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.
  • 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

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5071 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

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Alas for the millions still waiting (including myself) it's cold comfort that the HoL decision needs to take so much time and what or why? Notwithstanding the waiver being extended for another 6 months. Hang on was there not something about doctors and the law and who gets these type of jobs? I, for one, rest my case.

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

"9. (1) This direction takes effect on 27 July 2009.

(2) This direction ends on the earlier of:

(a)

26 January 2010; or

(b)

resolution of the test case. For this purpose, resolution occurs when judgment has been entered in relation to all issues in dispute in the test case (including, for the avoidance of doubt, any issues which the Court agrees should in future be introduced into the case by way of amendment or otherwise) and the resulting orders either cannot be the subject of appeal or have not been the subject of appeal in circumstances where the time for doing so has expired, or when proceedings are otherwise discontinued.

However, provisions of this direction that are expressed to continue beyond its termination continue in force in accordance with their terms."

 

The FSA Waiver. Even if the HoL decision is made the waiver will not be revoked since the case is not resolved.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_monthly_0790.pdf

The above is the waiver if you would like to read it and see all the provisions within it.

  • Haha 1

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Tories have said they will scrap the FSA should (when) they come to power, do you think the waiver will outlast the FSA?

 

Depends if you believe the words of a politician looking for votes in an election year?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the Tories have said they will scrap the FSA should (when) they come to power, do you think the waiver will outlast the FSA?

 

Don't believe what you're told - ultimately, a change in name is likely, but the result would probably be the same.

 

A Rose by any other name will still smell as sweet, apparently.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friend of a friend works in branch for Bank of Scotland and she is aware of my views and my membership to CAG. In the beginning we had discussions where the level of 'mis-training' she received really showed, she would argue the usual stuff the banks have spouted.

 

She has seen the light and let me know about a memo that sent to the branch from head office last week.

 

Memo states that regarding the OFT case - NO charges would be refunded until AT LEAST 2012 under their plans for dealing with this case, and they would now be bringing in a policy that they will only refund ONE charge every 3 years.

This the message passed onto me but am trying to get hold of a copy of this to (hopefully with mods permission) post up. At the very least see the details for myself and be sure I am posting accurately.

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dipply if you DO get hold of it & there's no risk to your informant you MUST post it ALL over the web AND send a copy to both the HoL and the OFT with a note avering to it's authenticity

 

Some of the press will love a memo like that also ;-)

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it with that bank and its predeliction for publishing damning memos!!

 

Wrong Bank tinkerbell, I stopped leaking RBS ones when I got sacked ;)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I'm surprised any bank would send such a memo. The normal attitude is simply 'business a susual and we will wait and see'. To prempt serious stuff like that is certainly unprofessional. In fact banks tend to not start 'informing' their staff till the customers know. LOL

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at it this way.

 

Will change come? Yes.

 

Will change come quickly? No.

 

Given that the Tories wont be voted in for at least another year...you just cant go scrapping worthless organisations like the FSA overnight, no matter how much you want to.

 

The reality is that we are at least several years away from the FSA being closed down and the Bank of England taking back all the powers it lost under Gordon Brown (and doing the job they should have been doing for the last 10 years, which should have protected the country from todays depression).

 

Mailman

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say I find that memo deeply suspect. (I don't doubt your friend's honesty.)

 

I think it may refer to the current status quo. If this was in relation to post-House Of Lords ruling if it goes our way, (and let's face it, it can go no other way in reality) then the bank leaves their Directors open to FRAUD and as such would merit the FSA and SFO to investigate and prosecute.

 

Basically all we can do is wait till October I'm afraid guys but and official communique's from the Bank's internal systems would be gratefuklly received. :D

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

I have to say I find that memo deeply suspect. (I don't doubt your friend's honesty.)

 

I think it may refer to the current status quo. If this was in relation to post-House Of Lords ruling if it goes our way, (and let's face it, it can go no other way in reality) then the bank leaves their Directors open to FRAUD and as such would merit the FSA and SFO to investigate and prosecute.

 

Basically all we can do is wait till October I'm afraid guys but and official communique's from the Bank's internal systems would be gratefuklly received. :D

 

I am trying to find out as much as possible so I know I am posting accurately but could this just be an indication of the bank being aware they will be paying out but showing their intent to drag this out even further and confident of another 2/3 year delay (despite their assurances they are not :rolleyes:)

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have to look at the context of this.

 

Clearly they have staff that are seeing news reports, and getting customers reminding them of how badly the case is going for them, such that they are floundering about what to say.

 

This memo will be purely to make sure that the staff at the front line keep to the party line, ie. we are going to win, and even if we don't the matter is likely to drag on for a considerable time yet, so don't expect a refund any time soon.

 

I am guessing that the author of the memo is not even that close to the legal team, and is also just towing the party line and attempting to maintain morale at the front line.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies as I know the relevancy is very loose here, but banks in Australia and New Zealand are also being impacted by overdraft charges, so much so that National Australia Bank and Bank of New Zealand have now opted to stop imposing charges altogether. Apparently this is because of the number of complaints received from customers charged $25 for being a $1 overdrawn.

If only UK banks could see the light....

 

Link

 

PS I read the board often, I just don't contribute as everyone is so much more knowledgeable than me... and apologies again

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...