Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4066 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

Hello everyone,

I am going to claiming back charges from Barclays business account closed in 2005, please let me know if i can claim for any of them below thanks :confused:

 

Overdraft interest

Including Fee

Total Commission

Renewal Fee

Account fee

Unpaid cheq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello everyone,

I am going to claiming back charges from Barclays business account closed in 2005, please let me know if i can claim for any of them below thanks :confused:

 

Overdraft interest

Including Fee

Total Commission

Renewal Fee

Account fee

Unpaid cheq

 

 

 

Until recently, our contention regards business account charges was as such:

 

Overdraft interest - Yes, but only that portion of interest incurred as a result of reclaimable charges. There are spreadsheets available to help calculate this.

Including fee - Possibly ? If the fee was charged due to extending or exceeding your limit due to some item then we argued a certain yes. Otherwise, if your talking about a fee to negotiate or increase an overdraft, the need for which had been brought about over time due to an accumulation of reclaimable charges, then possibly.*

Total Commission - What kind? If for currency conversions, then no. If commission for arranging a loan necessitated by past charges, then possibly*

Account Fee - If it relates to a charge for a returned item, or an overdraft excess charge (either due to an item taking it there, or some charge for returning an item), then yes.

The names and terms used may differ from bank to bank, account to account, and even time to time, but if the effect is the same ie: a charge for exceeding a limit or retuning an item, then this was argued as being an unlawful penalty.

Unpaid cheq - As account fee.

 

* Regards these items, then possibly... although this makes it a more difficult claim and relies upon claiming for consequential losses.

 

 

However.

The current OFT case against the major banks regards personal account charges has currently caused some confusion regards Business account charges claims.

This is because Business accounts do not come under the scope of the UTCCR99 regulations (which is the main battle point and cause for claim in the OFT case for personal current account charges), and so instead had to rely upon common law principles to fight their lawfulness. (ie: by comparing them to precedents set by past similar court cases, then such charges should also be considered as penalties).

However, with what has happened with the OFT case to date, the judge has very strangely so far decided that such charges do not constitute penalties under common law.

This currently leaves business claimants in limbo a bit.

It is not yet sure whether or not this point will be contested or expanded upon, so at present it leaves business claimants at the moment possibly without a cause of action.

Until this is cleared up, or other angles of approach or arguments are devised, then my current advice would be to wait before claiming or submitting anything, and keep an eye on the current case.

In the meantime, use your time to read up on the principles and law, total up your charges and be ready to pounce.


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

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

what if you have a business claim on hold but are going through extreme financial difficulty?? can anything be done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oft waiver agreed between the banks relates to current accounts.

However you may know that the banks have been quick to tell us that some of the decisions made in the test case affect business claims-in particular the common law element of historical charges.

If therefore they are citing this and the banks solicitors are defending stays on the provisio that the test case will hae effects on the outcome of claims including business-then its reasonable to assume that they should apply the same sympathetic approach to all hardship claims.


Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

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...