Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • London1971 without divulging too much into his mental health he has issues regarding anything to do with government and so is it ok to fill the forms provided and what do I put on there  thanks  
    • Dear all, I am hoping for some advice/guidance on this matter. I received a LoC dated 12/04/24 and replied to this on the 2/05/24 disputing claim with the following reasons: 1: [Inadequate Affordability Assessment]: I contend that your institution failed to conduct a thorough assessment of my financial circumstances prior to approving the loan. As a result, the loan amount and repayment terms were not suitable for my income and financial situation. 2: [Unsustainable Repayments]: The repayment schedule imposed by the loan agreement placed an undue burden on my finances, making it impossible for me to meet my other financial obligations without experiencing significant hardship. 3: [Lack of Transparency]: Your institution did not adequately disclose the risks associated with the loan, including any potential increases in interest rates or fees over the loan term. I also added the following: Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulations, lenders have a legal obligation to conduct thorough affordability assessments and ensure that loan agreements are suitable for borrowers' circumstances. I hereby request that your institution: 1: Conduct a full investigation into my claim of irresponsible lending. 2: Provide me with copies of all documentation related to the loan application and approval process, including affordability assessments, credit checks, and correspondence. 3: Cease all collection activities related to the loan until this matter is resolved. Yesterday i received the attached reply via email and it included: 1: The Original Loan agreement 2: An account statement 3: A copy of a default notice letter. The email included a link for a direct debit set up page where you enter their reference and your bank account details (looks like a standard D/D set up page) but there is nothing to indicate the amount of the D/D that I might be agreeing to. I also think two days response time is not long enough to appropriately reply. Any thoughts appreciated   Email-compressed.pdf
    • Easy to set one up on Gov.uk , search on Google.
    • Hi London  he doesn’t have government gateway. Should we do it via post?
    • If you are helping a family member you are going to need their Government Gateway details in order to Log in to MCOL .
  • 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

Cheque Guarantee cards


spoutuk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1899 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

thanks for that, what about using your card when you have no money in the account. I used my guantee card with a cheque and they charged me £35 and heres another one: i put £5 petrol in my car knowing at the time i had £5 in there took two weeks to come out so it cost me £35 agin for using my card is it better to ring then write as I prefer to write then I can keep copies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Penalty charges are penalty charges. If they are excessive then they are unlawful.

On the other hand, at some pint someone might decide that by clearly spending money fom an empty account that you are being dishonest about it which could lead to something a bit serious.

 

You need to realise that if you are going to take on the bank then you need to be vey careful about your own behaviour.

 

lets face it, we should all try to run our affairs correctly - buit the banks should try to run their's correctly as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Better to ring and then confirm in writing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on! I don't agree with your last point Bankfodder. How can you spend money from an empty account without the bank's cooperation? I think it's safe to say that no money leaves the bank under any circumstances without the bank's permission (except maybe during an armed robbery). They can hardly say it was 'unauthorised' if they released the money. Nobody is forcing them to let you go over your overdraft, it can only happen with their permission.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on! I don't agree with your last point Bankfodder. How can you spend money from an empty account without the bank's cooperation?

 

When a cheque is drawn in payment of a bill and that cheque is backed by a cheque guarantee card, then the Bank is bound to pay regardless of the lack of funds n the account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but bound by whom? I'm not certain, but I reckon if you check the small print it will say somewhere that the guarantee part is actually discretionary. It's difficult to imagine the banks allowing themselves to get into a situation where they are compelled to pay something, regardless of how much is in the account - especially since it's their contract you're signing in the first place.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm, very interesting. I stand corrected! I suppose there would not be much point in calling it a cheque guarantee card if it was not properly guaranteed. What happens if the bank writes to you and cancels your card - would they still honour a cheque written with it?

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that it would be honoured. I expect that the bank would consider it to be very important to its reputation to be seen to be honouring the scheme. Further more I expect that it would be considered to be encumbent upon the bank to esnsure that its instruction no longer to use the card was obeyed. To do otherwise would be to discredit the scheme and would undermine business confidence.

However I expect that the brown stuff would be all over the place and that there would be a chance of the police being called in which might, as I suggested in my earlier post "lead to something a bit more serious".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A lot of banks do 'try it on' with regards to the cheque guarantee scheme. Quite often banks will bounce cheques even though they are guaranteed; only paying the cheque when the payee theatens action of one sort or another!

 

Using a cheque card knowing funds are not available is a criminal offence; obtaining a pecuinary advantage by deception. There can also be offences contrary to the Theft Act 1978 (evading a liability etc). Main case law on the subject is Metropolitan Police Commissioner v Charles (1977). That being said there is usually more chance of hell freezing over than any criminal proceedings ever being taken as a result of such use of a cheque card.

Link to post
Share on other sites

need to show dishonesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe technically yes. You did not have funds sufficient to cover the cheque when you issued it. In the US is called 'kiting a cheque' and is a criminal offence.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But..... Are we not all in this situation because of charges? So if the Bank had not taken all out moneyt there would be funds available?

 

Mal

Lloyds, DPA Letter issued 9/3/06

Lloyds, Preliminary approach letter issued 11/4/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1899 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...