Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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, 
    • Read these 6 things you can do to be empathetic to other people’s views and perspectives.View the full article
    • Peter Levy says he received a call from someone pretending to be from his bank in February.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

Smile Current Account Charges


TomMcLaren
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6598 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

I have a smile account that I have never really used, that was £480 overdrawn vs a limit of £500. An annual direct debit for £53 was charged to my account in Novemember, which was rejected by Smile. I was charged £20, leading to my account being over my limit for 5 days until I corrected it. However, I was subsequently charged a further £40 (£5 a day for being overdrawn and a £15 "service charge", presumably for the red ink). When these charges were applied this pushed me over my overdraft limit again. I was away at the time and only checked my account today. In the meantime I have been charged £90 in overdraft charges and accrued a further £160 yet to be applied.

 

Outside of how unreasonable the scale of the charges, (******s) I believe that they are not allowed to charge me for the overdraft when it was their charges that caused me to be overdrawn. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stephen

Hi Tom the charges they have applied are penalty charges and therefore in my opinion are illegal. if I was you I send them a letter requesting a refunded of the money within 14 day or your have no alternative but to start legal action.

 

If you want a sample letter to send them, please email me and are send you one I have written. Alternatively, there is one on the forum you can download.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest stephen

Hi, Tom as I just said in my email court should always be the last action. However sadly from my own experience, it is the only action that the banks understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought you might like to know that I received the following reponse today:

 

Hello Mr McLaren

 

As an internet bank we give our customers the responsibility of checking on their account as they have 24 hour access to their access via the internet. Full details are contained in the terms and conditions of your account. I'm sorry I'm unable to refund any of the charges for you as this was not a bank error.

 

Thanks

 

Sarah

 

To which I have replied:

 

Let me clarify the position. The £20 charge for an unpaid item applied 25th November led to my account being £9.80 above my overdraft limit. Despite my deposit of sufficient funds to correct this overdraft, the further £40 charges that you applied for the overdraft that your charge created caused me to incur a further £250 in overdraft fees.

 

I do not dispute the £20 initial charge. However, your application of further charges based on this initial £20 charge is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. As I'm sure you are aware, the schedule to these regulations identifies a disproportionate penalty charge as being unfair and therefore invalid. I request that you refund all charges that have been unfairly applied to my account and ensure that no further charges are made. Furthermore, please state in your reply that it is your final response to my complaint in order that, if required, I may proceed with legal action.

 

That was an abridged version of the original letter I wanted to send, but that breached the 1000 character limit on their online secure messaging system (useless!!), as follows:

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your reply to my enquiry. As you have full access to my account details, I am sure you have investigated my request thoroughly. However, I feel that you may not have understood the sequence of events that occurred and led to charges being applied to my account. Specifically, it was your charge for the unpaid item in October (applied 25th of November) that led to my account being £9.80 above my overdraft limit. Despite the deposit of funds sufficient to bring my account back beneath my limit, the further charges that you applied for this "unautorised overdraft" (£15 service charge and £25 for 5 days"Daily Charge") again pushed my account over my overdraft limit. As I did not correct this until last weekend, I have subsequently been charged £90 in fees, with a further £160 accrued and to be applied on the 20th of this month. I assume that there will be a further charge applied in March.

 

I am fully aware that the fees I have been charged are specified in the terms and conditions of my account. As such, I do not dispute the £20 charge for the refused item. However, your application of this £20 fee to my account has led to the further accrual of £290 in overdraft fees to date. This £290 in charges to date is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in that the charges are unfair. As I am sure that you must be aware, the schedule to these regulations identifies a disproportionate penalty charge as being unfair and therefore invalid. Additionally, Penalty charges are not recoverable at Common Law. Precedents include Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79, along with Murray v. Leisure play [2005] EWCA Civ 963, whereby it was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses.

 

Given the unfair nature of these charges, and the lack of legal basis for their application, please refund all charges that have been unfairly applied to my account and ensure that no further charges are made. If you are not willing to comply with this request, please state in your reply that it is your final response to my complaint, in order that I may proceed with legal action.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

Tom McLaren

 

Thanks for the inspriation Stephen!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Just thought I'd let you know I a response from Smile - they offered to cancel the charges that hadn't been applied as a customer relations exercise - do they not get it?!!! I've stuck to my guns, said "thanks but no thanks and by the way I've cleared all the debt that I have calculated I owe you so please close my account". Got a standard "this is to let you know our complaint policy" reply, so fingers crossed they might actually do something this time!! :roll:

 

BTW - I've decided that once I resolve this I'm going to claim back all prior charges. If it goes to court I'll make it a full charges case...

 

Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites

You shoudn't close your acocunt. Let them do it if they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6598 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...