Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for that. I will give them till Tuesday. Thanks for your help, very much appreciated. 
    • Ok thanks for that, well spotted and all duly noted. Yes they did eventually submit those docs to me after a second letter advising them I was contacting the ICO to make a formal complaint for failing to comply with an earlier SAR that they brushed off as an "administrative error" or something. When I sent the letter telling them I was in contact with the information commissioner to lodge the complaint, the original PCN etc quickly followed along with their excuse!
    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

A Little Bit Nervous . . . .


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6494 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

Hello,

 

Luckily I still have all my statements from First Direct current account, and to my horror have incurred £694 charges in 18 months! So have read and read and read all the threads (hence why am still up at this time most nights this site is more addictive than BB!) Anyway will be sending the letter before action tomorrow for my money, plus interest, those spreadsheets are fab! I will let you know how I get one but have to admit im very very nervous, I know its just a matter of confidence (which has been beaten out of me by these institutions) and i suppose i will feel better as I do more, everyone on here seems so sassy and in control im just a little bit frightened of getting out of my depth . . . ..

 

 

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Dpa Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

MANY MORE TO COME. . . .

 

THIS IS AN AMAZING SITE THANKS FOR HELPING ME GET THIS FAR THE FOUNDERS SHOULD BE KNIGHTED KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK EVERYONE YOU REALLY ARE HELPING PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR LIVES FOR THE BETTER

PRE LIM SENT TO CAHOOT 20/07/06 - £2905 CHARGES

Data Protection Act SENT TO I.F. 20/07/06

Data Protection Act SENT TO BARCLAYS 20/07/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

at least im not the only one up at this time on this site! thanks 4 your reply. I used the spread sheet with the turquoise boxes on it, i think i have done it right i filled in all my info it says at the top:

DATE PENALTY APPLIEDDETAIL OF PENALTYPENALTY CHARGED8% ON PENALTIESINTEREST DATEINTEREST ON PENALTIES8% ON INTEREST ON PENALTIESTOTALS:691.5048.243.100.25

so from that I assume that at this stage i want £691.50 and £3.10 and then if i go to court i will add on the £48.24 and the 25p. Does it look like ive done it right? I know im getting ahead of myself with this spread sheet but wanted to understand everything as best i could and the only way i understand is to do it if you know what i mean.

hope ive not messed up

 

DPA Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Dpa Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

PRE LIM SENT TO CAHOOT 20/07/06 - £2905 CHARGES

Data Protection Act SENT TO I.F. 20/07/06

Data Protection Act SENT TO BARCLAYS 20/07/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

oopps. that didnt come out too good.

 

DATE PENALTY APPLIED

DETAIL OF PENALTY

PENALTY CHARGED

8% ON PENALTIES

INTEREST DATE

INTEREST ON PENALTIES

8% ON INTEREST ON PENALTIES

TOTALS:

691.50

48.24

3.10

0.25

 

ill try again

DPA Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Dpa Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

 

PRE LIM SENT TO CAHOOT 20/07/06 - £2905 CHARGES

Data Protection Act SENT TO I.F. 20/07/06

Data Protection Act SENT TO BARCLAYS 20/07/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

im gettin mad now

 

basically the top line of the spread sheet with blue boxes reads:

penalty charged £691.5

8% interest on Penalty £48.24

interest on penalties £3.10

8% interest on penalties 25p

 

so i assume i want the £691.5 + £3.10 now and if i have to file for court i them add on the £48.24 + 25p. Is that right?

PRE LIM SENT TO CAHOOT 20/07/06 - £2905 CHARGES

Data Protection Act SENT TO I.F. 20/07/06

Data Protection Act SENT TO BARCLAYS 20/07/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks v much! (feeling a tiny little itty bit chuffed)

PRE LIM SENT TO CAHOOT 20/07/06 - £2905 CHARGES

Data Protection Act SENT TO I.F. 20/07/06

Data Protection Act SENT TO BARCLAYS 20/07/06

Prelim request sent to First Direct £694 + £3.10 interest 18/07/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Hitachi Capital Bank 10/7/06

Data Protection Act Letter sent to Next Directory 10/7/06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...