Jump to content

indebtstudent

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    1,475
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

198 Excellent

About indebtstudent

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder
  1. This guy seems pretty confused, and this is primarily what I was looking at. His comments on the letters are also a somewhat amusing aside( at least I thought so):- MOD EDIT: Link Removed It says on my tv licence you do not have to let them in. This being the case, and the detector vans seemingly gone, how can they in fact prosecute anyone? Or is it all done on adimissions? Is it an absolute liability offence? Is there any need to establish intent? Personally I think it would be only fair if the BBC got used to cuts like everyone else but doubt it will happen.
  2. Having looking into this online somewhat I have come to the conclusion that the detector vans do not exist, at least not in the form that the BBC would have you believe they do. There are blokes in vans I believe but no fancy detection equipment. If there was there would be no need for a bloke to pop round, burst in (which they have no right to do but they blag that) and start writing a statement they get people to sign. Even if the alledged vans DO exist as they refuse to explain how they work I doubt the evidence would be accepted in court. They claim to have an implied right of access which means they can knock on your door - just as I can knock on any door in the street and they can choose to open it, or not; or slam it in my face or not. I am currently experimenting to see how much TV I watch and will cancel if it reaches zero. IPlayer does not count, it is only for veiwing TV as it is broadcast. Oh BTW I believe it even says on the back of the tv licence they can send staff but you do not have to let them in.
  3. The one I'm mainly concerned about is eighty quid or so to the power company that was here when I moved in. Not my current supplier so I'm guessing there is not much they can do either. My only reservation was I understand the OR can and often does tell the landlord you are bankrupt. If the landlord found out about the debt I could be in breach of the tenancy agreement which says the power bills must be paid.
  4. Having taken the decision to go bankrupt as soon as I've managed to get enough for the fee I have a basic question. Is there any point in telling creditors (or rather the DCA's most have flogged the debts onto)? They keep sending letters demanding I get in touch and I know they can't really do anything. In fairness the letters aren't too harsh once you know that. They can get a CCJ, they can all get a CCJ but that doesn't magically give me any more money to pay them each month. I presume such debts would just be treated like any other in bankruptcy? I have no intention of ringing them, as I know what they are like from helping others, I'd probably begrudge even a stamp for the envelope but it seems only polite to let them know, at least once, that they are wasting thier time. Any thoughts and wisdom welcome. First time on this new layout, hope I've posted this in the most appropriate place... Having taken the decision to go bankrupt as soon as I've managed to get enough for the fee I have a basic question. Is there any point in telling creditors (or rather the DCA's most have flogged the debts onto)? They keep sending letters demanding I get in touch and I know they can't really do anything. In fairness the letters aren't too harsh once you know that. They can get a CCJ, they can all get a CCJ but that doesn't magically give me any more money to pay them each month. I presume such debts would just be treated like any other in bankruptcy? I have no intention of ringing them, as I know what they are like from helping others, I'd probably begrudge even a stamp for the envelope but it seems only polite to let them know, at least once, that they are wasting thier time. Any thoughts and wisdom welcome. First time on this new layout, hope I've posted this in the most appropriate place...
  5. Erm I'm pretty sure there was something said in evidence to the Treasury select committe where a senior banking figure admitted there was 'agreement' regarding the base level of such charges. That sounds very much like price fixing or a cartel to me. I wish I'd kept the link, I think it was on here, and it was someone from HBOS... Mcfall??? I forget his name. The one who said even his parents think he is paid too much.
  6. I'm afraid I have no meaningful issue as its not my area. However I just wanted to share my inability to believe that a company, any company, would seek to use an admin fee to make a profit. Banks, airlines, Sky Virgin et all having penalties for not paying by DD. Surely any reasonable person can see we need a law to say an admin fee should be just that? Hope you get something sorted, and I can imagine thier faces when anyone says so this fee what EXACTLY does it cover?
  7. "Remember at the last hurdle the banks amended their argument. If it had remained that their charges were "reasonable administrative costs" would they then have been able to argue that they were a "a core part of their business" - I don't think so, as one appears to contradict the other. If admin costs are so large I would suggest that they are doing something wrong. It was only when they declared that these charges were a "cross subsidy" could they claim the "core part" argument. so both of the above quotes may be wrong in IMHO as it was the banks moving the goal posts again and as I implied here this could be a real mistake for them." Amended thier argument? Is that REALLY what happened? Cos to me it looked very much like theier lawyers were arguing the exact opposite of what they had been saying for YEARS. They CHANGED the terms and conditions, therefore WHY do those charges stand? And why hasn't there been a case about that? The simplest way I can express how ridiculous the current situation is is found below. The Office of FAIR Trading CANNOT rule on what is essentially an issue of fairness. I know that sounds absurd, but that's where we're at. Something has to change, and if nothing does the Government has to step in. Otherwise what they're saying is ok kids its ok to lie, and cheat (you can see this rewarded in sports to), so long as you get away with it the rewards a great.
  8. "I could prove £60 was unreasonable and with my eyes shut." Share the wealth then it'd pnly be sporting...
  9. "I shall be interested to hear the outcome of this letter as the fos have said that they are within their right to change the terms and conditions providing they give the required notice which is what they did." Everybody agrees with this but that's not the issue. The issue is whether they kind bind people to ANY new terms and conditions where people don't have the money lying around to pay the balance off. It all seems to hinge on thier claim that they CANNOT (read will not) close an account where there is a debit balance. There is a very clear question, therefore, that they need to answer. What do they do with accounts that are overdawrn for a very long time???? They close them and send them to a DCA.
  10. I believe under hardship rules they are supposed to consider cancelling DD's where the person is asking for help and charges are being incurred repeatedly. I would say there's definately no harm going to the ombudsmen, it sounds like its been over eight weeks, ur getting nowhere, and their actions do seem difficult to justify.
  11. I have come across this before, when I split up with my GF there was a DD on the bank account which was for a loan made by HSBC. They did not cancel it despite multiple requests, they later told me that they can't, its in the loan contract apparently. However they hadn't notified me of this as they had changed the address on the account to her addres (despite instructions signed by both to remove her name from the joint account), I got it all sorted largely because of suspected DPA breaches by sending my statemens etc to her and changed the address without my permission or even notifying me. Frankly I've no idea how this would stand in relation to hardship. I can't see how leaving an instruction in place they know will fail could be regarded as positive and sympathetic. Have they accepted that you are in hardship? I don't believe there is any legal basis to stop them doing this, though I agree it is totally wrong. Much like the permission to share info with CRA's it is in the original contract. I would've thought being unemployed you would have a good case for hardship as I imagine there are other priority debts you are struggling to pay. Put this to the bank and mention the ombudsmen if they won't play ball. If that DD is causing a snowball and charges then I think they'd have difficulty arguing that was reasonable.
  12. This is the bit that caught my attention "Your claim boils down to an argument that the _relationship_betweetLyou and Nationwide is unfai.t..by reason.of the way in which you have operated your account." and "(5) It is the operation of the account that gives rise to the application of charges, not the charges, themselves." It seems to me you have not 'operated the account' for sometime and it is thier charges and interest on said charges alone which constitute the 'debt'. There must be a way round this. Personally I'd try the FOS if you think you do have a case for hardship, I mean you've been on with this since 08 so what harm can a little more time do. I do think regardless of the outcome of the test case there should have been some sort of cap put on the charges. Oh and finally Nationwide' claim about being some of the lowest charges WAS true, but now they are middling to poor. Natwest's charges are much lower.
  13. I'm sure there is one at this time, however I can see no harm in you pursuing this avenue (if people can make a suggestion where to go) at the same time as going down the hardship line. What was the situation? What makes you think you were in hardship? I ask this because you need to prove you were in genuine difficulty I've been back through the thread quickly and didn't see this info. Apologies if I've missed it.
  14. I've noticed that too, and it never says in the leaflet so your new monthly charge is. It just mentions like you say 50 on line rental and a quid elsewhere so people don't notice. Quite clever really. Here's another question when I moved they sent me a thing to sign for a 12 month hire agreement, but its the same equipment I always had. I never signed it, does this mean I'm tied in for 12 months? I could understand it if I was a new customer, but all the connections were there all the guy had to do was plug them in a make sure they were working. It took about 20 mins, and five minutes of that was him having a cup of tea!
×
×
  • Create New...