Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes it was originally SSE I believe they have been taken over by OVO I may be wrong. The original debt was from around 2018 I think. 
    • I moved into my current property and SSE were the provider I switched to British Gas a few months in, I believe this might have been a final bill.
    • Its not clear from your posts how this debt was incurred ? You moved into the house and they were the existing supplier ? So the debt is for the previous owner ?
    • defence is due on Friday haven't had a response from Morality yet with regards to the CPR request. Have found this from a previous thread would it be ok to use?   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.   2.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.   3.Furthermore, the claimant has given no details as to the breakdown of their claim so the defendant is unable to defend specifically.   4. The claimant openly admits that they do not have access to the agreement nor was the Assignor required to retain a copy. Therefore their claim is unsubstantiated. Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a  written agreement:   (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s)  should be available at  the hearing. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:- a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed ; c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • 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

Lloyds TSB and Me


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5581 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

Well folks just thought I would update after my CCA to Lloyds in October 2008.

 

Matter passed to DCA - BLS, told them to bugger off with an account in dispute letter.

 

Matter passed back to LLoyds who say "due to high volume of requests we will take an eternity to get back to you".

 

Matter passed to Sechiari, Clark & Mitchell who say I should pay in 7 days otherwise they will chop my legs off" Sent them a "who do you think you are letter" - said they would hold the account whilst waiting for the CCA.

 

Still no CCA not even a "cut and paste job" nor present terms and conditions.

 

Got a letter from Lloyds today saying that they have given me an official complaint reference referring to my account in dispute letter and if I feel appropriate I should report them to the FOS (that's kind of them)

 

Never received anything like this with anyone else.

 

Bearing in mind my account is 27 years old :D

 

Do you think they will reduce the balance.

 

What would be the argument with the FOS - would I be acknowledging the debt if I made a complaint.

 

Will sit back and watch the world go by in the meantime.

 

HH

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Update!

 

I received what appears to be an application form for a card I have allegedly opened in 2000 and my previous balance was transferred. Everything is in order on the form except I did not go ahead with the transfer as at the time they wanted to charge a monthly fee so I cancelled.

 

I knew something was wrong as on the application form it stated that my original balance would be closed and transferred to the new account number. I was still using the old account number up until last year.

 

Rang up LTSB and spoke to a very helpful person (not many of them around) who said that I was correct and that the account was dormant with no transactions.

 

I asked him if he could tell me when my account was opened. He said it was definately before 2nd February 1990 as that's all we go back to on computer :D

 

Bearing mind I opened my account around 1988 this is possibly good news for me but shame on you LTSB for trying to pretend an application form is a credit agreement and sending me details for a dormant account of 2000.

 

Nasty letter going back to the solicitors (sorry inhouse lawyers) explaining yet again what I wanted and not send me an application form for a dormant account.

 

HH

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received in the post today another letter from LTSB saying

 

I am sorry for the delay in responding to your request for documentation under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Unfortunately we have recently received a high volume of such requests but I can assure you that we will respond shortly to your request.

 

blah blah in the meantime feel free to complaint about us etc.

 

I wonder if they obviously realise now that the application form they sent was indeed false and know they can't produce that at court.

 

Or did Sechari find this application and not told LTSB what they have done.

 

Maybe another letter to Sechari to tell them that good communication within the same company is an important feature to any company and if one person does one thing they should note it on the computer.

 

I have noticed on other threads that people who asked for their CCA after me have received something.

 

HH

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...