owner of the vehicle, and like the rep told me " and that never changes" then why does the HPI act ignorant by saying nowt to do with them contact LBL? anyone could contact them and say i have an interest in so and so's car because i like the colour! can you mark it Mr HPI man! " doh! of cause I will Mr Conman" the real owner idiots cant contact us anyway to complain hee hee hee!

supreme court hope this helps to shed light on a small point of law victory. Supreme Court Judgment and what is means, I am going to set out parts of the Judgment and explain what they mean if needed. After which I will outline what I think should happen next ( stephen). The Judgment Firstly the Lord Walker highlighted the fact that many members of the public were not aware of the limited nature of the issue, which the court had to decide in the appeal. At Para 45 Lord Walker Said “…The Directive and the 1999 Regulations apply only to terms which have not been individually negotiated“. Clearly the contract we all entered into with the banks has not been individually negotiated so the regulations do apply. Lord Philips Para 57. Stated the issue is whether the relevant charges constitute “the price or Remuneration, as against the services supplied in exchange” within the meaning of the Regulation. If they do not, the attack on the fairness of the term that is open to the OFT will not be circumscribed (restricted) by Regulation 6(2)b. If they do, then they will still be open to attack by the OFT on the ground that they are “Unfair” as defined by regulation 5(1) but that attack cannot be founded on an allegation that the Relevant Charges are excessive by comparison with the services which they Purchase, for that is forbidden by regulation 6(2)b So what does this mean, well it means that the Court has ruled that the charges for bounced direct debits and unauthorised overdrafts etc are part of the price for the services, therefore they cannot be tested for fairness under Regulation 6(2)b of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, However the Court has said that the OFT can assess the Fairness of the price under Regulation 5.1. According to other criteria. (See Para 59) This point is further explained in Para 80. Lord Philips states ‘it seems to me that this reasoning is relevant not to the question of whether the Relevant Charges form Part of the price or remuneration for the package of the services provided but to whether the method of pricing is fair. (My emphasis added) It may be open to question whether it is fair to subsidise some customers by levies on others who experience contingencies that they did not for see when entering into their contracts. If not it may then be open to question whether the Relevant Terms fall within Regulation 5(1)….” Clearly his lordship highlighted that the court may be persuaded that it is unfair for some consumer to pay for services that other consumers benefit from for free. What’s more it is mostly the consumers who are on low incomes and struggling financially that are paying for everyone else. This is in my opinion not fair, and shows the banks have not acted in “Good faith”. Or as Lord Mance’s suggested in the trial, that ‘the banks were engaged in a sort of Robin Hood in reverse’ (see Para 2) I would suggest he means the banks were taking from the poor to subsidise the rich. All the Lords appear to have agreed with Lord Walkers final Paragraph that being 52, in which he said ‘…This decision is not the end of the matter’, as Lord Philips explains in his judgment. Moreover Ministers and Parliament may wish to consider this matter further. They decided in an era of so-called “light-touch” regulation, to transpose the directive as it stood rather that to confer the higher degree of consumer protection afforded by the national laws of some other member states. Parliament may wish to consider whether to revisit that decision.’ So what does all this mean, well it means the following 1. The OFT can still look at the charges under UTCCR 1999, and always has been able to. They could now launch a new test case. (However, what must be asked is why was there a two year test case on a very narrow point of law? when the OFT already had the ability to assess the fairness of theses charges under Regulation 5.1 and others ) 2. All consumers who have submitted a claim using the Old Particulars of Claim, arguing that the price was unfair and or that these are a penalty charges. Needs to amend their claim to include an argument under regulation 5.1. (a new Particulars of claim will be live on the site tomorrow with full instructions on what you need to do) 3. We also need to put pressure on the Government to amend the Regulation so we all have the same consumer protection rights that other member states have. (So get writing to your MP’s a template letter for this will be on the site within 48 hours) 4. I am sorry to say but I would like to see the stay remain in place, for a least a month. This will give consumers time to amend their claims and other consumer groups and I will be discussing the possibility of joining forces to bring a joint Class action. I feel this would insure that we could make sure that all the legal arguments are covered in full. I will update you all on this when I have spoken to the other consumer forums. Finally, I will explain Regulation 5(1) in more detail on the site for those that are interested. However, what was important in this news letter is to confirm that this was basically a set back to the OFT and not to consumers. Claims can still be filed. The FSA has also lifted the Wavier. I hope that the OFT if they do decided to bring a new action, that they will now invite the consumer groups to the table. Something we asked them to do before this test case, sadly that request was refused. To conclude, the test case has only resulted in us having to amend the Particulars Of Claim and resulted in a two year delay, other than that we are back to the position we were in two years ago. So was this test case a victory for the Banks, yes they beat the OFT on a small point of law, they did not beat the consumer forums and or the consumers. courtesy of [email protected] any questions I am sure he will gladly assist.

HI I have looked through this and I think it would help clarifying points of the CCA. It may be relevant to the cca with LBL as well as parts of this site that are concerned with banking issues and deficient CC's. could the site team look through this and post in the relevant section. Dear actionblusox Firstly, Penaltycharges.co.uk is looking for members who have a credit cards claim for penalty/unfair charges going back beyond 5 April 2006, We are currently looking into bringing a claim against the OFT, should we go ahead with this action we will be fully represented by counsel. if your interested and have a claim then please email me at [email protected] .uk In confidence. please put OFT Action in the subject title DATE OF FINAL JUDGEMENT IS NEAR Yes it been almost 2 years since of the OFT finally took legal action against the banks, Well we have been informed by The Supreme Court listings office that Lord Phillips is nearing completion of writing his judgment and that Thursday 19 November 2009, may be a suitable date to schedule the handing down. Either way it looks like we have a Judgment sooner rather than later. NEW CHARGES ARTICLE BY SKYBEE Whilst the rest of us have been eagerly awaiting the result of the HoL’s judgement to be handed down by the Supreme Court anytime soon, you can rest assured that all the banks have been busy tweaking their current accounts behind the scenes to ensure that any anticipated lost revenues are replaced and profit streams maintained. They certainly haven’t been sitting on the fence wondering what to do! For instance, let’s take the Halifax – a division of the Bank of Scotland plc and see what they have to offer. Their Everyday and Reward accounts have similar charging structures in place and the bank is committed (so we are told) to fees that are clear and simple to understand. Let’s take a look at overdrafts. Use an arranged overdraft up to £2500, they will charge you £1 per day. If you go so much as £1 over this, the fee doubles to £2 per day. So if you’re near the limit and they then take out their charges, your fees double through no fault of your own. Haven’t we been here before? Use an unarranged overdraft by so much as £1 and you take a hit with a daily £5 charge. In this situation, it’s best not to go there or try to get back into credit as soon as possible. That £1 borrowed over a week will cost you £35. To then clear the overdraft will cost you £36. For a month, you’re looking at £156 just to get back into credit. Soon ratchets up as you can see. The Halifax won’t charge you any interest on an overdraft, whether it’s arranged or unarranged. They don’t need to! Should a direct debit, standing order or cheque be presented for payment and this would make you overdrawn, the bank undertakes to use its discretion. If they refuse to pay it they will not charge you, unlike the old days! But still, they have had your money in other transparent ways. Ultimate Reward Current Account This is the one that other current account holders are encouraged to join up to and has all the whistles and bells as an incentive to win you over. I mean, just look what you get with this account:- 24hr on-line banking, telephone banking, worldwide travel insurance, RAC breakdown membership, Mobile phone insurance and also a range of other benefits to boot. I haven’t been able to find out just what these other “benefits” are. Now for the not so good bits – the costs to you as a customer:- A monthly “fee” of £12.50p or if you say it quickly, £150 per year. An arranged overdraft that’s over £300 will cost you 19.5% EAR (under £300 will be 0% EAR but don’t forget the monthly £12.50p subscription) An unarranged overdraft will come in at 28.8% EAR However, Halifax will pay you 2.50% EAR (2.47% gross) on credit balances in the account. So, if my maths is right, a £500 balance at the end of the month will give you a credit payment of £1.04p. Not a lot if your paying £12.50p each and every month whether your in credit or not. You also have to ask yourself, do you really need all the extra benefits that this offers – do you already have a breakdown membership or how often do you go abroad? When every penny counts, these can be tough choices. All the banks have developed their current accounts through discreet changes to their terms and conditions over recent months, as they await their fate to the test case appeal. They know the game is up and they need to replace one lucrative profit stream (penalty charges) with another scheme that can squeeze customers pockets of that little bit extra cash. Many members will use their overdraft facility at some point, whilst at the same time, others will never be out of it and need it to survive day to day living. Now is the time therefore to take a long hard look at what your bank provides for you, how much its costing and what are the advantages to you of staying with your provider. Look around to see what others are charging, go to “compare” web sites for a fuller picture and if you see something that makes you better off at the end of the month, then march with your feet. Good luck. CONSUMER: RECENT CASES, CREDIT ACT UPDATE by ED Thorius – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8282264.stm Reporting suggested that Mrs Thorius’ case was won on the basis of S140A of the Act – an Unfair Relationship as she has been missold a PPI policy on her credit card, and the involvement of a ‘secret commission’. However, the facts suggest that the main failing was that MBNA could not supply the correct documents, or the credit agreement they wished to rely on was deficient. MBNA said: "The deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases.” Carl Wright of the instructing CMC preferred to go with: "This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country. We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity." Ultimately if the credit agreement could not be found, or the one they produced was deficient then any issues surrounding PPI or secret commissions become irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. But they are worth noting for future lines of argument. McGuffick - http://business.timesonline.co.u k/to...cle6868968.ece Contrary to the inaccurate reporting by the media, this case did not rule that debtors had a legal obligation to repay their creditors in instances of unenforceability either owing to S77-79 request defaults or in instances where no credit agreement could be supplied (and such was admitted) or the credit agreement was irredeemably unenforceable owing to a failure which enacted S127-3 of the Act. Read the full Judgement - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/2386.html The case started under the premise of redeemable unenforceability because RBS failed to supply documents in line with his S77 request. The correct documents were found and could be sent, making the agreement enforceable again. In order to allow the remaining issues in the case – ie the position on data transmittal to 3rd party Credit Reference Agencies during periods of redeemable, or temporary unenforceability – to proceed, by agreement the claim for unenforceability was dropped and the Bank 'held' the documents for delivery at a later date. In conclusion Justice Flaux ruled that Banks during periods of temporary unenforceability could in fact still request repayment, and transmit account details to Credit Reference Agencies, and that such action did not amount to ‘enforcement’ under the Act. Bentley - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8332124.stm Bentley took out a secured loan in April 2009, for £40,000 to ease financial problems. Personal reasons meant he fell into arrears, and as of October 2009 the loan had ballooned to £47,000. The case was brought under S140A of the Consumer Credit Act (see http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=5981) stating that Blemain had lent the money to him irresponsibly, taking advantage of his naivety, vulnerability and desperation owing to his personal circumstances. Bentley and Blemain settled the matter, and in return for Bentley withdrawing his argument that there had been an ‘unfair relationship’ and agreeing not to pursue the argument again in the future Blemain agreed, to an order from the Court stipulating that they would rewrite his agreement and cut the repayment amount to £150 per month and to cease levying any interest, charges or legal costs ‘whatsoever’. Blemain’s repossession claim was also dismissed and they are precluded from making any further claim for repossession for a period of five years, after which they can only do so should there be at least 12 months of arrears outstanding on the rewritten loan. Blemain commented: “The matter was resolved before it went to court and we agreed to give him further time to repay what he owed. For the avoidance of doubt there has been no court decision on this case as a satisfactory arrangement was agreed." Carl Wright, of the instructing Claims Management Company said: "Peter Bentley was offered a substantial financial settlement, to ensure the case was not heard by the High Court. It is believed to be the first time a mortgage and loan lender has offered a client a legal undertaking not to repossess the client's home.... for the sole purpose of preventing a judge in the High Court from setting a legal precedent against their lending practices." PENALTY CHARGES NEW TOOLBAR We have launched our own toolbar, it has a built in radio, you can check you emails, live Penalty Charges RSS Feeds, the weather, listen to the top 40, and even has facebook stream . Best of all it free, and for each one of you who downloads it this week, Penalty charges will get around 32 cents. So it a great tool for you and a great way to help the site. PARKING TICKET SUCCESS Penalty charges is now one of the leaders in providing on Free advice on Parking ticket thanks to Sammy1 This thread/ report made it to Parking and Traffic Appeals Service key cases http://www.penaltychargesforum.c o.uk...ad.php?t=50755 note the adjudication in post 30 here is the PATAS website http://www.parkingandtrafficappe als..../key_cases.asp if you go down to correct setting of clock http://keycases.parkingandtraffi capp...2090232156.pdf

HI I have looked through this and I think it would help clarifying points of the CCA. It may be relevant to the cca with LBL as well as parts of this site that are concerned with banking issues. could the site team look through this and post in the relevant section. Dear actionblusox Firstly, Penaltycharges.co.uk is looking for members who have a credit cards claim for penalty/unfair charges going back beyond 5 April 2006, We are currently looking into bringing a claim against the OFT, should we go ahead with this action we will be fully represented by counsel. if your interested and have a claim then please email me at [email protected] In confidence. please put OFT Action in the subject title DATE OF FINAL JUDGEMENT IS NEAR Yes it been almost 2 years since of the OFT finally took legal action against the banks, Well we have been informed by The Supreme Court listings office that Lord Phillips is nearing completion of writing his judgment and that Thursday 19 November 2009, may be a suitable date to schedule the handing down. Either way it looks like we have a Judgment sooner rather than later. NEW CHARGES ARTICLE BY SKYBEE Whilst the rest of us have been eagerly awaiting the result of the HoL’s judgement to be handed down by the Supreme Court anytime soon, you can rest assured that all the banks have been busy tweaking their current accounts behind the scenes to ensure that any anticipated lost revenues are replaced and profit streams maintained. They certainly haven’t been sitting on the fence wondering what to do! For instance, let’s take the Halifax – a division of the Bank of Scotland plc and see what they have to offer. Their Everyday and Reward accounts have similar charging structures in place and the bank is committed (so we are told) to fees that are clear and simple to understand. Let’s take a look at overdrafts. Use an arranged overdraft up to £2500, they will charge you £1 per day. If you go so much as £1 over this, the fee doubles to £2 per day. So if you’re near the limit and they then take out their charges, your fees double through no fault of your own. Haven’t we been here before? Use an unarranged overdraft by so much as £1 and you take a hit with a daily £5 charge. In this situation, it’s best not to go there or try to get back into credit as soon as possible. That £1 borrowed over a week will cost you £35. To then clear the overdraft will cost you £36. For a month, you’re looking at £156 just to get back into credit. Soon ratchets up as you can see. The Halifax won’t charge you any interest on an overdraft, whether it’s arranged or unarranged. They don’t need to! Should a direct debit, standing order or cheque be presented for payment and this would make you overdrawn, the bank undertakes to use its discretion. If they refuse to pay it they will not charge you, unlike the old days! But still, they have had your money in other transparent ways. Ultimate Reward Current Account This is the one that other current account holders are encouraged to join up to and has all the whistles and bells as an incentive to win you over. I mean, just look what you get with this account:- 24hr on-line banking, telephone banking, worldwide travel insurance, RAC breakdown membership, Mobile phone insurance and also a range of other benefits to boot. I haven’t been able to find out just what these other “benefits” are. Now for the not so good bits – the costs to you as a customer:- A monthly “fee” of £12.50p or if you say it quickly, £150 per year. An arranged overdraft that’s over £300 will cost you 19.5% EAR (under £300 will be 0% EAR but don’t forget the monthly £12.50p subscription) An unarranged overdraft will come in at 28.8% EAR However, Halifax will pay you 2.50% EAR (2.47% gross) on credit balances in the account. So, if my maths is right, a £500 balance at the end of the month will give you a credit payment of £1.04p. Not a lot if your paying £12.50p each and every month whether your in credit or not. You also have to ask yourself, do you really need all the extra benefits that this offers – do you already have a breakdown membership or how often do you go abroad? When every penny counts, these can be tough choices. All the banks have developed their current accounts through discreet changes to their terms and conditions over recent months, as they await their fate to the test case appeal. They know the game is up and they need to replace one lucrative profit stream (penalty charges) with another scheme that can squeeze customers pockets of that little bit extra cash. Many members will use their overdraft facility at some point, whilst at the same time, others will never be out of it and need it to survive day to day living. Now is the time therefore to take a long hard look at what your bank provides for you, how much its costing and what are the advantages to you of staying with your provider. Look around to see what others are charging, go to “compare” web sites for a fuller picture and if you see something that makes you better off at the end of the month, then march with your feet. Good luck. CONSUMER: RECENT CASES, CREDIT ACT UPDATE by ED Thorius – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8282264.stm Reporting suggested that Mrs Thorius’ case was won on the basis of S140A of the Act – an Unfair Relationship as she has been missold a PPI policy on her credit card, and the involvement of a ‘secret commission’. However, the facts suggest that the main failing was that MBNA could not supply the correct documents, or the credit agreement they wished to rely on was deficient. MBNA said: "The deputy district judge felt that MBNA had not on this occasion provided the appropriate documents to the customer and as such was not able to rely on the clauses MBNA would ordinarily seek to rely on in these cases.” Carl Wright of the instructing CMC preferred to go with: "This will have massive ramifications for consumers up and down the country. We have been using this argument for some time but lenders have been settling outside the courts to avoid publicity." Ultimately if the credit agreement could not be found, or the one they produced was deficient then any issues surrounding PPI or secret commissions become irrelevant in the overall scheme of things. But they are worth noting for future lines of argument. McGuffick - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle6868968.ece Contrary to the inaccurate reporting by the media, this case did not rule that debtors had a legal obligation to repay their creditors in instances of unenforceability either owing to S77-79 request defaults or in instances where no credit agreement could be supplied (and such was admitted) or the credit agreement was irredeemably unenforceable owing to a failure which enacted S127-3 of the Act. Read the full Judgement - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2009/2386.html The case started under the premise of redeemable unenforceability because RBS failed to supply documents in line with his S77 request. The correct documents were found and could be sent, making the agreement enforceable again. In order to allow the remaining issues in the case – ie the position on data transmittal to 3rd party Credit Reference Agencies during periods of redeemable, or temporary unenforceability – to proceed, by agreement the claim for unenforceability was dropped and the Bank 'held' the documents for delivery at a later date. In conclusion Justice Flaux ruled that Banks during periods of temporary unenforceability could in fact still request repayment, and transmit account details to Credit Reference Agencies, and that such action did not amount to ‘enforcement’ under the Act. Bentley - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8332124.stm Bentley took out a secured loan in April 2009, for £40,000 to ease financial problems. Personal reasons meant he fell into arrears, and as of October 2009 the loan had ballooned to £47,000. The case was brought under S140A of the Consumer Credit Act (see http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...&filesize=5981) stating that Blemain had lent the money to him irresponsibly, taking advantage of his naivety, vulnerability and desperation owing to his personal circumstances. Bentley and Blemain settled the matter, and in return for Bentley withdrawing his argument that there had been an ‘unfair relationship’ and agreeing not to pursue the argument again in the future Blemain agreed, to an order from the Court stipulating that they would rewrite his agreement and cut the repayment amount to £150 per month and to cease levying any interest, charges or legal costs ‘whatsoever’. Blemain’s repossession claim was also dismissed and they are precluded from making any further claim for repossession for a period of five years, after which they can only do so should there be at least 12 months of arrears outstanding on the rewritten loan. Blemain commented: “The matter was resolved before it went to court and we agreed to give him further time to repay what he owed. For the avoidance of doubt there has been no court decision on this case as a satisfactory arrangement was agreed." Carl Wright, of the instructing Claims Management Company said: "Peter Bentley was offered a substantial financial settlement, to ensure the case was not heard by the High Court. It is believed to be the first time a mortgage and loan lender has offered a client a legal undertaking not to repossess the client's home.... for the sole purpose of preventing a judge in the High Court from setting a legal precedent against their lending practices." PENALTY CHARGES NEW TOOLBAR We have launched our own toolbar, it has a built in radio, you can check you emails, live Penalty Charges RSS Feeds, the weather, listen to the top 40, and even has facebook stream . Best of all it free, and for each one of you who downloads it this week, Penalty charges will get around 32 cents. So it a great tool for you and a great way to help the site. PARKING TICKET SUCCESS Penalty charges is now one of the leaders in providing on Free advice on Parking ticket thanks to Sammy1 This thread/ report made it to Parking and Traffic Appeals Service key cases http://www.penaltychargesforum.co.uk...ad.php?t=50755 note the adjudication in post 30 here is the PATAS website http://www.parkingandtrafficappeals..../key_cases.asp if you go down to correct setting of clock http://keycases.parkingandtrafficapp...2090232156.pdf

Hi Nicky the below link doesnt appear to be working. can you tell me your procedure and the reasons behind voiding the bill of sale please. http://.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo...re-than-2.html

Hi z4r4l3a would be excellent if you could.