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 o
  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 o
  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
  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
  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 notifyin
  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 ca
  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
×
×
  • Create New...