Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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

OFT test case


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5959 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

Is it me, or is this bloody thread just getting silly..........:confused:;)
Nothing wrong with your perception, JM.;-)

 

Well, what do you expect? The Devil makes work for idle hands, and I refer you to my earlier post about the OFT v banks case and when to expect a result of any kind... With nothing much else to do in the meantime, some elements are bound to try and occupy themselves best they can. :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't see why anyone would want to go to Fleet Street unless they are showing support in an organised demonstration.

 

As Bookie said the important people are the OFT, the banks and the judge, no one else will have any effect on this case, the Judge isn't going to turn around and ask if the pressure groups have anything they would like to add to the arguments :rolleyes:.

 

As for witnessing the case the press are far more qualified to record the events and report them (within the bounds of their editorial mandates).

 

So nothing would be achieved by having a CAG representative in attendance.

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mods! :) It would be nice to be able to discuss the merits or otherwise of the case -but as it only started (apparently) about 2 hours ago -we'll have to wait awhile - maybe until about May as you said LOL!:D

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and let's not forget that this case is just to see if the case can be brought to the high court using the OFT's existing argument.

 

It's not (as the media would have you believe) that it's a case to decide if what the banks are doing is legal.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah! Welcome to the fray pete!;)

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

been wondering what was going on here, i got all my cases settled before the chop, but i have been scouring the news for any reports of this case and found nothing yet. now i know why :) thanks guys fountain of knowledge as always :D

me against the abbey Paid in full (donation made)

me against the woolwich Paid in full(donation made)

me against HSBC Paid in full(donation made)

 

 

beware the scrapbooker, for she has a long memory and sharp knives :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As from Monday 21st January there will be a video link availble in Court 65 at the Royal Courts of Justice. Room apparently for 50 people, so anybody who's interested enough should be able to get a seat.

 

Be interesting to see the take-up, I tend to think it might be a rather empty courtroom

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should make an announcement of this on this forum.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't they doing free lunches?

 

Shame they aren't doing free tickets I might even leave the sales phone alone for a day.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, back on topic. ;) This thread was all getting a bit People's Front of Judea.

 

 

F*** off!!!! We're the Judean People's Front!

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D No.........it's peopled by the Judean Peoples Front. How many members have you eh?

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...by less than a minute!

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why anyone would want to go to Fleet Street unless they are showing support in an organised demonstration.

 

As Bookie said the important people are the OFT, the banks and the judge, no one else will have any effect on this case, the Judge isn't going to turn around and ask if the pressure groups have anything they would like to add to the arguments :rolleyes:.

 

As for witnessing the case the press are far more qualified to record the events and report them (within the bounds of their editorial mandates).

 

So nothing would be achieved by having a CAG representative in attendance.

 

pete

 

Agree wholeheartedly

 

A massive public presence would probably only serve to irritate the judiciary, and would actually more likely just have a negative effect upon their perceptions and sympathies.

Although it should not, as initially this should be simply about the law; the UTCCR, and it's applicability and interpretation.

It should not be decided as applicable simply as a result of measuring what proportion of the public show up and declare it is applicable.

Just as much as it should not be swayed by what proportion of the Banks believe it is applicable.

However, my own concern (shared by many) when I heard about the limitation upon space, was that without the watchful eye of the media the public could not be afforded the comfort of knowing that matters had indeed been handled properly and transparently, thus ultimately leading to a proper interpretation of the law. Whatever the outcome.

It was not because such limits would reduce the appearance of the strength of public opinion, or stifle the influence of the media/public.

 

Hopefully the new extensions to access for the press will ensure that these stages are now reported properly.

 

Once this initial stage is decided, and if it is decided that the law applies and so it warrants a fuller trial, then public and action group opinions will matter more, and so then they should be entitled to relay such opinions, and put pressure upon the OFT (our representatives) to have them considered.

After all, at such time, the Banks will themselves be entitled to relay opinions and will put pressures upon their own representatives.

 

So lets hope the OFT do listen to us at such time, rather than just conduct the case in a way that they themselves decide upon.

 

Let us also hope that further stages are conducted upon a scale more reflective of their importance and significance.

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the way they say the comments are 'misguided', yet fail to offer any explanation as to why.

 

As far as I can see, the law is black and white on this issue. I fail to see any misguidence at all.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thing is dont they have to put charges on the screen if your gona be charged for using the ATM?

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to ask the question to the banks of, "if you so firmly believe that all your charges are lawful, fair, above board, reasonable etc, then why on earth have you paid out so much in returned charges prior to this case?" and then demand an actual answer to the specific question.

The fact that they have settled out of court on so many claims has to have made some form of prescedent that the banks have voluntarily agreed to as a result of the return of the charges, thereby indicating that they believe they are on very thin ice when it comes to justifying their charges, again something to date that they refuse to openly do.

The test case is fine and I hope the OFT really do seek answers to questions such as this, as well as many more. We will wait to see!!

:???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my thing is, that I believe if they start charging everyone for a bank account, then effectively we've been forced into buying a third-party product by legislation (The Wages Act (1984)).

 

This is a direct contradiction of the ECHR laws.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is going to ask the question to the banks of, "if you so firmly believe that all your charges are lawful, fair, above board, reasonable etc, then why on earth have you paid out so much in returned charges prior to this case?" and then demand an actual answer to the specific question.

The fact that they have settled out of court on so many claims has to have made some form of prescedent that the banks have voluntarily agreed to as a result of the return of the charges, thereby indicating that they believe they are on very thin ice when it comes to justifying their charges, again something to date that they refuse to openly do.

The test case is fine and I hope the OFT really do seek answers to questions such as this, as well as many more. We will wait to see!!

:???:

 

They will claim that they were gestures of goodwill.

 

I personally don't see having to take your bank to court and for some people that is a very real and frightening thing to do as a gesture of good will to their customers.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my thing is, that I believe if they start charging everyone for a bank account, then effectively we've been forced into buying a third-party product by legislation (The Wages Act (1984)).

 

This is a direct contradiction of the ECHR laws.

 

Cheers for that dave.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will claim that they were gestures of goodwill.

 

I personally don't see having to take your bank to court and for some people that is a very real and frightening thing to do as a gesture of good will to their customers.

 

Thats a hell of a gesture of goodwill from an industry only known to act in their own best interests and stuff everyone else.

If any representative in a bank ever asks if they can help me I am instantly concerned that they believe they can screw some money out of me for their own benefit.

 

Once had a cashier advising me that as I had a certain level of funds in my account, just sold house, that they would like to help me invest it. Yeah right, into something that I cannot access or have to pay a charge to use.

Told him it was none of his or the banks business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5959 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...