Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called  “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason  , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel  if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ………..
    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. 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 October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. 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.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
  • 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 3421 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

IMHO I think the Judge should just ask the banks to declare their true costs to avoid any more time wasting and use his Judgements based on the facts they present to him and inform that either the amount should be reduced to £? or all refunds should be given back to the consumer until the OFT & the Banks can come to some resolve on the issue no more monies can be collected from the consumer until a fair and just amount is in proportion to their true costs!!

  • Haha 1

Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How has he concluded Nationwide aren't penalties - wasn't it Nationwide unless my mind has gone that admitted they were and the QC had to say their leaflet was wrong?

 

ANSWER

The OFT issued the banks with a list of terms to which the banks had to respond. Only two did, one of which was Nationwide and the OFt have concluded that none of Nationwides terms either present or historical can be deemed penaltys under common law. Its not a judgement I think just an indication of what the OFT have found - so UTCCR only for Nationwide.


Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

start_quote_rb.gif We are facing a lot of litigants who have not had their claims struck out and who should be in a position to pursue their claims end_quote_rb.gif

 

 

Justice Andrew Smith

 

 

I hope that the county courts staying cases take this onboard!


If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Oh that's a new spin then, so that's an OFT judgment not a Smithy Judgment.

 

In that case I'd say Nationwiders can still use penalties, but need to be prepared to argue against the OFT decision - keep it on track of, easy to sort out - disclose your costs. But that definitely means now for Nationwide T&C's are needed and the appropriate bits highlighted properly.

 

Then again I do like straws! lol


Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News from the CMC (OFT v Banks

 

yep I'd agree with you....need to have a look at the T&Cs from nationwide. Like I said will try clarify at next break. and no its not a ''judgement''.

 

Answer

 

nice one.

 

Just wish the OFT had appealed the penalty aspects, but they aren't interested in those at all are they.

 

The good thing is, it's already been said the Judgment on Penalties for current terms can be ignored because it flies 'so' in the face of history it's unbelievable.

 

But Smithy finding that they can be looked at under UTCCR because they aren't 'really' service fees, coupled with the OFT's disinterest in penalties means 'we' can if you are up for the argument, still forge ahead on penalty issue it just would be a more convoluted argument in Court now and not as simple as befire.


Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The blasted OFT are complicit in delaying things after all

 

It starts to feel that way. Surely it would be for the judge to decide?

 

If charge - cost = profit, then it's unfair.

 

I'd personally wet myself if the OFT came back and quoted £0.09 :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TC has worked backwards to be fair. Historicals should've been dealt with first, then current but it's gone the other way nicely for the banks.

 

With the ruling on historicals still to come 7/8 July, I'm not sure the stays will be lifted unless Smith has spotted something he can genuine slip out. If he does it will be based on the fact he's found the current terms open to UTCCR and therefore it's assumed by all, even the banks, that ruling will pass to historicals. So stays could be lifted on that basis - even if elements dealing with penalties for historicals are still held over for TC Judgment.

 

The Courts can proceed on some issues and not others should they wish. And we all know, lift the stay, set a trial date IN BULK and the banks will settle again.

 

CMC is scheduled for today AND tomorrow. Hopefully by close today we'll know roughly what's on the billing for tomorrow.


Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks) OK Proceedings have finished for the day and we are back at the Bunker.

 

Here is a summary of the key points from todays CMC

 

Banks are appealing against judgement regarding UTCRR 1999 issues

 

OFT are not appealing Penalty charge aspects for current terms

 

OFT will decide tonight and advise Judge tomorrow if they will be appealing the PIL judgment for current terms.

 

The official applications regarding the appeals will be heard tomorrow.

 

Judge will hand down declarations regarding historic terms ( inc basic accounts ) at the CMC to be held on 7th/8th July.

Banks and OFT have basically agreed that UTCCR judgment will be carried over to historic terms and the OFT tried to suggest to the Judge that he should accept that agreement, however Judge wishes to do this properly so as to give correct guidance to County Courts ( basically in his own words - how can he be expected to make a judgment on something that he hasnt read or listened to arguments on ). However, he felt it likely that his view would be in line with that supposedly agreed between Banks and OFT.

With regards to Penalty charge aspects in relation to historic terms. OFT have produced an updated version of G1 and G2 annexes, taking into account initial judgment and issued this to the Banks yesterday. OFT are still working on this list and will continue discussion with Banks and submit final list to Court on 5th June. This list will determine which of the original terms the OFT identified as possibly being Penalties are no longer such ( as a result of the initial judgment ) and terms which the OFT still consider are penaltys. The list will include reasons and the OFT hope that this will be of assistance to the Judge.

 

Judge wishes to handle both the Penal aspects and the UTCCR aspects in relation to the historic terms together , in one exercise at the meeting on 7th/8th July.

 

More to follow


Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate being a wet blanket about this but I think we are all jumping the gun a bit

 

We need to remember the banks utter determination to hang onto the huge profits generated by penalty charges. As we have seen already they will go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the status quo

 

Even though the Judge has on some points refused leave to appeal that doesn't mean they won't attempt it & if granted delaying matters even further much beyond the July ruling.

 

Remember they have very deep pockets & they are fighting to hang on to a lot of our money so even if they can only delay the inevitable it's worth it to them in penalty fees alone which they will no doubt amass between now & it's conclusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OFT should rule that the banks charge should be £2 per item, I cant believe how unsurpportive they have been to us all.

 

They seem weak and unable to get the information from the banks that they require. I agree that the judge should ask them to present direct costs for these charges and a breakdown of how they arrive at them, this for me is the key issue and something the banks have never been able to provide to us!!!!

 

It makes me mad that we are having to wait a further 2 months just to see the appeal granted or not! Come on OFT it obvious what you need to do!!!:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please remember that in the City the OFT run with both the Hare & the Hounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as you bring common law into the sittuation they go hmmm errr hummmm eeeerrr uuuuu. Then you never get anything else apart from are you insane?

 

Common law statute law tort law they all are laws and must be upheld. If they are not then what is the point?


"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

The OFT should go for it now by setting a date to reveal the result of its investigation. OFT is dittering on this matter. It has had more than one year to come up with something. Surely, they should be aware that is more than enough time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it wouldnt surpirse me if the OFT case collapses now. Talk about being spineless and toothless..


27th April - Requested Statements

13th May - Received Statements:D

15th May - Preliminary request for £4780 sent.:D

16th May - Royal Mail confirm Letter received.:D

23rd May - Received Letter considering claim. :grin:

30th May - Letter Before Action sent. :D

10th July - Times Up!! FOS claim going in.

16th July - Measly 30% of claim offered as goodwill

17th July - Rejected offer letter sent

25th July - Acknowledgement of Reject Letter received

26th July - Screwed over by the OFT,Banks, FSA & FOS all in one go.:evil:

Never even felt it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadline set on bank charges case, BBC: 22/5/08

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Deadline set on bank charges case

 

 

"A High Court hearing to decide the fairness of bank overdraft charges will now start before the end of the year.

The Office of Fair Trading and eight banks agreed the timetable under pressure from a High Court judge.

Earlier, Mr Justice Andrew Smith allowed the banks to appeal against his first ruling last month that the OFT has jurisdiction over the charges. If that appeal is successful, then any separate decision on fairness would be made redundant."


Any advice given by me is based solely on my experience in claiming, my experience in CAG or my opinion. I have no legal background. I want to encourage others to reclaim what is theirs.

 

Got a DCA breaking OFT guidance. Complain to the OFT about the DCA. Help put an end to these practices-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/letter-templates/155095-complain-oft-about-unfair.html#post1652270

 

Register with CAG today, its free, its a great community:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/register.php

 

kennythecelt@consumeractiongroup.co.uk.

 

 

 

Thankyou Kennythecelt:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok everyone I must inform you that all post that I have pasted in here are from L E G A L B E A G L E S ON BEHALF OF AMETHYST. I did try to post the links but for reason they are not allowed in this forum. I just want to make clear I have been keeping you updated through sources of another website. Our very kind regards and thanks to Amethyst and all the others on the forum who have been allowing us to use the information they have posted in order for me to able to update you all with information to use at your discretion.

 

Ladidi

  • Haha 1

Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, 16:33:PM this post was posted by BUDGIE on LB site

 

VIP Member

Golden Retriever

 

Join Date: Jul 2007

Posts: 253

Thanks: 74

Thanked 180 Times in 77 Posts

My Mood:

 

 

 

 

 

 

icon1.gif Re: News from the CMC (OFT v Banks)

Continued.............

 

The judge expressed on several occasions that he was unhappy at the potential delays and uncertainty with regards to timescales as already reported in Ame's earlier posts. Before lunch he had requested that the OFT provide a more definite indication as to when they might expect to produce their PCA report and to progress further with the Banks on the fairness issues.

 

The Judge, during an exchange between himself and Malik ( Abbey QC ) hinted that a injunctive remedy may be applicable for people with stayed County Court claims who are still having charges applied to their accounts. More information to follow once we receive transcripts.

 

After Lunch the OFT QC, Richard Coleman reported that it is the OFT's intention to engage seriously with the Banks on the issues of fairness after the CMC on 7th / 8th July. If no disagreement with the Banks then the OFT would hope to be able to come back to the Courts in the period between October and Xmas having identified certain aspects requiring decision by the courts. This was obvioulsy still very vague although slighty more informative than the response given before Lunch. Obviously this all depends on how the appeal proceeds with respect to the original UTCCR judgment.

 

The FSA representative was also not very happy with the lack of information supplied by the OFT. They were expecting more discussion to have taken place at the CMC with regards to Phase 2 ( the hearings to argue whether terms are actually unfair or not ). The FSA were certainly expecting more definitive timelines to have been agreed and had been disapointed by the OFT's response before lunch. The FSA said that matters were now a little clearer however they did expect matters to proceed with the utmost expediency and wanted markers put down.

 

Our Comment - We found it quite remarkable that the FSA have actually been put in a postition that they are compalining about progress ( or lack of it ) being made by the OFT.

 

The Judge indicated that it might be necessary to hold an additional CMC towards the end of July if it proved not possible to lay down a firm timetable going forward at the CMC already organised for 7th / 8th July.

 

Apparantley the OFT and the Banks had agreed prior to the CMC that a judgment / declaration would not be required in relation to PIL for historic terms. However this may change if the OFT decide overnight to appeal the original PIL judgment.

 

At the end of todays events the Judge made an announcement regarding stayed County Court Claims.

He said " Regarding claims that have been stayed, pending guidance from this litigation, at each stage I have been considering whether this has changed. The reasons that those actions should not recede seem as strong as they were and will remain so until any appeal by the Banks regarding UTCRR 1999 has been resolved."

 

but hope that it gives people an insight in the meantime. ( Apologies for spelling mistakes above )


Ladidi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Ladidi for bringing the news to Cag users, I am sure they will appreciate it. Enaid x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes thanks very much

 

good reporting


Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, thank you Ladidi


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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Methinks someone types slower than even I do...:rolleyes:

...Just get on with it Ladidi...Does it REALLY matter WHO/WHERE the info comes from??...:confused:

It's the 'little peeps' Vs the M.I.B. @ the end of the day...:cool:

...:)


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

well done Ladidi you are doing really well.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does matter who's given credit

 

Budgie has put a great deal of time & effort into this & it's only right they be given credit. Anyone passing off someones else's endeavours, even inadvertently, as their own is open to criticism & charges of plagiarism

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deadline set on bank charges case, BBC: 22/5/08

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Deadline set on bank charges case

 

 

"A High Court hearing to decide the fairness of bank overdraft charges will now start before the end of the year.

The Office of Fair Trading and eight banks agreed the timetable under pressure from a High Court judge.

Earlier, Mr Justice Andrew Smith allowed the banks to appeal against his first ruling last month that the OFT has jurisdiction over the charges. If that appeal is successful, then any separate decision on fairness would be made redundant."

 

?????? sounds like good journalism :mad: Did this guy even read the b****ng judgement? It certainly didn't give the OFT jurisdiction over charges, it gave the OFT jurisdiction to apply to the court if it considers the charges are unfair, in which case the court will consider it, after a long long wait.

 

And, why the heck are the OFT not appealing the penalty chage angle? Madness,


i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

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...