Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You need a back up plan. If you believe that redundancy is very likely, start looking at other employment options.  Don't leave it until you have been made redundant before looking for new employment. I regularly speak to people who have been made redundant and about mental health. Those who have a positive plan, get into employment quickly following redundancy and manage to maintain their finances. Those who don't have a plan, decide to accept redundancy and a period of unemployment. They end up in a downward spiral, with redundancy money spent, debts accumulated, mental health decline and difficulty finding new employment.  
    • Interested observer here as I'm in a similar situation. People become conditioned into seeking and maintaining a perfect credit score/file, but if your situation is that you're unlikely to obtain further credit for the foreseeable future anyway due to your other outstanding debts, then tanking your credit file now won't make a difference other than you've took back control of your finances.
    • 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 
  • 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 High Court Show Down" Bbc


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6074 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

BBC News link :

 

 

> ** High Court showdown for HBOS bank **

> The Halifax bank will appear in court to justify its refusal to repay bank charges to 11 customers.

 

> BBC NEWS | Business | High Court showdown for HBOS bank >

 

Interesting that HBOS made £6Bn last year, how much of that was our money taken as charges ???

 

Why are they so defensive about being able to pay (even the Northern Rock didnt get that defensive).

 

I am sure nobody has ever suggested anything like

 

MAY BE THEY CANT AFFORD TO PAY ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC News link :

 

 

> BBC NEWS | Business | High Court showdown for HBOS bank >

 

Interesting that HBOS made £6Bn last year, how much of that was our money taken as charges ???

 

 

 

The answer to that question is here Welshwizard

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They obviously think they are totally above the law:mad:. It has been said before that the banks should have their credit licences withdrawn if they have CCJ's against them.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to stonedecroze point to welshwizzard

BANKS SET TO MAKE AN ESTIMATED £20.5 MILLION[3] IN INTEREST WHILE THE OFT RUN A TEST CASE AGAINST BRITAIN’S HIGH STREET BANKS

WRONG ! WRONG ! WRONG!

 

They are saving £20.5 MILLION POUNDS EVERY DAY by people not registering their claim, whilst the general public perceive that things are "on hold” and do nothing.

 

Here's my calculation.

 

Est. £32 bn taken over last 6 years in charges.

 

Given the statute of limitation the banks always run behind, every day the banks can convince the general public to do nothing about it they are gaining £14.6 million.

 

Given they are only "open for business" 5 days a week this equates to £20.45 Million a day (before they even put the key in the front door).

 

Also consider most banks changed their T& Cs last November, so that we are no longer "breaching the contract" it follows that by Nov 2012 there will be nothing left to claim.

 

NOT BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD IT ALL BACK BUT BECAUSE THE BANKS HAVE BENEFITED BY "AGREEING" TO THIS NOMANSLAND DELAY CAUSED BY OFT TEST CASE

 

& IF YOU THINK THERE IS ANY CHANCE OF IT BEING RESOLVED BY FEB OR MARCH 2007... THINK AGAIN..... THINK.. £20.45 Million

£20.45 Million £20.45 Million .......the banks must be laughing their collective cocks off (their weather veins) at the moment.

WHAT CAN WE DO ?

If everybody on this site urges everybody they know to urge everybody they know etc to register their claim (even if they want to donate the proceeds to charity) The weather veins will turn against the Banks and the chickens will come home to roost.

 

JUST A THOUGHT !

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW thats £200 Million in 2 weeks, which is more than the banks have returned any way since 2006!

Are you sure that your calculations are right ?

If so that would be a saving of £2.5 Billion to the banks between 27 July and 14 January.....clever bu**ers no wonder they were so keen to get into the test case.

If I were a bank, I would string things out for as long as possible or suggest a compromise which they know damned well the OFT will have to appeal and hey presto "£20M+ aday and it looks like the OFT are causing the delay.

More people should read this !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...