Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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
  • Recommended Topics

Bank of Scotland - Default Removal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5588 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

Can anyone help me?

 

Found out today by getting my credit file from Experian that there are three defaults recorded against me. Two of these defaults are the same debt - one relates to an overdraft from the Bank of Scotland and this debt has also been registered by Lowell for the same amount.

 

All three of the defaults are for two current accounts I had with Bank of Scotland (a few years ago now closed) they are recorded as:

 

Default 1

Bank of Scotland £417 (was £1498 I made payments to clear) 16/11/05

 

Default 2

Bank of Scotland £184 16/11/05

 

Default 3

Lowell Financial £184 15/12/05

 

I’m planning on claiming back all my charges from the Bank of Scotland for these two current accounts and have sent a request asking for the statements and a copy of my original contract as this site recommends. I followed the template letters sent of the two postal orders for £10 (still waiting it is early days) I have also sent a request to Lowell inclosing £1 and asking them to prove their claim to the debt (copied template from here)

 

I have been reading a lot recently how because of the OFT, banks are refusing to get into litigation until the OFT have made a firm decision as to the practices and refunds of money owing. Indeed some County Courts are refusing to accept small claim actions because of the backlog until a decision has been reached.

 

It is far more important for me to get these defaults removed, I’d happily pay the money owing if that’s what it took, (But there isn’t a guarantee they’d remove them is there?) I can claim back all charges anyway once things have been made more clear.

 

What is my best course of action, force the banks to:

a) Give me my statements for the last 6 years, make a claim for the charges and demand that the default be removed as it was because of the charges that these debts occurred in the first place?

b) Negotiate with the bank to remove them now if I pay what’s owing?

c) I didn’t get any default notices and try and get the bank to remove these unlawful and undefended entries?

 

All advice would be welcome.

 

G :) (thanks)

Edited by gymguy

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard back today from lowell advising me that bank current accounts aren't covered so pay up!

 

What can i do. Should i pay and negociate the default removal, not sure they are authroised to chase this debt.

 

Anyone help?

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...

Hey Wanted some advice can mods or experienced help please?

 

HAD 2 current accounts with the Bank of Scotland. Both account closed the bank has recorded defaults against me for £495 and £183.

 

Offered to pay both amounts if defaults were removed they refused.

 

I followed advice of this site and issued S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) on the bank, I maintain that the amounts owed were the result of unfair and unauthorised charges.

 

I have had my statements back for the last six years from the bank, astounded I have gone through them followed the advice here, asked them to refund my charges totally some £9k including the interest.

 

Their defence rested on the OFT's stay and they said they also wouldn't remove the defaults as they were for account conduct and not money owing. How would I know this as I have never at at time recieved any default documentation, despite me asking them several times to provide it.They maintain that as a customer I don't have a legal right to have sight of the default notices.

 

Today I have sent off my claim to the County Court so I'm in the queue ready if the OFT ever get their act together.

 

In the meantime I want the defaults removed. I have served on their data controller a notice to disist from processing/holding data about me especially in the light that I am no longer a customer. I have also written to the CRAs who true to form side with their 'client' the bank and say that information given to them can not be removed unless the bank agrees....blah blah....blah...

 

Is there anything else left for me to do?

Read a post on here about a Subject Access Request for The Data Protection Act? Anyone know where the template for this is? and who it gets sent to.

 

In an effort to get all cuddly and warm with the bank I even offerred to give up my claim for unfair charges (£9k) if they would remove the defaults. They refused and laughed wishing me luck especially in light of the OFT's stay.

 

Could really use some advice as to my next course of action. Most importantly I want the defaults removed.

 

All advice appreciated. Bank of Scotland if you are reading this post, take my offer and remove the defaults?

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy,

 

I have seen this and already done most of it. The Bank of Scotland refuse to remove the defaults as they maintain they are for account conduct and I maintain that they are excessive and unauthorised charges.They actually recorded on the defaults with nominal financial amounts - so this plays into my belief that these are debts for charges and not account conduct.They have also agreed to 'freeze' these alleged debts until the county claim can go through the courts pending the OFt's decision. They refuse to remove the defaultl in the meantime however.

 

As I've entered into a county court claim for claiming back the charges I'm hoping that the pressure appiled to claim back the £9k in charges will make them re-think the defaults. The OFT stay however has put a serious delay on the process though.

 

I suspect I have to go down the route of a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act. I've read a few threads where this is possible but haven't seen the template. I have searched but in vain.

 

Can anyone point me in the right direction in serving an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) under Data Protection? - As the Bank have unfair, inaccurate and continue to process damaging data about me. Can I serve them in supplying the documentation? (They don't have it as I've never received any)

 

I've asked them several times to supply the true orginal default documentation and they have replied saying they don't have to.

 

All help appreciated.

Edited by gymguy

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

My point exactly Tinkerbell.

 

The defaults they listed on my credit file relate to amounts left when I closed my account - They are alledged debts which Bank of Scotland say I owe (I refuse)

 

They say the defaults they issued were for account conduct and are not realted to these amounts. So why in the default information on my file list the financial amounts? (£490 & £187)

 

Crucially they also refuse to give me sight of the default notices (they said the customer is not entitled to see the notice to make it valid)

 

Wish I could place a default on their corporate credit file for £9k!!!!!

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like you have it all stitched up and the only way to go is Court.

 

Having said that, be weary, though - take a look at my GE (for an example of how things can go wrong) and my Barclays default removal threads (to see how things can go very right) to see what you have coming.

 

Short of testing the water in Court, to see if they will settle, then getting the right Judge on the day of the final hearing, if you get there, there's little else you can do in all honesty.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Car.

 

Are you suggesting that my bank claim for unfair/excssive charges will also get them to remove the defaults? This will have to wait until the OFT decision though surely?

 

OR do I need to serve them seperately in court under the data protection act for removal of the defaults?

 

If so can you point me in the direction of the S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for Data protection Act or help with the formation of the N1 form for the court please?

 

I'm happy to take them court twice, I just want the defaults removing sooner rather than later...

 

G

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are querying the accuracy of the Defaults because of the charges applied, you'd be well advised to wait the outcome of the OFT case - if you issue solely for Default removal based on charges, the case will be stayed, most likely, for the result anyway.

 

On the other hand, if you want Default removal and charges reclaimed, you'd be better off issuing now, where the claim will still be stayed, but you'll be able to recover interest from the date the claim is issued.

 

You won't be able to get the Defaults removed prior to the OFT case outcome, unless you can show they are inaccurate in a way that doesn't involve charges, IMHO.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Car.

 

Good advice.

 

My court application for costs/charges has already gone off, so I'm waiting for notification.

 

G

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

So new strategy.

 

Decided to play nice.

 

I have today written to HBOS asking if they'd remove the defaults from my file IF I pay both outstanding amounts immediately.

 

I know they owe me £9k in unauthorised charges and I'll let the courts decide that one, my application is in and waiting for the OFT finalisation.

 

However there is a small chance that paying up the 'alleged' debt of £600+ will get both defaults removed immeditely, my request was sent 'without prejudice' and I'm not holding my breath. Worth a try I think though.

 

I'll keep you posted. If they refuse It looks as if I will spend a lot more than £600 on legal representation getting this through Data Protection legislation to try and get the unfair and unjust defaults removed.

 

:(

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have followed much of the amazing advice on this site and so far have been successful in removing a CCJ and 1 x default notice.

 

 

Now I am stuck with BofS who in response to my recent request that they send me a true and signed copy of the default notice they issued against me said:

 

"...If I may explain, the fact that you have a charge claim lodged with the bank is not a moot point in this case as the registering of defaults with credit reference agencies is a totally different contingency to a charge claim and any subsequent decision on that aspect. The defaults have been registered on your credit file due to the way the two accounts have been conducted. A customer does not have to have sight of the default notice issed by the bank, what is imperative is that the bank issued it on an account to the address held at the time of the default on the file of the customer..."

 

They won't therefore give me a copy of the default notice they claim that it is all about account conduct even though the default has a financial amount of £498. My position is that the amount owing is 100% made up of excessive and unauthorised penalty charges.

 

I have a claim for £10k with Birmingham County Court for the reclaim of charges. What's my next legal move to get this default (and one other issued by Lowell onbehalf of BofS) removed?

 

All help much appreciated.

 

Gymguy.:-x

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

 

Birmingham County Court sent me through the Allocation Questionaires and I have followed the advice on here and send them off together with the £200 and £35.

 

BofS have issued a template blanket stay which i have objected to (The advice on this site is just so great!)

 

I await to see exactly what Birmingham CC will do now.

 

Would they take my £250 for AQ if they were going to stay the cases?

 

Apart from the £££ I want back I want the defaults removed and BofS haven't conformed to my SAR they sent through the statements but nothing in terms of terms and conditions and default notices.

 

Treid playing nice a recent letter to their CEO responded telling me to get lost. So court it is.

 

Watch this space.

 

G

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whattttttt?????????????? I think legally they should have to sent you a letter informing you that you are about to be defaulted.

 

I further believe that an account cannot be defaulted once you are in dispute - and if filing at court is not in default when is the right moment? (Yes I know - the moment you wrote your 1st letter.) I would ask a site helper to have a look at this thread but I imagine your next move would be to inform the court about this latest move as it has just left me speechless and angry on your behalf. HOW DARE THEY......................

 

Have just sent PM to ssl for you.

Edited by sallysas
addition

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have they added the default AFTER you started your claim? If so as Sally says, they cant do that with the account in dispute.

 

I am giving you an excellent link for you to read. Everything you should need is on there.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legalities/24013-defaults-proposed-method-removal.html

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

No......the default was issued a year before I commenced the claim for charges.(Love it when you get angry though;))

 

The bank have marked the default on my credit file as 'satisfied' although I haven't paid them the £498. In fact the account is in despute and I have paid nothing.

 

They say they won't and can't remove the default as it hasn't been put there for any alleged debt (my claim is the alleged debt is 100% because of account charges) but is due to my account conduct and that they issued the default because of the way I conducted my account. that they are reporting to the finance market at large by using the default as a means of recording my account conduct (In other words do not lend this guy money!)

 

They have marked the default with a financial amount of £498 because that is what they maintain I owe on my overdraft (limit was £2k) I refused to pay saying that the charges they have applied during the last six years they actually owe me NEARLY £6K for this account.

 

I thought a default was for a debt or failing to pay and not for conduct?

 

At no time have I ever received a default notice and they maintain they have sent one. They refuse to supply a copy for me to actually see and have ignored my Data Subject Access Request.It would be very interesting to see what act they have used to actually default against me.

 

As it looks as though my claim for charges in the County Court will be stayed until the OFT pull their finger out, I'm seriously considering following Car2403's line that as this relates to an overdraft and that is covered by the CCA the default (even if they issued one) is unlawful and must be removed.

 

Waiting for them to pay me anything in bank charges could take months and I want to take action for default removal now!

 

:confused:

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Ever felt that the powers that be are biased against you?

 

I have written extensively to the Information Commissioners Office and the FOS.

Today I called to find out where my complaint is in the waiting list to be dealt with. (I orginially wrote to both organisations in July) I was informed today that they currently are experiencing a major backlog of complaints and mine is in a long queue for a case adjudicator to begin reviewing.

 

I am told I could experience a delay of up to a year before they will get to my case! A YEAR - this cannot be right can it?

 

It looks now as if the courts are the only speedy resolve in getting my data protection and CCA issues heard. Both the Information Commissioners Office and the FOS have told me if I commence legal proceedings then they won't be able to look at my complaints (like I'm really going to wait a whole year)is the courts system as slow?

 

This cannot be fair and equitable can it? It seems totally biased towards the financial institutions.

 

How long have you guys been waiting?

 

:mad::confused:

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I have two cases against BofS one has been allocated to the small claims track and is to be heard in November (Good)

 

The other is over the £5k threshold and although the BofS applied for a stay pending OFT decision I objected and won and I also asked that this case be taken through the small claims court despite the amount as it is the same as my other claim against them - just for more money on the reclaim of bank charges.

 

I have today received a notice that the judge wants a 30 min allocation hearing and I need some help and advice. I have filled in allocation questionaires for both cases previously.

 

What documentation do I need to send out and prepare in advance?

What should my stance be at the hearing? What can I expect?

 

All help much appreciated.

 

Thanks

Edited by gymguy

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Morning,

 

Can anyone help clarify for me or explain what I do next as the order is somewhat vague and I'm a little confused.

 

I have had both of my bank charge claims against my bank stayed by my local county court (who hasn't eh?) Therefore I decided to fight two defaults that are a direct result of excessive bank charges on my overdraft/account. I no longer bank with this bank.

 

The bank cannot produce the default notices or a copy of my original signed agreement.

 

I issued a claim against the bank under the Data Protection Act for immediate removal of the default.

 

Namely: A default and termination of an overdraft agreement which has been completed unlawfully and not within the prescribed form required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

No credit agreement provided that complies with the act, the defendant cannot seek to rely on enforcement in the form of a termination notice. Defualt Notice or other, as a requirement of the CCA 1974

 

The Default issued against the claimant by the defendant is therefore unlawful and inaccurate. The claimant seeks an order for the removal of the default notice and any other prejudicial information from Credit Reference Agencies.

 

The claim was undefended by the bank and I won by default and asked that the court issue a judgement in this regard. Following this they have sent me an order which I am confused about. it reads:

 

Upon considering this matter:

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Claimant must identify the specific date that he wished the court to make an order upon which supporting evidence before the order he seeks under the Data Protection Act can be made.

 

 

So what proof should I send and what is the date they the judge is refering to?

 

Please help.

 

G:confused:

:!:Currently at war with Bank of Scotland and Lowell

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...