Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • please dont use hosting sites. copied and attached as per our upload guide. dx  
    • Another update - just had another round of Text messages, Emails and letters. Physical  letters still going to the old address (forwarded by royal mail). All messages were exactly the same as the previous round with threats of CCj's, Attachment of Earnings, Warrant of Execution, Bankruptcy and Charging Order. Seems to be a 2 week pattern of 1 week letter, following week email - texts seem to be a bit more randon, but always over 10 days between each one.  Not sure if IDR are working diligently behind the scenes to recover monies from me,  or are just spamming me in the hope that i stick my head above the parapet
    • Here  (edited for personal information).    Claimform.pdf filed defence.pdf
    • 1. the claim is for sum of 1650£ due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for capital one account with an account reference of xxxx 2. the dependent failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s87(1) of the consumer credit act 1973 which has not been complied with 3. the debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 18-03-21 notice of which has been given to defendant  4. the claim incudes statutory interest under s69 of the county court act 184 at a rate of 8%per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of 132£ the claimant claims the sum of 1782£ 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 7.1PAPDC. 2. The Claimant claims £xxxxxx is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxxxx. 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  pursuant to sec87(1) of the CCA1974; and (c) 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.  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 Should the amount be the figure in the particulars or the final figure with the added fees Should the amount be the figure in the particular or the final amount with fees added
    • post it up here first for checking please 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
  • Recommended Topics

Complaints about the FOS


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3208 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

Didn't take to long for that question to be asked.

 

For the record no I did not used to work for the FOS. I just see the same posts over and over again complaining about the same issue. I thought it was about time that someone attempted to respond to this issue.

 

However, I am begining to wonder what is the point..

 

But dosent the fact that you've seen so many threads about the same thing, hint that there is a problem?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 441
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Exactly, you have said it yourself, the Court not the FOS

 

Insufficient evidence would be decided upon by the CPS not the IPCC !

 

What i said was, the court cannot decide to enforce an unenforcable or missing cca, it is restricted from doing so by law, the same law that the FOS should adhere to but dosent!

 

And yes it is the cps, but again its a point of law, and not decided upon by the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider these posts:

 

Hi

 

Because an agreement is unenforceable it does not mean that the agreement has not been made.

 

Enforceablilty of the agreement would only be an issue if the agreement was defaulted and one of the parties decided to enforce its terms regarding payment or compliance.

 

If the agreement is unenforceable because of a breach it does not mean that you can stop paying.

 

It means tht if you stop paying and the agreement is indeed unenforceable the creditor cannot recover the debt though the court.

 

But if the court does does decide to enforce (and in the case of a temporary failure to deliver a 77 request they will), then all cost interest and charges will be due for the period that payment was withheld.

It makes no difference that the creditor was not complying with the act in that period.

 

If you want to withold payment then you must be prepared to argue your case under section 127 and it is a good idea to be sure of your ground because if you loose and you have withheld payment,you will find that the whole agreement will be enforced that means everything due according to the agreement will be due.

 

Regards

Peter

 

and

 

If I can butt in.

 

If the agreement is not enforceable, it is just that - unenforceable. The debt still exists.

 

A F&F settlemnt means that the debt is satisfied and gone - a much better outcome IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What i said was, the court cannot decide to enforce an unenforcable or missing cca, it is restricted from doing so by law, the same law that the FOS should adhere to but dosent!

 

And yes it is the cps, but again its a point of law, and not decided upon by the court.

 

But the entire point is that the FOS is not a judicial, regulatory or an enforcement body. The FOS can't say what a Court can and can't do.

 

Enforceing an agreement as I understand it relates to the Creditor (either original or by assignement) applying for a Court Order to enforce the terms of an agreement.

 

Therefore, it is for a Court to decide if it will grant a Court order. A Court may be prevented (under s.127). However, this has to be something that is deemed in Court. Not by the FOS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog

 

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog - Times Online

 

A WHISTLEBLOWER has exposed how Britain’s financial watchdog allowed banks to influence the bonuses and career prospects of its staff.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA), which presided over the banking collapse, gave financial institutions a formal role in determining the pay of the very regulators tasked with overseeing them. The disclosure unmasks the cosy relationships created when Gordon Brown swept away the Bank of England’s supervisory role in 1997, paving the way for the excesses of the credit boom to grow unchallenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog

 

Exposed: the banks’ cosy ties to watchdog - Times Online

 

A WHISTLEBLOWER has exposed how Britain’s financial watchdog allowed banks to influence the bonuses and career prospects of its staff.

 

The Financial Services Authority (FSA), which presided over the banking collapse, gave financial institutions a formal role in determining the pay of the very regulators tasked with overseeing them. The disclosure unmasks the cosy relationships created when Gordon Brown swept away the Bank of England’s supervisory role in 1997, paving the way for the excesses of the credit boom to grow unchallenged.

 

This post further proves my point. The FOS is not the FSA. The FOS is also not the industry watchdog or the industry regulator !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the entire point is that the FOS is not a judicial, regulatory or an enforcement body. The FOS can't say what a Court can and can't do. I agree to some extent, but if law prevents courts from deciding something, then the FOS should follow that law, not decide weyher or not they want to!

Enforceing an agreement as I understand it relates to the Creditor (either original or by assignement) applying for a Court Order to enforce the terms of an agreement. Yes I agree, but if no agreement exist or it is not 'just so' then the court cannot make the order, and is up to the creditor to prove the cca is correct or exists.

 

Therefore, it is for a Court to decide if it will grant a Court order. A Court may be prevented (under s.127). However, this has to be something that is deemed in Court. Not by the FOS. It is the cases where s127 applies that I do refer to, and I talk about non existant or clearly unenforceable cca's.

 

 

I read a post, thought it was on this thread, but cant find it now, where the FOS made an award and ordered it paid towards a debt that was in dispute, due to non production of or some problem with a CCA, surely this is in breach of guidelines?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I was once offered a job as a FOS adjudicator. Didn't take it though.

 

This said, I do know a good whack about ADR and have worked in the field for a fair few years now, for a couple of adr services. What S is saying is right. You can not like it, but it is right.

 

It is true that the FOS cannot rule on points of law. Indeed, it is current thinking in ADR that any service should not rule on a point where there is any legal debate. This is the job of the courts. It is also true that adr is not suitable for every claim. Some don't deal with commercial claims, others have certain process restrictions.

 

The courts decide cases on the basis of the law, ADR looks at what it thinks is right and the law is only one consideration. If you have admitted a debt is yours, but are arguing that it is unenforceable due to non compliance with something (a DN for eg) then I doubt you will get anywhere with FOS. Maybe if your adjudicator is really crap you might, but they will probably just look at it and say that the debt is yours, therefore you are liable. The agreement might not be enforceable in court but the FOS is not a court. Therefore the argument is irrelevant from the point of view of FOS.

 

Best way to look at is that the FOS is like a bus - it is great if you want to go to where the bus stop is, ok if you are going in the general direction but fairly rubbish if you live in the middle of a moor; it is generally ok for many folk, but not all.

 

I do however agree that generally the competence of your adr service is dependent on the quality of your adjudicator. FOS have so many adjudicators and the starting salary is fairly low so miy instinct is that there might be some issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post further proves my point. The FOS is not the FSA. The FOS is also not the industry watchdog or the industry regulator !!

 

My post is not aimed at you. I have no interest whatsoever in your inane ramblings. The post was made to show that if the regulator cannot be trusted why should the adjudicator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..

 

Therefore, it is for a Court to decide if it will grant a Court order. A Court may be prevented (under s.127). However, this has to be something that is deemed in Court. Not by the FOS

 

I understand where Suetonius is coming from 'in part'. Trying to let folks know that the FOS are not our champion, a police body or that they can protect us from the DCA ****. Certainly, some have thought, that the FOS are akin to the CAB in that they will defend our rights and stand up for us etc. Which isn't their role.

 

My problem is where the FOS tell you they are impartial and do not take sides. Then, they go and do the opposite, defending that stance as the most 'probably' course of events that took place in relation to your complaint despite when evidence to the contrary is presented to them.

 

They ignore factual evidence in favour of taking the word of the financial institution and for the FOS to contradict already existing case Law and the Consumer Credit Act is inappropriate to say the least. I ask for impartiality and consistency from the FOS. That's all.

 

From my experience and that of others, those qualities are not what we receive. The FOS decide what is and isn't enforceable. The FOS pronounce Judgement as if they are the Courts. This is surely not the actions of a neutral dispute resolution body who does 'not take sides'.

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The courts decide cases on the basis of the law, ADR looks at what it thinks is right and the law is only one consideration.

 

 

So are you then saying that if the FOS thinks that the law is not right it can go against it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is, when you're in debt you're broke.

You don't have money for a solicitor.

You don't have money to go to court with.

Very often you struggle to find the money to pay for recorded delivery post, which is the only (and not very reliable) proof that you've written to 'companies' that are a) Loaded b) Ignorant and c) Criminal.

We will not be intimidated.

'The pen is mightier than the sword'.

Petition to Outlaw Debt Sale and Purchase

- can't read/post much as eye strain's v.bad.

VIVA CAG!!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is, when you're in debt you're broke.

You don't have money for a solicitor.

You don't have money to go to court with.

Very often you struggle to find the money to pay for recorded delivery post, which is the only (and not very reliable) proof that you've written to 'companies' that are a) Loaded b) Ignorant and c) Criminal.

 

I agree, and if you cant/dont trust the FOS when you have a problem, what else can you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, and if you cant/dont trust the FOS when you have a problem, what else can you do?

Take the bank/financial institution to court.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of...but I think it is a little more complex than that.

 

They should consider the law, but in the case of unenforceable agreements I guess that their thought process would work like this:

 

The debt exists, the consumer has admitted this.

The agreement is unenforceable in court

We are not being asked by the creditor to enforce the agreement

We are being asked for a declaration that the agreement is unenforceable

We are not a court so cannot enforce the agreement and cannot therefore comment on enforceability. This would be outside of our remit.

They can then go and consider any claims for harassment or similar, but cannot get involved in technical legal questions as it is not relevant to their consideration of the case.

 

If the complaint centres around interpretation or application of the law, then it should be considered by a court. Not FOS.

 

This is only a guess, mind.

 

 

It is my understanding, however, that the FOS is about as popular with the banking industry as it is here. Banks and similar have invested a fair amount trying to curtail and restrict them and have failed. The FOS service has been judicially reviewed and sued a number of times and always has come out ok. On balance I feel that the biggest problem is a lack of understanding of what it actually does and how it does it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand where Suetonius is coming from 'in part'. Trying to let folks know that the FOS are not our champion, a police body or that they can protect us from the DCA ****. Certainly, some have thought, that the FOS are akin to the CAB in that they will defend our rights and stand up for us etc. Which isn't their role.

 

Thank you, I know I am not the best with words or explaining what I am trying to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In relation to section 77 / 78 it may be worth having a read of the Rankine case, where the argument was decided upon by a Judge.

 

How interesting that you quote the Rankine case, just as many Banks do.

That judgment was flawed and many barristers agree as such.

 

AC

Link to post
Share on other sites

But dosent the fact that you've seen so many threads about the same thing, hint that there is a problem?

 

 

Totally agree, but I feel that alot of it is based on the fact that the role of the FOS is misunderstood. That is why I thought it would be helpful to try and correct any misunderstandings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My post is not aimed at you. I have no interest whatsoever in your inane ramblings. The post was made to show that if the regulator cannot be trusted why should the adjudicator.

 

The Adjudicator is not an employee of the FSA and is not paid by the FSA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read a post, thought it was on this thread, but cant find it now, where the FOS made an award and ordered it paid towards a debt that was in dispute, due to non production of or some problem with a CCA, surely this is in breach of guidelines?

 

Non production of an agreement under section 77 / 78 would only in theory preclude enforcement (seeking an order from the court for enforcement) paying a sum to a debt which even if unenforceable still exists would not be enforcement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This post further proves my point. The FOS is not the FSA. The FOS is also not the industry watchdog or the industry regulator !!

 

The FOS and FSA are part of the same corrupt, diseased, bureaucracy infesting this country to the point of saturation. Headed by corrupt and immoral politicians who are part of the greed obsessed system that's sole goal is to keep the ordinary people under thumb and to try to make them powerless against the malignant and indifferent state we call government. :rolleyes:

:!: -Any advise I give is based purely on my own experience. It should not be solely relied upon as I am NOT a legal expert and any major decisions you make should not be based on my opinion alone -

HFC Bank - Davey vs HFC

Barclays - Monthly payments made

Cahoot - Agreement received, awaiting 2nd agreement after DCA.

MBNA1&2 - Agreements received. (Currently in limbo)

Halifax - Davey vs Halifax/Cabot

MINT - Davey vs Mint

Amex - Davey vs Amex

Cap1 **WON** £1,500 Written Off Davey vs Cap1

 

Never Sign Anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But with what YB? If you have no money?

 

 

Court is not always the route to take though, if you have an issue with the way the bank has handled your complaint, not necessarily the outcome, for example.

 

suetonius, I do understand where you are coming from, yes people do often misunderstand there role, and this does lead to disgruntled posts, but I do think the points starting to come across now, to me anyway, is the fact that the financial instituions are held with much higher regard than the consumer, which is so evident by the fact that they believe what they are told by the banks even when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How interesting that you quote the Rankine case, just as many Banks do.

That judgment was flawed and many barristers agree as such.

 

AC

 

It may very well be flawed, but it is a judgement never the less, made by a Judge in Court.

 

The Judge in Court was the point I was making.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...