Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Nick Wallis has written up the first day of Angela van den Bogerd's evidence to the inquiry. I thought she was awful. She's decided to go with being not bright enough to spot what was happening over Fujitsu altering entries on the Horizon system, rather than covering up important facts. She's there today as well. The First Lady of Flat Earth – Post Office Scandal WWW.POSTOFFICESCANDAL.UK Angela van den Bogerd, on oath once more It is possible that Angela van den Bogerd and her senior colleagues (Rodric Williams, Mark Davies, Susan...  
    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
  • 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

M1PLG v Lloyds cc


Tonka99
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3959 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

Hi Tonks, sorry to hear about how everything has gone. SCM seem to know all the DJs......

 

As part of your defence, you could try Mercantile Credit v Ellis, because although the IO hasn't been agreed, you have applied correctly and it must be down to the court's failing (though i would phrase that carefully!! that it hasn't been resolved and you have been maintaining payments. Could SCM have failed to reply to remove this line of defence?

I applied for my IO days before the IOC was applied for. The fact that the IO was agreed 3 days before the ICO meant that my wonderful DJ refused to grant the full CO.

Good luck, this was my defence

CO defence master.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi cym , Andy & Slick

 

Well what a waste of time and money

CO granted,

DJ same as before, d

idnt see why I should take 8 years to pay off a debt to Lloyds ,

 

regarding the N245 he said that I should apply to the courts for my money back as it didnt get heard and he as a DJ is seperate from the court and has no hand in the matter ,

 

I did question why HE had agreed to a ICO on the 15th Nov when I had applied for a Vareration Order N245 on the 18th Oct

he replied well thats because Lloyds didnt respond !!!!!!!!

 

have got a Forthwith Order with a restriction that Lloyds cannot go for the sale unless I dont pay the £100.00 a month.

 

Now I must wait for the FOS to determine the mis sold PPI issue.

 

Thanks for your continued support guys

 

A very unhappy Tonks :-(

 

Oh and the Rep from Lloyds was the same as last time

he was given no defence from **** so when we went in the DJ said do you have Mrs Tonks defence to which he replied no Your Honour so we then had to go out again for him to look at it ,

what a shambles

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hello

 

Well after waiting for almost two years the FOS has confirmed that the PPI was in fact mis sold .

 

I have received a letter from Lloyds with a final response to pay me £xxxx , I have 28 days in which to act .

 

I am looking for help with where to take this now , I have a CCJ & CO which I beleive would not have happened

if the DJ had looked into my Counterclaim , and not dismissed it .

 

Lloyds knew before we went to court that I had already advised them that I had been mis sold the PPI and it was also

in my defence .

 

I am ready to go for the kill if anyone can help

 

Thanks for looking

 

Tonks :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Tonks ! How are you doing.

 

I'm not sure that the FOS decision would have a bearing on the issues decided in court as the court is recognised as having a "higher" authority than the FOS..

 

I'll draw this to the Site Team's attention to see what views may come, as well as those from other followers in this forum.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Slick

 

Im good thanks ,

 

The Court didnt look at my counter claim , and when the FOS guy first got in touch with me he said that Lloyds

had put in an objection to them looking at the case , however Lloyds have now agreed that it was Mis sold .

 

I look forward to hearing what can be done !

 

Tonks:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tonks,

 

Can you confirm roughly how the amount of the CCJ debt compares with the refund that the bank ishould make in respect of PPI.

 

Has anything been said about the PPI refund being set against the debt.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slick

 

Total claim with costs @ November 2011 around £10000

Paid to date £2000 by monthly instalments

 

PPI claim they want to repay about £2500

 

I am unsure as to the amount for the PPI as I dont really know how calculate the interest !!

 

In their letter they say " As our final response ,we are offering you a payment of around £2500 to bring your complaint

to a conclusion .

This represents a refund of all the PPI premiums paid (inclusive of interest ), plus simple interest at 8% for any period

where your account was in credit, or from the date of the card being closed to the date of payment ."

 

There is a bit about if any of my accounts are in debt recovery and I would like to use the refund to pay towards the

debt to let them know

 

 

 

Thanks

Tonks:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening

 

After receiving Lloyds response which has been with the FOS for nearly two years , Lloyds

want to pay me £xxxx for mis sold PPI , my problem is I dont know how to calculate the Interest

because my spread sheet which went into my counter claim goes from April 2004 to August 2008

Which was submitted to court in May 20011.

 

Am I right in thinking that Interest should be paid up to date or am I wrong !

 

 

This has been to court and was dismissed by the DJ , FOS have looked and agree that it was mis sold

I would like to get the CCJ & CO looked at and if possible removed .

 

Unfortunatly my old computor is dead and I now have Windows 8 which I dont have much of a clue how to use !!

 

Any thoughts as I only have a few days before Lloyds send me the cheque

 

Thanks for looking

 

Tonks :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

the pdf is post 11

 

just put the ppi into this:

 

This fourth spreadsheet is useful in calculating a regulatory based compound interest award for PPI on a Revolving Credit Account. Or for a PENALTY charges Reclaim. Not all statements are required for this sheet because it will work out the compound interest on the PPI payments you do know about. It will not work out the additional 8% interest, to do that you will need spreadsheet three above AND all of your statements.

 

FosCISheet v101.xls

 

 

if the account is still open [their int is still being charged]

 

put the claim to date as today.

 

if the int stopped at some point - put that date in.

 

then take the TOTAL from that sheet

and put that into this sheet:

 

This first spreadsheet is the latest version of the statutory interestlink3.gif calculator and is used for Single Premium PPIlink3.gif cases. It can also be used where rollover PPI is involved, i.e. a new loan re-financing a previous one and where PPI is included in one or more loans. It can also be used for S69 redress calculation on any sum, like on a closed/frozen interest PENALTY charges claim.

 

StatIntSheet v101.xls

 

claim from date is the date that spread stopped

 

claim to date is today.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx

 

This is for a credit card I have all the statements the pdf in post 11 is only some of it , i must be dumb here

as i cant work out which spreadsheet to use have downloaded both .

 

LLoyds have said in their letter as your account was passed to recoverises in August 08 we have calculated your refund

as at this date .

 

I put in a counter claim in May 2011 who is right here them or me ? they have had my money right up untill today so should

be paid up to today !!

 

Sorry im just not sure what im doing need some help

 

 

Thanks for your time

 

Tonks

Link to post
Share on other sites

you need both

 

follow my post

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tonks,

 

I would ask them to confirm how they have arrived at the proposed PPI refund, so you can verify the amounts for yourself.

 

Otherwise, how on earth can you know if their offer is correct and fair.

 

I'm still trying to get further opinion about the chances of having the CCJ and/or Charging Order set aside.

 

:wink:

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Slick

 

Thanks for that , I have today received A cheque from Lloyds which is what I thought they would do

get in quick before I caused any trouble .

 

I am having great difficulties over in the PPI thread dx has kindly advised but Im none the wiser , maybe

ims could help .

 

Regarding the CCJ & CO they wouldnt have happened if Lloyds listened before we went to court , the Default Notice

and the amount claimed would have been differant , lets hope somthing can be done I have waited a long time for this

and am out for blood !!

 

I think the PPI is a lot more than what they claim it to be hopefully ims can help.

 

Thanks for your time

 

Tonks :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tonks,

 

General opinion is that there's little to be gained by trying to revisit the matter of the CCJ.

 

If the PPI refund was big enough to wipe out the a/c debt, it may have been different. But because the PPI on offer will only reduce the debt and still leave a significant amount owing, you're unlikely to succeed in having the matter reviewed.

 

With regard to the amount of the claim, I know you suggest the refund should have been greater but was that using compound interest.

 

I suggest you bank the cheque and write to the bank asking for their calculations of how the redress amount is arrived at. Tell them you accept the payment provisionally until you are able to satisfy yourself that their calc'ns are correct and that you reserve the right to seek any further amounts due if the calc'ns are disputed.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Slick

 

I am still unsure as to how to find out the true amount of the claim when I first sent it to Lloyds it was for

over Five Grand BUT that was in 2011, Im not sure what im doing with the PPI as you have can see!!

 

I dont know if I can claim from 2004 up until now , Lloyds seem to think I can only claim up until 2008 which

is what they have awarded me ..

 

Tonks :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tonks,

 

You should be able to claim for all years of PPI is it's accepted as being mis-sold.

 

What period are they offering to repay the PPI.

 

If you're not sure, all the more reason to get the calculations from them.

 

Further to my post #48 above, Andyorch has said you have no chance of having the CCJ set aside and a separate action would have to be instigated.

 

Not an option, to my mind. :-(

 

Get the PPI calculations so you can check them.

 

:-)

Edited by slick132

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Slick ,

 

I have just entered all the PPI paid from 2004 - 2008 into FosCI sheet v 101 am not sure what % Apr to enter

The amount paid with no Interest is £1613.42

 

Am on I on the right sheet ?

 

I will not now be going for the setaside if Andy says it no good then thats good enough for me !

 

Lloyds in their letter say " this represents a refund of all PPI premiums paid inclusive of Interest plus

simple Intrest @8% for any period where your account was in credit, or from the date of the card being

closed to the date of payment "

 

As your account was passed to recoveries on 07/August 2008 we have calculated your refund to this date.

 

Thats what they say , Im really stressed about this and dont need it so would like to get it sorted , I shall write to them

but I dont think will get much joy with their calculations .

 

Thanks for your time

 

Tonks:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tonks,

 

I've asked Ims to drop in and comment ..............

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropping in as requested.

 

The redress on a credit card should be calculated so as to give you the following...

 

 

1 - A refund of all premiums charged to the card.

 

2 - A refund of all contractual interest associated with those premiums.

 

3 - The account should be reconstructed with the above removed and if that reconstruction shows that for any month the account would have been in credit then 8% simple interest is awarded on that credit balance for that month.

 

Now, in your case it appears that the account was passed to recoveries in 2008 and that is the point when contractual interest would have stopped. So you need to make sure that your claim date in the FosCISheet is set to the date that the account was passed to recoveries.

 

The sheet you are using will not, however, work out the 8% interest. In order to get the reconstruction and the 8% interest worked out you would need all of the statements.

 

When you change the "claim to" date in the sheet you are using, how close is the result to the offer you have been made?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without all of the statements you won't be able to work the 8% out because it involves reconstructing the account to see if and when the account would have gone into credit having removed the PPI.

 

If you haven't got all of the statements then the approach that slick has n=mentioned would be a way forward in that you should demand a full analysis of their offer, premium by premium.

 

When pressed they should supply a print out of the account so that you can see when the account when into credit. From that you can take a view as to whether the 8% is correct.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ims

 

I shall write and ask as Slick suggested , I do have all the statements but dont think I could work it out

bit over my head !!

 

Many thanks

 

Tonks:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...