Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. [if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] .  register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform .  defend all  leave jurisdiction unticked   goto the defence filing section  file the following:     1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).  2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.  . If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. .  3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. .. ..ends..   dx          
    • I passed on the article and link to friend. Between us we will now try get the required info to the correct location so that they (whoever in the Govt) can sort out what he is owed. I will keep you updated.  This thread may help others in similar situations. Ethel Street - very helpful research.  Thank you.  Seems like you came up trumps!
    • numerous erudio/drydens claimform threads here already - use our search top right.   your appears to be statute barred as you've never heard of erudio so would not have deferred since your last direct deferment to SLC in 2013    if you wish to bother to even send CCA/CPR that's upto you but the bottom line is to erudio you've ignored everything to date yoy might also ignore a claimform.   but ofcourse you are not!!   if the above is true   pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. [if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] .  register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform .  defend all  leave jurisdiction unticked   goto the defence filing section  file the following: 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on (insert date).  2 The Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980.  . If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant. .  3 The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £[insert figure from their POC]  or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. .. ..ends..   dx      
    • Well I would want my £50 back also but hey ho if your satisfied its been resolved.....there was no way you could ever be liable anyway as your contract was with TC not RC.   Thread title updated.   Andy
    • Have you not already served a CPR 31.14 ?   You dont request the agreement by way of a CPR 31.14 you use a CCA (section 78) request which you have already done and they have not complied.Therefore they remain in default of your request and unable to enforce the agreement.   Screen shots of the application/sign up are not compliant with a Section 78 request.
  • Our picks

freakyleaky

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

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3469 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

have a look at

 

The “reasonableness” test

 

downwards

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

 

You've actually linked to the section that deals with the amendments for Scotland.

 

Here is the link to the area regards the reasonableness test for England

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

 

 

Notably:

 

SCHEDULE 2

“Guidelines” for Application of Reasonableness Test

 

The matters to which regard is to be had in particular for the purposes of sections 6(3), 7(3) and (4), 20 and 21 are any of the following which appear to be relevant—

(a)the strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, taking into account (among other things) alternative means by which the customer’s requirements could have been met;

The massive imbalance of power of the parties to the contract, plus our total inability to change or alter the terms, plus the fact that there were no alternative providers offering more favorable terms

(b)whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having a similar term;A promise of "free" banking as inducement, the insistence in some circumstances that loans or mortgages would only be provided if the account was opened, no better alternative terms with other providers

©whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and the estent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);The customer did not have knowledge at the time the contract was agreed upon; that the other parties response to the customers breaking or other failure to adhere to the term were in fact potentially unlawful (regardless of whether or not the customer had already experienced such actions in prior dealings with the OP, or that indeed it was common practice in that trade), nor did they know the full estent and implications of the term, including how any response could be be for ever made increasingly detrimental, and also that such terms could also just be unilaterally changed by the other party.

(d)where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some conditionwas not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;N/A

(e)whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.N/A

 

PM

Edited by photoman
potentially libelous word removed

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

ARE YOU A BUSINESS CLAIMANT?

 

CAG NOW HAVE A BUSINESS CLAIMS FORUM !

GO HERE !

 

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOUR LOOKING FOR?

 

Look here.

Got your old T&C's ?

Visit this thread to help others.

 

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

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well spoted so i have.

 

We could also say under no circumstances were we offerd the chance to change the level of the fees. This in effect becomes a take it or leave it clause. Which massively effects our ability to alter the terms of conditions.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that as the court has ruled that the UCTA does apply then the banks new & exorbitant charging structure may well be open to challenge on the grounds of there reasonableness de ja vue;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon you are starting to sound like the bank. (no offence)

 

The courts have not ruled on the UCTA 1977 act.

The courts ruled on the UTCC Act.

 

Which is why there is all of this discussion on this thread.

 

Josh


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok typo But my comment remains the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Typo' on THREE letters of a 4-lettered acronym JC??...:confused:

...:p


The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

Blessed is he who in the name of charity and goodwill shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children.

And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers.

And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

(Jules Winnfield)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah & your point is what precisely??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and also it's déjà vu :p

  • Haha 1

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

ARE YOU A BUSINESS CLAIMANT?

 

CAG NOW HAVE A BUSINESS CLAIMS FORUM !

GO HERE !

 

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOUR LOOKING FOR?

 

Look here.

Got your old T&C's ?

Visit this thread to help others.

 

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

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extracts from the judgement (which can be found here )

 

 

 

The Relevant Terms and Relevant Charges are being challenged on two fronts: the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) is investigating under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “1999 Regulations”) the fairness of the terms under which banks make such charges, and cases have been brought by individual customers in county courts disputing charges levied by banks, many of them relying not only on the 1999

 

The OFT identifies four basic categories of Relevant Charges about which it is concerned: Unpaid Item Charges; Paid Item Charges; Overdraft Excess Charges; and Guaranteed Paid Item Charges. An Unpaid Item Charge is, as the OFT pleads, “levied when the customer gives an instruction for payment or, in some cases at least, withdrawal, that the bank declines to honour because the customer does not have sufficient funds in his account” or, I would add here and in relation to other charges, an arranged facility which covers it. A Paid Item Charge is “levied when the customer gives an instruction for payment or, in some cases at least, withdrawal, for which he has insufficient funds in his account and which the bank honours”. An Overdraft Excess Charge is “levied if, during a specified period (typically a day or a month) … an account is and/or goes overdrawn (and there is no overdraft facility), or… the debit balance is and/or goes above the limit on an existing overdraft facility, and in both cases irrespective of the reason why the excess has occurred”. A Guaranteed Paid Item Charge refers to a charge distinct from a Paid Item Charge which some of the Banks levy when they honour “in accordance with the guarantee, a cheque issued in conjunction with a cheque guarantee card (or, in the case of some banks, a debit card payment made under a guaranteed debit payment system) for which the customer does not have sufficient funds”.

 

Unpaid item charge It is part of the direct debit guartee the bank must hounor these transactions.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it does nt make the guartee could this be construed as libelous action

patrickq1


http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone any insider news about Thursday ????? any appeals etc????


Only direct action by the masses will work....

 

Look at all successes they have never come from negotiation!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah fergal ........................... the Judge is gonna av' digestive wiv is tea:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone think they wouldn't fight on ................ If they did more fool them then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a new article (edit: the BBC one, I meant, I was typing at the same time as everyone else), it's the same one that they published after the result of the case, they just have tweaked it to say "thursday" instead of "May 22nd". Sloppy journalism, that. :rolleyes:

 

I have a feeling the banks may not appeal, you know. At the moment, they are sitting on a judgment which means that they come under the umbrella of the OFT, but that their charges are not penalties. An appeal could leave them wide open to have that second part challenged, and they stand to lose a lot more should the appeal court find against them on the latter than leaving it at the current status quo.

 

On the other hand, the temptation to drag their feet for a good few more months by appealing must be incredible... :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think more & more that this action was instigated merely to stop any further compensation payments being made to consumers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good to hear from you bookworm i always appreciate your advice - roll on tomorrow so we will know what the next deadline will be

linda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, but don't take it as gospel, it is just my personal musings, I don't know one way or another!!! After all, I was pretty sure the charges were penalties and yet the judge disagrees, so what do I know? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear from the BBC website that the banks are likely to appeal.

 

It was highly likely I suppose, but we won't now for sure till tomorrow.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks may challenge charges case


 

 

RBS Account 1: Won

RBS Account 2: Won

Capital One: Won

Capital One (Wifes Card): Won

RBS Account 2, round 2: Won

RBS PPI: Won

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See Bookie's earlier post.

 

 

That's not a new article (edit: the BBC one, I meant, I was typing at the same time as everyone else), it's the same one that they published after the result of the case, they just have tweaked it to say "thursday" instead of "May 22nd". Sloppy journalism, that. :rolleyes:

 

I have a feeling the banks may not appeal, you know. At the moment, they are sitting on a judgment which means that they come under the umbrella of the OFT, but that their charges are not penalties. An appeal could leave them wide open to have that second part challenged, and they stand to lose a lot more should the appeal court find against them on the latter than leaving it at the current status quo.

 

On the other hand, the temptation to drag their feet for a good few more months by appealing must be incredible... :razz:


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

ARE YOU A BUSINESS CLAIMANT?

 

CAG NOW HAVE A BUSINESS CLAIMS FORUM !

GO HERE !

 

CAN'T FIND WHAT YOUR LOOKING FOR?

 

Look here.

Got your old T&C's ?

Visit this thread to help others.

 

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

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i myself am wondering what they will do, after nearly a year of no action hbos removed all adverse information from my credit file 2 weeks ago,which was part of my poc,the case was stayed like all the rest, so i cannot figure out why they would do this when credit files seem so important to them.but then again i think i have given up trying to second guess the banks.:rolleyes:

 

voyager9


nationwide settled in full 7/06/2007

 

yorkshire bank settled in full 15/06/2007

 

capital one filed at court 06/06/2007 acknowledged 15/6 defence received 30/6 AQ sent 2/7 with application for summary judgement--hearing date 18 sept foe defence to be struck out

 

cahoot filed at court 25/06/2007 to acknowledge default judgement granted 27/06###won###settled in full

 

HBOS filed at court acknowledged 20/06/2007 default judgement granted 16th july so won

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

voyager It could be that the bank is tidying up the barn

 

By that I mean they could be getting rid of all those reasons a consumer might have to continue litigation which they might win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big picture in relation to direcit debit charges is that the banks have a duty to hounor the direct debit.

 

Its called a direct debit Guarntee.

 

They dont hounor it they charge you instead.


"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone from CAG planning to attend the CMC tomorrow.

 

It would be great to have an on the ball, on the spot reporter to pass information back as it happens!

 

What about you Bookworm, are you planning to be there?

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...