Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bar'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 13 results

  1. Hi All. I was going to resurrect the old thread just for the latest judgement, this is an appeal which confirms the view that the coa emanates from the default notice date of course. I know this is an old thread, but there has recently been a test case which proves the point that a COA is in fact the date of the 87DN. Therefore it should be considered as such when calculating the COA and the subsequent barr date. It ties up the large thread nicely https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/12.html Critically, section 87(1) does not provide merely that a default notice is necessary before the commencement of proceedings to recover everything outstanding under the regulated agreement. It provides that there is no right to treat the agreement as at an end or to make a demand for accelerated payment of outstanding amounts. That is not a "procedural" precondition. It qualifies the substantive legal rights of the creditor. The contractual precondition in clause 8f of the Agreement ("Subject to us sending any notice required … by law) must have the same meaning and legal effect. His Honour Judge Madge, on the other hand, held that the effect of CCA s.87 was that the cause of action only arose after the time specified in the default notice for remedying the default. As said this is the first date that enforcement can start, All. or most points are covered on the judgement and agree with what Sequency or I said at the time. I shall not be discussing this further, it has all been said, unless I see someone being mis-advised.
  2. Hello, I am having some problems with council tax. I may not need to go into the background. My question is very specific: If I am sent to prison for non-payment of council tax, will the council still be able to enforce the council tax debt after I have served the relevant sentence? If anybody knows, I would be very grateful for confirmation of the legal position. My understanding is that while the debt remains in existence on paper, enforcement is barred once the prison sentence is served, however I'm not entirely sure this is correct. I have also seen cases where a person is imprisoned for non-payment and the debt is reduced by £X amount for each day they spend in prison. I assume that is because the Magistrates order the remission as part of their prison sentence.
  3. Hi, I have joined the forum in the hope that somebody has useful information for me in my aim to shake Cabot Financial off, who are chasing a debt which becomes statute barred in September 2018. A brief outline of the debt I am being chased for: Type of debt: Credit debt - Santander Current account Outstanding balance: £590 (consisting £150 overdraft + £440 charges) Account closed: September 2012 After speaking with a helpful advisor at the National Debtline and explaining my situation, I was told it was a difficult one which needed careful consideration of my next steps. I was presented with three options: 1. Wait the seven months and risk court action 2. Set up a payment plan, which would reset the limitation act 3. As it was a disputed debt with Santander, present evidence to Cabot for them to investigate - but this would reset the statute barred clock. I have email records of a complaint I had made to Santander about charges on my account late in 2011. Santander acknowledged receiving my complaint, they even followed up with an email apology for the delay in responding to the complaint - but this was to be the last correspondence with no further follow up and the issue remained unresolved from their side. I have records of this correspondence. I stopped using the account and the charges continued until the bank decided to close it in September 2012. I really don't have the money to pay this debt. I would really like to avoid paying it especially as it was disputed with Santander in the first place, I can't afford a CCJ as it will stop me getting a mortgage which I hope to be in a position to go for within the next few years. I am looking for delay tactics without acknowledging the debt to get me into the statute barred date when I can confidently answer a Cabot phone call and tell them to do one! Any wisdom would be greatly appreciated!
  4. Hi, http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477641-WY-Gladstones-claimform-PCN-Glassy-Bar-95-Legrams-Lane-Bradford-BD7-1NH(2-Viewing)-nbsp I'm in the same situation as above, at the same parking site on the same date. As per the msgs before, ive acknowledged the MCOL and sent the CPR 31.14 Request to the solicitors today. When would i need to send the defence to the court?? straight away or wait?, and what to do i need state on it? Any help would be greatly appreciated Thanks
  5. Hello, I've been over the HMRC guidance and related sites lots of times but still unsure. Apparently nowadays you can show 'exceptional and relevant' reasons for late Appeals (Mandatory Reconsiderations) - examples given are being in hospital or out of the country. The longer it goes on, the better the reason needs to be. What about when the person was around but they have chronic language/cultural barriers that led to a delay, combined with the fact that the HMRC Compliance Office phone was and is apparently set to permanently engaged (not sure if the notorious Concentrix). The person did send a letter a little past the 30 days deadline but the Compliance Office decided it didn't have quite the exact required wording to trigger a Mandatory Reconsideration, so they simply ignored it. There's then been several further months of inaction until now. Alternatively, 'Official Error' review can be requested for a long time afterwards. But can anyone explain what counts in laymans terms? In this case it would be the Compliance Office phone number never answering (acknowledged as a 'recurring issue' by an HMRC official); the stated reason for the original query appears invalid (their own website specifically says child benefit cannot be considered in deciding main responsibility - at least if there's a dispute which there wasn't here); a decision to remove a child without specific evidence (only lack of reply to a confirmation question - this strategy has been criticised in tribunals before); not contacting the other responsible parent (logically one had to be responsible if the other wasn't according to them). Thanks in advance for anything.
  6. I have also had my Barclaycard debt passed to a debt collection co., but this morning I had a 'phone call from B/Card telling me that they had never had a debt cancelled and that they did NOT have to produce a copy of their agreement for credit cards. Are they correct please?
  7. Hello, I started a PPI claim from MBNA (credit card) PPI was automatically added, The card started about 1995 (I was about 20) still used today. I have been told by the FOS (via a ppi claim company) that MBNA has said a time bar applies to my claim as I received statements and the ppi would have been on them. Well sure it was every one would have who had PPI. I understand this is fair enough and there will be people saying this is my fault but I did not even know I had PPI (hence miss sold) and this was my first credit card when I was young and obviously a lot went on this card to get me by in the early years, Also to be honest I never checked every transaction I simply look at the amounts and mentally check the figures I still do the same today with all my accounts. I am extremely tied up from 6am until around 8pm working and paying lots of tax... lol I have read about the 6 and 3 rule and also a lot of posts revolving around this matter, I feel this is a loop hole at which all banks can refuse PPI on maybe 9 out of 10 requests, so is this PPI coming to an end and shafting the late claimers who have only heard about PPI reclaiming on the media ?. I feel let down by the FOS at the moment as if PPI is Fraudulently or secretly added is does not matter when it was? I have re submitted/escalated to the FOS stating I was not aware of the PPI until my first phone call to MBNA within the last 2 years and asked on the phone what is this payment for ? Has anyone else had this issue and had a resolve ? Thankyou
  8. Seems my personal injury claim has now reached settlement so i thought i would treat myself. I do not ask for much but i do like my movies on a big screen with a decent sound system. I cannot get about much so i am looking at home cinema. After having a Sony and Samsung home cinema system in the past which was naff, i am determined to buy separate speakers and a separate AV amp. Looking on the richer sounds web site, Sound bars and a sub-woofer seem all the rage at the moment My question is are they any good (Sound bar and Sub-woofer) compared to separates as stand alone units
  9. Hi, I'd be so grateful if anyone can advise me in relation to this. I will explain as briefly as possible the relevant details of the situation, and set out a few questions I have. In 2009 we bought our small semi-detached house. We almost were not able to, owing to the fact that we were only just able to find an insurer who would take us on when we declared the existence in the building of a tie bar (as our Buildings Surveyor instructed we must do). We phoned loads of insurers and all put us on hold while speaking to their underwriter, only to come back saying 'Sorry, we don't insure buildings with tie bars'. Finally, and close to giving up, we found an insurer. We've been with this one insurer for 6 years now. No problems ever, until last December I noticed that what had been a hairline crack ascending the side of our house (from the tie bar) when we bought it had grown somewhat, to be up to 3 mm wide in places. It has very gradually widened over the years as cracks do, but seemed to have widened more quickly just recently. This prompted me to remove the thick insulating wallpaper from the corresponding inside wall, which revealed a more worrying crack of about 5 mm. (The previous owner of the house was employed in the home energy efficiency business, so we didn't think it necessarily suspicious when buying that some of the walls had a covering that could easily hide cracks. Also in one room we did remove the covering when we moved in, and the walls had no cracks at all.) On discussion with my partner we thought we had better inform our insurance company of our discovery. First question: Was it not necessary to do this? I phoned them and explained this all to the person I initially spoke to, who said 'You need to be speaking to the Claims department'. I explained that I didn't know if we were wanting to make a claim, that I just thought we were required to inform them of the situation, and I did say that were concerned about it, as one would be. They repeated 'You need to speak to Claims', and put me through. I then explained the whole thing again and was told in a rather reassuring way that 'We will send someone out to look at it'. No one told me, and I didn't know, that I was 'making a claim', by agreeing to this. Perhaps this was simply my ignorance having never had to report anything to a Home insurance company before. A loss adjuster visit was arranged, and his subsequent technical report, entitled 'Subsidence Claim' stated his belief that the crack was owing to thermal movement, and, quote, "we do not consider that the damage is the result of subsidence of the site (or any other insured peril) and as such does not fall within the scope of policy cover." This was in January. Now we have just received our policy renewal documents to discover that our premium has gone up another £150, making it now over £700. For the average house the size of ours, inclusive of Contents cover, we would expect to pay about £200-250 per year, this house is now proving very expensive to insure and we can barely afford it. We are concerned that there are no other insurers who we can turn to, as this was our experience 6 years ago. Also, that there may be no benefit even if there were, since they all have access, I'm told, to a database that will show that we have made a 'Subsidence claim'. I presume this would be very off-putting to an insurer, even despite the fact that the loss adjuster found that there was no subsidence. I have recently tried contacting a couple of Brokers to see if they can find us insurance. So far neither have replied. I suppose I am after any kind of advice that might be useful, but specifically is it correct for us to be said to have 'made a claim' on the policy, when I only intended to inform the insurer of our situation? And can they justify putting up our premium (and do they even have to justify it?) given that the cause of the crack apparently "does not fall within the scope of the policy cover". It feels like - given our lack of alternatives - they can basically hold us to ransom. Many thanks for any help!
  10. Hi all, new(ish) to the forum so apologies if there are stickies I've not had time to read. This is quite a long one but basically EE (obviously including T-Mobile and Orange) in my area (Ilfracombe, North Devon) have had ongoing problems with rubbishy signal since mid June. That's issue #1. Issue #2 is that a few months back my account was erroneously changed from my rolling SIM-only contract to PAYG (apparently they had a call from "me" then they admitted it was someone else and the details had been entered onto the wrong account) wishing to change from contract to PAYG. Also the account name had been changed. I believe this to be a serious data protection breach. I found this out when I received a text saying I'd run out of credit. After some faffing about on the phone they admitted the error and gave me £5 credit whilst they tried to sort it out. After switching me back (1 week later) they recommended a put a password on my account (I did). All sorted you'd think.... nope. A few weeks later I had my bill through. It was for £249.49! After working out the charges on the itemised bill I could see I had been charged for all the calls etc made during the period I was wrongly on PAYG. Ouch. After a number of broken promises regarding callbacks, they finally 'froze' the disputed amount (minus what I actually DID owe) then said someone would contact me again regarding actually getting the amount officially wiped off. I called them not long after to moan (yet again) about the pathetic signal I'd been getting, only to be told that the amount HAD in fact been wiped off just that I hadn't been informed. After demanding to speak to a team leader because - in all honesty - I was ****ed off that nobody had told me, they offered to remove my line rental cost for the next 6 months (plus around £17 I actually did owe at the time) because of THAT matter (not the signal matter - which, by the way, has been affecting many others locally). I even had to find out about my own grandmother's death via Facebook because family members who live in London could not get hold of me! After a few more calls (each with them giving different reasons for the dodgy signal, some even denying it completely) they told me there were issues with 2 masts locally and that someone would call me with updates.... guess what? This didn't happen. I then called them again and was told there'd be no updates on the engineer's visit to the mast until mid November and because I could get signal outside of my hometown they were still providing me with a service. Disgustingly I told them I rarely leave my town due to health issues, I was (not in quite so few words) told that it was "tough". The call centre operative again spoke to a team leader and was told that because a) I receive service outside my locality and b) I was already receiving a discount, there was nothing they could do. This signal issue is not a case of slightly bad signal, my phone regularly cuts out and tells me I'm not on a registered network etc. The service has become so unusable that I decided to withhold payment for 2 months which is approximately £17. I tried to make a phone call yesterday only to find out my outgoing calls have been barred due to non-payment. Basically I'd like some advice as to what to do next, because I feel there is no justification for them charging me for a service I'm not receiving. I've researched sending a "letter of deadlock" which I will promptly do if it's the next appropriate step in my case. I know forum users often say NOT to withhold payment and claim it back at a later date but I'm having to top-up a PAYG phone on another network so I've a phone for emergencies, so cannot afford to pay what is in essence a bill for scotch mist! Hopefully that makes sense, and thanks in advance.
  11. Saw this in the Independent today http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/you-are-not-rumpole-of-the-bailey-as-more-people-represent-themselves-in-court-the-bar-council-has-issued-some-pressing-advice-8555773.html Bar Council link http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media-centre/news-and-press-releases/2013/april/bar-council-chairman-we-won%27t-stand-by-as-vulnerable-people-suffer-barristers-launch-how-to-guide-for-diy-litigants/
  12. We have 2 laptops a HP notebook (bought cheap for daughters homework etc) and a HP laptop (work provided) and they are both great - However they both have an annoying little foible... when you are 'scrolling' about a screen with the mouse pad a tiny scroll bar appears at the side of the pointer and the screen jumps to the top or bottom and it's really frustrating does anyone know how to get rid of this??? (I asked IT dept at work and was told 'oh it's probably in you devices - pointer/mouse settings' but I couldn't find anything tat made a difference
  13. Hi there... I'm hoping somebody can help me out on how to proceed with the following case. Two agencies have recently contacted me with outstanding balances with Anglian Water at an old address (call it Address 1). Accepting liability for this amount at Address 1, I made several payments to the first company and was then contacted by the second for a different amount at the same address. This prompted me to hold all further action and payments with both companies, and query the debt with the provider, as I've held only one account at the address. Both companies then dropped their action and referred me back to provider. Whilst awaiting information on the balance owing and date ranges etc I'd requested from Anglian, they unscrupulously referred me to a third debt collector for the first amount. Again, I requested this company hold their enforcement action on the basis that I am disputing the debt. Having today received the information I requested, it seems that Anglian have posted the payments I made to the first company to an even older (2003 - 2004) address (Address 2) with an outstanding balance, despite the initial contact being explicitly about Address 1. It's clear that the provider is trying to legitimise the much older debt with current payments collected under false pretenses, but can anybody help me on the specifics of statute barred debts? Am I correct in thinking that a debt for which the provider has seen no correspondence from the debtor for six years cannot then be collected? Does the full amount (even if much of the period is well outside the 6 year period) then become enforcable? Is there precedent by which a company can amalgamate together an account from outside the 6 year period with one which is inside it (even if, as is the case here, one account was in several names and another not) in order to be able to collect? And finally, is there a pro-forma response for refusing to pay a debt as it is outside the 6 year limitation? Thanks all.
×
×
  • Create New...