Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

HBOS face winding up order. Maybe they don't have enough money!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6066 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never thought I would say this about a claims management company...

Three cheers for ROBERTSON HOLBROOK Its about time the Halifax got a boot, especially on a day when their shares were in free fall thanks to The Bank of England refusing to lend them money!!!!

 

MUST BE THOSE ANNOYING COUNTY COURT JUDGMENTS.

I find it screws your chances of getting a loan anywhare even from the so called "lender of last resort".

 

Makes me proud to be WELSH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Here's the answer!

Posted on MSE

 

"HBOS have taken out a high court injunction against Robertson Holbrook to prevent them from "winding up" HBOS tomorrow.

The injunction hearing is set for next Friday in Leeds so watch this space, RH are confident of overturning the injunction and for HBOS there will be nowhere to run.

Winding up the UKs 4th largest bank is the last thing RH want to do, but if they want to conduct business in this country they will need to comply with the rules set by the judiciary, as you or I would.

Nobody is above the law."

GO GET EM BOUYOS !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can just see it now, a bit like the Northern Rock fiasco (not sure if that's the right word to use), one hell of a queue of ppl wanting to withdraw all their money. It just serves HBOS right for not paying out when they should've done in the first place. It might even teach the rest of them banks a very big lesson, then again, it might not !!

As I live in Leeds, I might even get chance to go down there, & see HBOS squirm. The very best of luck to you 10 ppl, you deserve every penny back & more besides.

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I didn't get chance to get down to court to hear the verdict, & I've been searching but there doesn't seem to be anything anywhere. lol

I'll keep looking though, I'll try & get hold of yesterdays, YEP to see if there is anything at all.

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax won't take the blame they will just pass the buck.

 

Below is just one of their written statements from their Executives Office that i have seen concerning debit cards.

 

When a debit card transactions is processed, each individual company have a floor limit in place. if a transaction is processed for an amount under this limit then the payment is immediately accepted. a referral is not made to us and we therefore do not have the opportunity to decline the transaction when their are insufficient funds in the account.

When a Visa Electron card is used, all retailers should have a nil floor limit set in place. in theory, this should mean that every transaction is reffered to us for authority. however, some companies have set a higher floor floor limit, which can result in transactions being authorised even though there are insufficient funds in the account. unfortunately, we cannot control individual retailers floor limits. ultimately, it is the individual customers responsibility to manage the transactions on their account..

 

Yet i thought i saw on t.v. yesterday on article about chip and pin, and a woman stating it was safe coz every transaction was checked by the bank???

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this on MSE:

 

CAN WE ALL COME?

 

PRESS RELEASE RE HBOS HIGH COURT SHOWDOWN

BLOOD ON THE CARPET ?

(THE SHOW MUST GO ON)

 

The High Court Hearing in Leeds On Friday: Robertson Holbrook have agreed an extension to the High Court Injunction against them in light of the intended "Set Aside" Hearing Scheduled in Cardiff County Court"

Friday’s case was highlighted on The BBC Web site:

 

 

BBC NEWS | Business | High Court showdown for HBOS bank

 

Spokesman Tim Russell explained "We are a responsible company and we believe that any judge would find that it is not in the interest of the customers or share holders for a winding up petition to be issued at this stage especially with the prospect of a "judgment set aside" hearing within five weeks." It is for that we contacted the court and stated that we were prepared to allow the unopposed injunction to be extended.

That is not to say that HBOS are off the hook, we have agreed to extend the injunction having taken advice from our legal team who had submitted the case to a leading QC who is a leading authority on winding up procedures at court. ." Halifax only have themselves to blame for the current predicament, had they adhered to the set court protocols we would not have had to go to extreme measures to ensure that our clients cases are dealt with in a timely manor in accordance with the law, which most other banks have no problem at all in adhering to."

"HBOS will have to face all their demons at court in Cardiff," the home town of Robertson Holbrook. "We believe their stance is indefensible, the judges in Cardiff have a commendable reputation for correct procedure and HBOS have an awful lot of explaining to do, I fear there might be blood on the carpet before the day is out, and it most certainly will not be that of our clients or ourselves."

 

BACK GROUND OF THE CASE

Halifax went before His Honour Judge Langan at Leeds High Court of Justice on 10 October 2007 and applied for an injunction against 10 clients of Robertson Holbrook who had previously served statutory demands on the bank as they had not satisfied judgment obtained at court for bank charges, unlawfully applied according to their claims agent Robertson Holbrook.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, thanks.

 

So, if I have this right, Halifax originally ignored a court order to pay up and would have blithely continued so to do had not Robertson Holbrook sought the winding up order. At some point thereafter Halifax had an "oh sh*t" moment and realised they had to do something or face a hearing. They then sought an injunction against the winding up order, which RH have not contested. I take it Halifax are now seeking to set the original judgment aside?

 

This must be costing HBOS a few bob (of our money!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting, thanks.

 

Halifax originally ignored a court order to pay up and would have blithely continued so to do had not Robertson Holbrook sought the winding up order. At some point thereafter Halifax had an "oh sh*t" moment and realised they had to do something or face a hearing. They then sought an injunction against the winding up order, which RH have not contested. I take it Halifax are now seeking to set the original judgment aside?

 

This must be costing HBOS a few bob (of our money!)

 

It looks like it to me, & I'm sure HBOS aren't doing themselves any favours over this, my partner banks with them, & is talking about withdrawing every penny, he says that he doesn't trust them with his money any more, & I'm sure there are many others who feel the same lol.

--------------------------------

If you approve of my Post, please tip my scales.

13/07/07 **WON** Halifax

Any advice or opinion I give, is what I have learnt from CAG, If in doubt, please consult a professional.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...