Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sorry I meant credit fix - I really wish I'd known this before - kicking myself right now  If they come back to me asking for more money I'll cancel it and start trying to deal with the debt myself let's see what they say  Feeling tempted to cancel it now but scared that some of the debts will do more CCJ's on me and I'll have to wait 6 years again.  2 of the CCJ come of this year and then I'll only have the iva in credit file - effectively if I'd have not took out the iva in 2021 I'd have clear score by now - but then again would I because I would have been hounded the last 3 years, as bad as it is it's saves me lots of headaches whilst my debt was still within the 6 year mark.  I think most of them are near there but in all honesty no point chasing them if I do cancel iva I'd jjst wait for the ones who contact me and then start the relevant letter process on them.  Of over 6 years easy if not still possible to write off. My true victory would be having the iva wiped off my credit file as mis sold or something that way I Don't have to wait till 2027 Other option is to fight back and ask for them to offer the creditors to accept payments so far and use the following method    Will your IVA firm agree to complete your IVA on the basic of funds paid to date? The Guidance lists a lot of factors to be considered in deciding whether a settlement on the basis of funds paid to date should be proposed. You should read the list. But that may not give you any feel for whether they apply to you or not. The following are my thoughts on when an IVA should be treated as settled, not failed. They assume that you have £75 or less to pay a month: if you would currently qualify for a Debt Relief Order, then your IVA should be settled now  There is no point in making your IVA fail and you have to apply for a DRO – it will not generate another penny for your creditors. If you are renting and owe less than £50,000, check the DRO criteria now and talk to National Debtline on 0808 808 4000 about whether you qualify. You may have been told at the start of your IVA that you aren’t eligible – still check now as the DRO criteria have changed, your situation has got worse, and some people were given incorrect information about DROs at the start. if you have no assets that would be realised in bankruptcy (eg a house with equity, car worth over £2000), then your IVA should be settled now Same as (1), there is no point in making you apply for bankruptcy after your IVA fails. if your only asset is a car that is worth less than £8000, then your IVA should be settled now A car that is worth say £5000 would normally be sold in bankruptcy and you would be given a small amount to buy a cheaper car. But your creditors would not get any benefit from this as the Insolvency Service takes the first £8000 raised to cover its own costs. if you have significant assets, the closer you are to the end of the IVA, the less reasonable it is to fail it If you have been paying your IVA for 4 years, you have done your best over a long period. It isn’t your fault you can no longer continue. The fact you may have had equity to release isn’t relevant as that simply isn’t going to be possible. if your situation will clearly improve soon, then it’s unlikely your IVA will be settled I mean real improvements, not hoping that prices fall. If I can get them to accept payment to date or threaten with cancellation hopefully they may accept it -  Other option is to try and borrow money and pay make a full and final offer  Or I can just ignore and hope for the best which I'm very tempted to do especially if they respond to my review with bullying tactics despite me being skint as a fart with no mortgage as renting  It's so stressful but I've just checked the iva agreement from 2021 and it's Cabot 2 accounts Lowell about 5 accounts and then lots of repeats of the same debt with for example zopa and Cabot same amount listed twice -  also loyyds banks but I'm sure that's older than 6 years and not on credit file anyway  If I can somehow remove the iva from my credit file I'd be happy 
    • India has one of the world's fastest growing economies but the benefits are yet to fully reach the poorest.View the full article
  • 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 5029 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

ANDENA

 

I think this is your thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/118338-can-i-get-interest.html

 

Which is in the HSBC forum. I'm going to move yout last post (#206) there so that the HSBC bods can help you out. (Bear with me, I've not done this before :))

 

(ps Thanks star scream)

 

(pps - done it. Whew)

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also dont understand why failing to comply with t and c is not a breach of contract.
You and me both. Also, remember that this only applies to current T&Cs which have been carefully crafted to engender this very confusion.

 

I have some old NatWest ones that say "You must keep your account in credit" - a charge based on that has to be a penalty!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt the OFT will come up with some amount (my bet is £12 :rolleyes:) that they will use as a trigger for taking action (like the supposedly do for credit cards) and say that is for a court to decide what actually is fair. As 'fairness' will depend on whatthe banks' costs are in real life and as there is no way they will want to divulge this information, we could end up back where we started (business as usual but with more emphasis on UTCCR1999 and less on contract penalties) - at least for personal accounts.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OFT and the Judge are not unwise to these events and I am sure that neither party will allow a deal to be done that allows the banks to avoid future regulation on their charging regimes.post_thanks.gif
I sincererly hope you are right

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jansus, I think 'profitable' is the wrong word here (post #545). What the paragraph means is simply that, because you may get interest in court but won't via the FOS, you will get more money if you claim in court.

 

CI has been contentious (I think less so since the Sempra case, as that gives authority for claiming it) but, again, it is not profit. It is awarded in restitution - ie to put things back as they wuold have been if charges had not been unlawfully applied.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a presumption that they are unlawful - the case says they must pass te fairness test - we say there is not a cat in hell'#s chance - ergo, they are unlawfull.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Actually, it may not be as bad as you think. It has opened the way for " business as usual" on CAG. All we do is claim under s5 of the UTCCR 1999 and otherwise go back to how we were 2 years ago. Waiver is lifted. Courts are open. Off we go!!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"we are not saying charges are fair, but we care saying you cant use this clause to prove it. Use this one instead.
I dont thank this is tongue in cheek, I think it is a pretty fair summary of the position.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...