Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What type of finance is it?   HP, PCP, Loan? They want her to ring so they can bully her into making payments she can't afford...unless she can record her calls then IMHO, I'd keep everything in writing. Is £400 SSP her only income? There's no chance they will justify taking half of that.   Lodge a formal complaint with them ASAP, exhaust it, and then you can escalate it sooner rather than later, ruddy sharks!  
    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
    • Appreciate input Andy, updated: IN THE ******** County Court Claim No. [***] BETWEEN: LC Asset 2 S.A.R.L CLAIMANT AND [***] DEFENDANT ************ _________________________ ________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [***] _________________________ ________ I, [***], being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;     I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in this claim.   1. I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much-reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income as confirmed in the claimant’s witness statement exhibit by way of the Deed of Assignment. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 2. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card agreement between the Defendant and Bank of Scotland plc. Save insofar of any admittance it is accepted that the Defendant has had contractual agreements with Bank of Scotland plc in the past, the Defendant is unaware as to what alleged debt the Claimant refers. The Defendant has not entered any contract with the Claimant. 3. The Defendant requested a copy of the CCA on the 24/12/2022 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order, to which the defendant received a reply from the Claimant dated 06/02/2023. To this date, the Claimant has failed to disclose a valid agreement and proof as per their claim that this is enforceable, that Default Notice and Notice of Assignment were sent to and received by the Defendant, on which their claim relies. The Claimant is put to strict proof to verify and confirm that the exhibit *** is a true copy of the agreement and are the true Terms and Conditions as issued at the time of inception of the online application and execution of the agreement. 4. Point 3 is noted. The Claimant pleads that a default notice has been served upon the defendant as evidenced by Exhibit [***]. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 5. Point 6 is noted and disputed. The Defendant cannot recall ever having received the notice of assignment as evidenced in the exhibit marked ***. The claimant is put to strict proof to verify the service of the above in accordance with s136 and s196 Law of Property Act 1925. 6. Point 11 is noted and disputed. See 3. 7. Point 12 is noted, the Defendant doesn’t recall receiving contact where documentation is provided as per the Claimants obligations under CCA. In addition, the Claimant pleads letters were sent on dates given, yet those are not the letters evidenced in their exhibits *** 8. Point 13 is noted and denied. Claimant is put to strict proof to prove allegations. 9. The Claimant did not provide a true copy of the CCA in response to the Defendants request of 21/12/2022. The Claimant further claims that the documents are sufficient to pursue a Judgement and are therefore copies of original documents in their possession. Conclusion 10. Without the Claimant providing a valid true copy of the executed Credit agreement that complies with the CCA, the Claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt. 11. The Claimant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the Defendant by purchasing bulk debt at a greatly reduced cost and subrogating for the original creditor in trying to recuperate the full amount of the original debt 12. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. On receipt of this claim I could not recall the precise details of the agreement or any debt and sought clarity from the claimant by way of a Section 78 request. The Claimant failed to comply. I can only assume as this was due to the Claimant not having any enforceable documentation and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.   Statement of Truth I, ********, the Defendant, believe the facts stated within this Witness Statement to be true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in it’s truth. Signed: _________________________ _______ Dated: _____________________
    • Morning,  I am hoping someone can help, I am posting on behalf of my friend so I will try and provide as much info as possible.  Due health reasons, she is currently not working and unable to pay her contractual car finance payments. She emailed 247 Money and asked for a 3 month payment holiday, they refused this straight away with no reasons as to why. They have told her that instead she can make a payment of £200. She is currently getting £400+ a month ssp so this is not acceptable. She went back to them and explained she cannot make this payment and they have not offered an alternative plan. Its £200 or she falls into default.  She is now panicking as she does not want her car to be taken away. What options does she have?  Thank you, 
  • 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 5031 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

ukaviator,

 

What this judgement/opinion in the context of EU Law and therefore National Laws of the Member States (irrespective of whether they be implemented or not in relation to the time that it OUGHT to have been implemented within that Member States own domestic laws according to EU Regulations for Implementation) is saying;

 

..Is that, taking 26 and 28 together;

 

...That sometimes in contracts where there exists an unfair term whatever that term may be...the fact that the weaker party/consumer contracts to it ...he is in an EVEN FURTHER impossible position to NOT ONLY dispute that unfair term per se...but when that same contract subjects him/her to the Courts' of ANOTHER 'GEOSPATIAL' JURISDICTION in this instance the seller/commercial businesses' place of business which could be miles away or NOW that we are of one SINGLE MARKET possibly even in another Member State that this very cost of travelling to seek justice in itself could be a heavier and more expensive financial burden than the adverse cost or prejudice the term itself would impose thereby discouraging consumers from taking up the protection that 93/EEC/13 was supposed to provide in the first place and hence resulting in a significant impairment in the rights and obligations of the consumer/weaker contracting party. In other words put another way ACCESS TO JUSTICE would be denied by the inclusion of an unfair ' Geospatial jurisdiction clause'.

 

The answers given at the bottom seem to suggest that National Court's 'of their own motion' would strike out this clause BEFORE the consumer would contest the 'other unfair term'.

 

It appears that National Court's are well aware that this 'Geospatial jurisdiction' clause is just another ruse to deter the weaker party in the weaker bargaining position to bring the case in the first place.

 

And so as long as the National Courts interpret the Directive as far as possible regarding the 'non-jurisdictional' unfair term (the unfair term at the substance of the contract) in accordance with the Treaty's purpose and objectives then THEY should 'have JURISDICTION to 'oust the(Geospatial) jurisdiction clause' without the pleading nor presence of the

weaker party which could be more costly for the above reasons.

 

That is the sense in which I understood from reading above link.....I may be wrong but EU Law is broad and is subject to differing interpretation.However when I studied at University how to interpret this type of law it was to be interpreted in its entire context context and with the application of common sense.

 

How this applies to this thread and what you meant by bringing this up I leave open for further interpretation and contribution from other much well informed cagger

 

Lord Woolf when streamlining the Civil Justice System back in 1996 with regards to Access,Cost,Complexity of the Justice system no doubt was aware of the new directives that were already in existence and against this framework our National Courts already 'OF THEIR OWN MOTION' by way of practice directions and CPR can transfer a case instituted by a claimant from that claimants home town court to a court in the home town of the defendant automatically where that defendant is an individual and the claimant is a financial institution thus overcoming any barrier that distance may cause to defendant in terms of costs especially in claims involving modest sums thereby discouraging the defendant from implementing his rights which was not the purpose for Reform of the Civil Justice Systerm in the first place..ACCESS to Justice for all was one of the fundamental principles.

 

Rgds

 

Means2anend:)

Edited by means2anend
removal of formatting symbols left in main message
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

TheyrCriminals,

I reckon that, even allowing for new pocs, we'll have enough 'meat' to really have a telling effect on the banks. I concur with much earlier statements that the SCOJ has been instrumental in clearing a lot of 'trees' to expose a much larger 'wood'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

s.140A CCA 1974 (amended by the 2006 Act)

 

 

 

The Penalty argument is out of the window, suggest you re-read the posts earlier about that so we aren't repeating info. Essentially, the OFT didn't appeal the issue, so you probably can't bring this in your claim now.

 

 

 

 

Hi Car

 

Not sure how to paste my original post in but........ you've lost me with your response.

 

This was not raising a question of going over old ground regarding historical penalty cases, it was more a back door approach to test the unfair relationship issue by applying S.140

 

How does the bank prove a 'fair price' is set without releasing detailed costs.

 

Must admit its only going to be useful for recent charges (if at all), I included it in my claim back in 2008 ....... then again, I included every argument I could find at the time - optimistic as ever :p, as yet I've seen no defence raised around this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Car

 

Not sure how to paste my original post in but........ you've lost me with your response.

 

Original post;

 

Has anybody tried a different route to test fairness?

 

The penalty action from 2006 won significant refunds on the basis that the banks did not want to defend due to disproportionate charges levied.

 

How can I as an individual ask a district judge to test the fairness of creditor/debtor relationship without all parties being privy to the operating costs, forecast default revenue, number of defaulted accounts, number of delinquent accounts etc etc?

 

I'm sure its privileged info that the banks will contest cannot be brought into evidence, but by doing so they are not allowing a fair test to be brought at hearing.

 

This was not raising a question of going over old ground regarding historical penalty cases, it was more a back door approach to test the unfair relationship issue by applying S.140

 

How does the bank prove a 'fair price' is set without releasing detailed costs.

 

Must admit its only going to be useful for recent charges (if at all), I included it in my claim back in 2008 ....... then again, I included every argument I could find at the time - optimistic as ever :p, as yet I've seen no defence raised around this point.

 

Ah, ok, with you now, but the original post read like the penalty issues were being looked at from a perspective that had already been dealt with.

 

The issue with that argument, is that you'll need to show an unfair relationship that brings about unfair charges being applied, as the price paid (which is what the Courts deem these challenges as :rolleyes:) probably can't be challenged for fairness in that way. Certainly not under the UTCCR, and the CCA arguments are still being prepared/progressed, so that might change, however.

Edited by car2403
  • Haha 1

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is a shame we cannot use the moral argument, after all thats what the financial industry use and back up by many county courts.

 

Seems what is good for one is not good for the other.

 

PF

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont wont to off topic, however.

 

My wife has her own account and i give her money for the month plus she gets child benefits.

 

She paid for some petrol by debit card on 24th resulting in a letter a week later saying she was overdrawn £8.29 resulting in a £22 charge for overdraft which another £22 to be levied if not brought back credit within 5 working days.

 

Now my wife is not very fiscally minded, didnt know she had an overdraft (nor did i) ..... some find of mailshot last year app,

 

I rang up and gave them a hard time and asked to write and explain:

 

 

  • where is the overdraft agreement
  • why did they authorise the card
  • is a charge of £22 fair and ethical .... 256% more than the actual amouot of overdraft.
  • I paid the £50 to bring account back into credit and then discovered that £44 of charges would be applied ... now reduced to £22.

All i can say is bloody hell

 

ST

RBS/Triton - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Moorcroft - Gone way No CCA

RBS/AIC - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Intrum - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Regal - Gone Away

 

Cahoot/Link - CCA in Dispute

 

Capital One - Settled

 

Lloyds Bank - Awaiting Outcome from Supreme Court Hearing.

 

Lloyds Credit Credit - Repayment Plan

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Speedtrip, it isn't fair or ethical. I got charged £22 for being £2.36 overdrawn for five hours. They wouldn't move on it at all.

 

The 'reserve' was brought in and they opted us in. I am not allowed an overdraft, probably because I've got credit card accounts in dispute with them, but I can borrow £250 at £22 a week. This is something I want to include in whatever petition/demonstration we decide on.

 

If I opt out they say I may not be allowed to opt in, and there may be, and have been, times when I have needed that reserve just to survive. It is a wicked charge - just another example of the banks' usury.

 

If you query it you will probably get some nasty little jobsworth in her 20s telling you that if you "choose" to use the facility, you have to pay for it. No-one would "choose" to use it, but some of us need to, and just have to.

 

DD

Link to post
Share on other sites

'Desperate Daniella' - You made me smile however I can add to what you can expect at the other end of the phone.

Standard accounts for HSBC have main services from India (main)/Malaysia/Phillipines. When I explained my problems the gentleman said he would like to clarify some items on my statement and I agreed (back in March now).

He continued, 'Can you tell me what this large amount paid out refers to, it is marked as "Rent"?' I sat in silence as he ran off other things as 'Council Tax', '3 Valleys Water', 'Atlantic Gas', 'Atlantic Electric' and then to top it all, 'Tesco Stores'. I sat in disbelief trying in desperation to hold back my temper. Need I say more?

....this is the average type of person one gets!

 

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

Well i guess who "they are" now.

 

The Call Centre transferred me to Complaints without any explantion so i had to go through the whole story again.

 

I did suggest that if they dont recredit the account then i would like a letter justifying the charge and how its worked out as 256% levy charge on £8.29 is staggering.

 

She explained this service was introduced to pay for essential bills like mortgages so payments arent missed.

 

I pay the mortgage not my wife.

 

ST:(

 

No, Speedtrip, it isn't fair or ethical. I got charged £22 for being £2.36 overdrawn for five hours. They wouldn't move on it at all.

 

The 'reserve' was brought in and they opted us in. I am not allowed an overdraft, probably because I've got credit card accounts in dispute with them, but I can borrow £250 at £22 a week. This is something I want to include in whatever petition/demonstration we decide on.

 

If I opt out they say I may not be allowed to opt in, and there may be, and have been, times when I have needed that reserve just to survive. It is a wicked charge - just another example of the banks' usury.

 

If you query it you will probably get some nasty little jobsworth in her 20s telling you that if you "choose" to use the facility, you have to pay for it. No-one would "choose" to use it, but some of us need to, and just have to.

 

DD

RBS/Triton - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Moorcroft - Gone way No CCA

RBS/AIC - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Intrum - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Regal - Gone Away

 

Cahoot/Link - CCA in Dispute

 

Capital One - Settled

 

Lloyds Bank - Awaiting Outcome from Supreme Court Hearing.

 

Lloyds Credit Credit - Repayment Plan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't they pay for call centre staff in this country?

 

Because the extra they'd have to pay would affect their bonuses!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

 

 

Average anual salary India (this type of work) £ 1500.00 (guess)

Average anual salary UK (this type of work) £15,000.00

 

There was rumour that many Indian call centre staff were rather unhappy at the way they were spoken to by UK customers.:rolleyes: I wonder why?!

 

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

Average anual salary India (this type of work) £ 1500.00 (guess)

Average anual salary UK (this type of work) £15,000.00

 

There was rumour that many Indian call centre staff were rather unhappy at the way they were spoken to by UK customers.:rolleyes: I wonder why?!

 

Michael

 

Very off topic, (;)) but aren't companies bringing this work BACK to the UK due to consumer demands to have UK work based in the UK? :eek:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very off topic, (;)) but aren't companies bringing this work BACK to the UK due to consumer demands to have UK work based in the UK? :eek:

 

 

Yes, way off topic BUT the banks will of course have to increase their charges to compensate if this all goes through! :rolleyes:

 

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

Why can't they pay for call centre staff in this country?

 

Because the extra they'd have to pay would affect their bonuses!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

 

On another note go to www.youtube.com and type in "Bankaid". This is a classic act and you must see it.

 

On a more serious note, you are correct to advise all calls to be logged where banks are concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, Can anyone tell me if any guidance has been issued yet on what to do now?Our cases are with the FOS and we haven't heard either from them or the banks.is the case really dead in the water?

Much obliged x

 

I see that Martyn Lewis on www.moneysavingexpert.co.uk has employed a barrister to study the case. First indications are that the CCA 1974 has a part in it where the banks have to prove fairness on charges but he is saying hold off until this study has been done but information is going to be made available very shortly. They are going to work out template letters as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very off topic, (;)) but aren't companies bringing this work BACK to the UK due to consumer demands to have UK work based in the UK? :eek:

 

 

I would hazard a guess that it's more likely down to security reasons than the banks trying to placate their customers.

 

When have the banking institutes ever put their customers first............... NEVER.

 

I may be wrong and even cynical, but I think that that they are attempting to reduce their fraud liabillities more than anything......... Who knows ?...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any charge that cannot be justified is unfair to the consumer and if this action puts the consumer at a dissadvantage and the only course of action is to take it to court then it can only be termed as an Unfair Term

..I have to reply to banks letter saying their charges are fine, does the above make sense many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibsys

ML and the other campaigning bodies-despite any articles you might have read it is NOT ML playing the Lone Ranger (much as he might like to give that impression on occasion)

 

Whilst I read things, I also cross check things. I see a position which is untenable with the banks and the OFT, the FSA and generally the FOS all in league with each other and the public has been badly let down while the banks sit on everything. I see hardship among people and business and losses due to banks and no automatic protection. Never take anything on first value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I read things, I also cross check things. I see a position which is untenable with the banks and the OFT, the FSA and generally the FOS all in league with each other and the public has been badly let down while the banks sit on everything. I see hardship among people and business and losses due to banks and no automatic protection. Never take anything on first value.

 

Have you read the lending code section 9 re hardship?

.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...