Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. Paragraphs 1 is noted and accepted that the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with  Vanquis.I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied. The claimant pleads that the defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue. Given that the claimant has failed to comply with my CPR 31.14 request and failed to evidence such fact and would not be in a position as Assignee of debt to know the details of any alleged breach. The defendant has never received a Default Notice from the original creditor. As the claimants plead in their particulars precise knowledge of the default, they are put to strict proof to evidence such fact.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   8. 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.
    • I will get my son to upload the video when he gets in. No down hill slope just a small  gradient and from the turning he came out of its maybe 15 shops until the traffic lights. Maybe it didn't get faster but he feels like it did (not clear on the video)  I'm picking him up from work tonight I'll pay attention to the gradient when I go back.   He'd only changed up to 2nd so he wasn't driving fast    Upside he knows now to always be prepared for ice  
    • Not sure why you keep changing your point 1 back to .....   1. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   1. Paragraphs 1 is noted and accepted that the Defendant has in the past had financial dealings with  Vanquis.I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   We you the court the claimant already knows ......The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. its on the claim form.   Keep it as post #59 add post #66 renumber job done.
    • Hi all   Update, so they still have not provided any statements/documents etc regarding the account (I have the original SAR though) and since the beginning of October I have received a letter stating that they believe the debit is not SB because a payment of £340 was made April/May 2014 (this is credit and refund mentioned earlier in the thread). They have so far not received the statements etc from the bank but will forward them on due course, but if I should contact them to arrange a payment plan.   I have since had a offer of a 50% settlement and then last week a 75% settlement. My view is that they are just hoping I will bite and pay them something but that is not going to happen, I have not communicated to them since that single telephone conversation back in July.   The one thing I have noticed when I use Check My File is that the account status was changed November 7th to Query at Equifax, even though the default expired on November 4th so it should have disappeared by now. The original Satans Bank default was removed on time, but the Cabot account reference is still there albeit not negatively impacting my score it just has a status of 'Q' against November and the balance showing. There is no history showing before November it almost looks like a new account was setup with a Query status against it.   Does anybody have any idea of what is going on here? The cynical side of my is thinking they are forcing me to get in touch with them in writing about the account before their incorrectly perceived April/May SB date passes. I know Equifax does take longer for updates compared to the others agencies and in a few weeks it may be gone.   I'm just wondering what peoples views are, personally my credit score is almost in the excellent bracket and I'm not planning to get any credit soon so it makes no difference to me for now.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3959 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Just a quick reminder peeps to use a little common sense and restraint when posting anything that can be taken as personal or libel....it goes without saying that this topic of all should remain within acceptable content-and this of course includes named individuals.

 

 

Good grief Martin, grow a pair will you, your an embarrassment to St.Helens and rugby league in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The appeal finished yesterday afternoon even though it was listed to continue today

 

It is not known whether the banks were granted leave to appeal Justice Smith's judgment on Plain Intelligible Language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quick reminder peeps to use a little common sense and restraint when posting anything that can be taken as personal or libel....it goes without saying that this topic of all should remain within acceptable content-and this of course includes named individuals.

 

Use a little common sense? what about tact? Where is the personal or libel comments cause I must have missed it/them Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was 2 reported posts as a result ones been unapproved-thats why you cant see it.

I didnt make the site rules,but I know how important it is to uphold them-I have better things to do than debate the issue I can assure you.

 

And Betty-as a sponsor of St.Helens Rugby club,you dont have to tell me about Rugby and I dont see any connection with this here.


Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BM you should know me better.....I just happened to be the first to see the reported post-it could easily have been another team member.

In fact I have been enjoying the banter.


Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;) Well i was quite surprised, maybe for future reference it would help avoiding such situations by saying that the offending posts have been removed or edited. Not ideal without knowing. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;) Well i was quite surprised, maybe for future reference it would help avoiding such situations by saying that the offending posts have been removed or edited. Not ideal without knowing. :D

 

The problem there is that if a post is unapproved, we could put what we liked on the post, but only the site team would see it. It would be totally invisible to other users.

If we posted to say that a post had been unapproved, it could be 20 posts back so the comment would be out of context. Everyone would be wondering, "Which post was that, then?"

We couldn't refer to it by post number because unapproved posts are not numbered. All the following posts are renumbered to follow on from the post prior to the unapproved one.

 

Regards, Rooster.


If this has been useful to you, please click on the scales at bottom left of post. Thanks.

 

Advice & opinions of Rooster-UK are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Please use your own judgment.

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

LOOK! Free CAG Toolbar.

Follow link for more information.

 

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

Please donate,

Help us to help others.

 

 

LINKS....

 

Forum Rules.

FAQs....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Can I please ask why my one sentence post, Post#246 above, had to be approved by a member of the site team before it was allowed to be displayed?

 

All I was posting was a simple question to see if there was an update on the appeal?

 

I don't understand why this may have caused a problem.

 

TheyrCriminals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was 2 reported posts as a result ones been unapproved-thats why you cant see it.

I didnt make the site rules,but I know how important it is to uphold them-I have better things to do than debate the issue I can assure you.

 

And Betty-as a sponsor of St.Helens Rugby club,you dont have to tell me about Rugby and I dont see any connection with this here.

 

Typical mangina response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

 

Can I please ask why my one sentence post, Post#246 above, had to be approved by a member of the site team before it was allowed to be displayed?

 

All I was posting was a simple question to see if there was an update on the appeal?

 

I don't understand why this may have caused a problem.

 

TheyrCriminals

It might have been unapproved by mistake when they were dealing with the other posts which were moved. ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after this week, does anyone know the next date we should be looking out for, for the result of the hearing?


23/02/07 Request for payment sent (hand delivered to my local branch)

08/03/07 Standard Letter from Barlclays saying they are looking in to my complaint received

13/03/07 Letter before action sent (hand delivered to my local branch)

27/03/07 Partial offer of £1255 received

29/03/07 MCOL submitted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10.04 Posted on LB by EXC:

The OFT have confirmed that the 4 banks in question were granted leave to appeal on Plain Intelligible Language, that was originally refused by Justice Smith in the lower court.

 

The OFT have been given no indication as yet when the appeal judgment is expected to be handed down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a pure waste of time and money.

This decision will be fixed all at the expense of the consumer disguised as a fair judgement.

I no longer have any hope for the small consumer versus big corporations.


27th April - Requested Statements

13th May - Received Statements:D

15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent.:D

16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received.:D

23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin:

30th May - Letter Before Action sent. :D

10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in.

16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill

17th July - Rejected offer letter sent

25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received

26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go.:evil:

Never even felt it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a little worrying the focus at the moment seems to be on the reasons for the test case and the consquences for the banks.

Once the OFT have deemed the terms unfair (if it is carried over that the UTCCR applies) then the OFT will not do anything about past charges (ie its not in its power to order refunds) and this is where a second test case will come in, which will decide on the elements of refunds and if charges can be refunded as the terms are unbinding on the consumer. So long long way to go.

 

Does that mean 'on the day of judgement' all cases will not be stayed and we can all get back into Court with our individual cases backed up by the OFT saying penalties are unfair:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does that mean 'on the day of judgement' all cases will not be stayed and we can all get back into Court with our individual cases backed up by the OFT saying penalties are unfair:D

 

We're lead to believe that guidance will be issued to County Courts once the Judgment is known.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankers: Some quotes by people who knew what they were talking about. ...

"The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating." Thomas Jefferson

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson

"You (International Bankers) are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out. If the American people only understood the rank injustice of our money and banking system, there would be a revolution before morning." Andrew Jackson

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance." James Madison

"Whomsoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate." James Garfield

"I am afraid that ordinary citizens will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create and destroy money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people." - Reginald McKenna, Chairman of the Midland Bank in London.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson." Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen...At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." John Hylan, New York City Mayor, 1922

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson

When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes...Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain." Napoleon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankers: Some quotes by people who knew what they were talking about. ...

 

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." Woodrow Wilson

How absolutely true!


;) Boobaby

Please hit the scales if you think I've helped!

Please note that advice given is purely my opinion and should be treated as such.

FAQ’s

http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/faqs-please-read-these/

HSBC Claim - August 2006 £2,700 paid November 2006

Halifax Claim - August 2006 £4,100 paid December 2006

GE Capital - August 2006 - settled

Log Book Loans - August 2007 - sorted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, WHEN will the stay on reclaiming be lifted? know its due to be reviewed early next year, but if it depends on when all appeals are done and dusted it sounds like it could be kept in place for many more months. And from reading alot on here and from other sources, it sounds like its all a big con. the O.F.T are in communication with the banks, but what contact have they got with consumers? seems to me theres no balance, and have the O.F.T really got the interests of consumers at heart, because i certainly don't believe the fsa has. I realise i know very very little, but this is how things appear to me. I think if someone could state, very simply, where things stand and some sort of timescale on how things are LIKELY to go, it would be very helpfull for people like me, who aren't legal eagles or missing alot of the true facts. because, from between hearing about our human rights being infringed on the length of the stay, and appeals could go on for years yet, i haven't a clue when the ball on reclaiming is likely to start rolling again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "ball", as you put it, on reclaiming has never stopped rolling. If you haven't made your claim yet, because of this stay, YOU ARE LOSING OUT. Sorry to have that in uppercase, as I know it's shouting, but it's something worth shouting about. They stay shouldn't put you off claiming, as you are losing out on charges over 6 years old plus interest on them. Get claiming... now...

 

As for the stay, how long it a piece of string? If it goes to the wall, the High Court Judgment will be appealed to the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal Judgment to the House of Lords and the House of Lords Judgment to some European Court, depending on how much the parties are willing to push it. From what I've seen, that's likely to be the case. Ultimately, it could take another 1-2 years, all in all - maybe more. What you don't want to be doing is losing money hand over fist while you're waiting.

 

Incidentally, remember that this case came around because the Banks and the OFT couldn't agree between themselves. Had the banks been cooperative, I'm sure we wouldn't be in this situation right now. How likely is it that the OFT get Judgment saying that the UTCCR regulations do apply, then the OFT - not the Court - decide, in cahoots with the Banks, what level of charge under which they will not investigate as they see it as being fit? For me, this is very likely. If that does happen, the Banks will have to settle all the stayed claims out of Court or go ahead with them and have Judgment against them for the same value applied.

 

Whatever happens, you need to claim... now.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have and the interest is mounting, i was just trying to find out whether the stays would be likely to be lifted in the new year, or is it going to drag on and on. there seems to be so much conflicting info, i've got lost with it all. Martin Lewis makes out its near an end, people on here are talking years. gets very confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have and the interest is mounting, i was just trying to find out whether the stays would be likely to be lifted in the new year, or is it going to drag on and on. there seems to be so much conflicting info, i've got lost with it all. Martin Lewis makes out its near an end, people on here are talking years. gets very confusing.

 

I can't speak for Martin Lewis, but this is from the BBA's website;

 

BBA – British Bankers' Association - Banks and Building Society Appeal Hearing in OFT Test Case

 

The Court of Appeal will give its Judgment some time after the Court hearing although it is not possible to confirm when this will be. We will update you about what is decided as soon as possible but further Court hearings will be required before the test case process is concluded.

 

I can't see this being resolved this year.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that does happen, the Banks will have to settle all the stayed claims out of Court or go ahead with them and have Judgment against them for the same value applied.

 

car2403

 

Hi. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say the banks will have to go ahead with stayed claims and have 'judgment against them for the same value applied'.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk


NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
car2403

 

Hi. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say the banks will have to go ahead with stayed claims and have 'judgment against them for the same value applied'.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

 

If the UTCCR apply and the OFT sets a level that they consider fair for bank charges, the stayed cases will have to be settled out of Court, or they will have to start again looking at the difference between the level of charges the OFT considers fair and the actual amount charged. If they OFT say £12 is fair and you've been charge £35, £23 will be recoverable per charge applied. The point I'm trying to make is that it must be in the banks' interest to settle out of Court for the £23, (plus interest) rather than continue the claim for the £23, (plus interest) as that will save them more costs in attending/defending the claims.

 

It looks obvious what will happen, in that case, with the banks settling, but the question posed was when this would happen.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

car2403

 

Thanks for your explanation which, as it happens, is exactly what I thought you were suggesting

 

However, I understood that, ultimately, either the historic charges would be deemed lawful or otherwise. And that if the ruling went in the OFT and the consumers' favour while a threshold of, say, £12 may well be set for future charges, any historic charges woule be unlawful and, therfore, reclaimable in their entirety.

 

This was certainly the case with credit cards.

 

If, as you suggest, this won't be the case with bank charges then can someone please elaborate - for the benefit of simpletons such as myself - why not?!

 

Thanks in anticiaption

Fred_Funk


NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...