Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I doubt HMCTS holds any data on whether arrests by AEAs required police assistance.  They couldn't or wouldn't provide data on how many of warrants issued were successfully executed - just the number issued!  In my experience, arrest warrants whether with or without bail are [surprisingly] carried out with little or no fuss.  I think it's about how you treat people - a little respect and courtesy goes a long way. If you treat people badly they will react the same way. Occasions when police are called to assist are not common and, having undertaken or managed many thousands of these over the years, I can only recall a handful of occasions when police assistance was necessary. On one occasion, many years ago, I arrested and transported a man from Hampshire to Bristol prison on a committal warrant. It was just me and he was no problem. I didn't know the Bristol area (pre Sat Nav) and he was kind enough to provide directions - seems he knew the prison.  One young chap on another committal warrant jumped out of his back window and I had to chase him across several garden fences.  When he gave up (we were both knackered) I agreed to drive by his girlfriend's house to say farewell for a while.  I gave them a few moments and he was fine. The most difficult are breach warrants but mainly in locating the defendant as they don't want to go back to prison - can't blame them.  These were always dealt with by the police until the Access to Justice Act transferred responsibility from them to the magistrates' courts. The fact was the police did not actively pursue them and generally only executed them when they arrested someone for something else and found they had a breach warrant outstanding.  Hence the transfer of responsibility.
    • thats down to mcol making that option available for you to select, you cant force it. typically if there are known processing delays at northants bulk it will be atleast 14 days later if not more.
    • Thanks   Noting the day to apply for default judgement if necessary
    • nope, as the display model was not the colour the customer wanted. but your question is totally immaterial anyway as custom built doesn't come into it. dx
    • as long as aos is done by day 19 from the date on the claimform they get a total of 33 days to file a defence. (whereby the date top right on the claimform is ONE in the 33 day count) dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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

HSBC default removal??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5782 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

Hi everyone

 

I had an old current account with HSBC, in my credit file that is settled now. I opened the account and I didn’t use it, and I changed an address, and basically forgot to tell them, and also forgot that there was £5 a month account fee that I had to pay, because it was premium account, since I used my overdraft limit, I was withdrawn. The way I found out when I applied for a loan and got rejected then checked my file to see what was the problem?? To my shock that was recorded, I went immediately and paid everything I owed with the overdraft in full last year but this will stay in my record for 6 yrs?? Now do I have a right to get this default removed?? If so in what grounds, I have read a lot in the forum today but I am still confused.

 

 

Any advice I will greatly appreciate it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank accounts are peculiar entities when it comes to defaults.

 

As you didn't have an overdraft agreement, but did go overdrawn, I do still think you can challenge this using the same process.

 

If you want to see what I mean, see my Barclays thread, here;

 

car2403 -v- Barclays Bank (Default removal) (Default removed :p)

 

This is the bit that should interest you, IMHO;

 

Quote:

There's no need for them to send you a Default Notice, as they would have outlined the process required to terminate the agreement when you took it out - that would have been that they would formally demand repayment within 7/14 days and would issue a Termination Notice if you didn't comply.

 

The issue is not whether they have a Termination Notice that was sent to you - that is easily recreated anyway and would be accepted by a Judge, sadly. The issue you need to press them on is whether they have an enforceable agreement. In order to be enforceable, they should have complied with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Briefly, they won't have complied with the requirements of the Act under Part V, s.60/s.61, as that requires a correctly formatted, properly executed credit agreement.

 

What they will do is rely on a Determination made by the OFT under s.74. This allows them to enforce the debt, without an enforceable agreement under Part V, as it exempts overdrafts from those requirements.

 

The issue for the Bank, though, is that the OFT's Determination has "criteria" attached to it that they must comply with to benefit from it - if they don't comply with those criteria, they need an enforceable agreement. We already know they don't have one.

 

The criteria are;

 

The Determination (which is signed by the Director of Fair Trading) is made under section 74(3) of the Act. I set it out in full:

 

"1. Under the powers conferred upon me by s.74(3) and (3A) and s.133 of the Consumer Credit 1974, I, the Director General, being satisfied that it would not be against the public interest to do so, hereby revoke with effect from 1st February 1990 the Determination made by me in respect of Section 74(1)(b) and dated 3 November 1983 and now determine that with effect from 1st February 1990 Section 74(1)(b) shall apply to every debtor-creditor agreement enabling the debtor to overdraw on a current account, under which the creditor is a bank.

2. This Determination is made subject to the following conditions:-

(a) that the creditor shall have informed my Office in writing of his general intention to enter into agreements to which the Determination will apply;

(b) that where there is an agreement between a creditor and a debtor for the granting of credit in the form of an advance on a current account, the debtor shall be informed at the time or before the agreement is concluded:

- of the credit limit, if any,

- of the annual rate of interest and the charges applicable from the time the agreement is concluded and the conditions under which these may be amended,

- of the procedure for terminating the agreement;

and this information shall be confirmed in writing.

© that where a debtor overdraws his current account with the tacit agreement of the creditor and that account remains overdrawn for more than 3 months, the creditor must inform the debtor in writing not later than 7 days after the end of that 3 month period of the annual rate of interest and charges applicable.

3. In this Determination the terms 'creditor' and 'debtor' shall have the meanings assigned to them respectively by Section 189 of [the Act]. The term 'bank' includes the Bank of England and banks within the meaning of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 as amended

 

 

If they can't comply (or have evidence to show they complied) with the parts in red, the debt is unenforceable unless they can produce a correctly executed credit agreement

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...