Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The case against the US-based ride-hailing giant is being brought on behalf of over 10,800 drivers.View the full article
    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to 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
      • 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

Bank Of Scotland - Old Card account


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5159 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

Withme It Was An Aqua Card And Hbos

 

With Hbos, There Reply Was No No All The Way

 

After Eight Months, I Think They Got Fed Up Of Me So Default And Account History Gone

 

No Cca

No Default Notice

 

 

Moral Is For Any Agreement

 

Dont Take No For An Answer No Matter How Meny Times It Is Slung In Your Face

 

Good Luck

Can you please clarify. Are you suggesting that if you elected to ignore all and they simply gave up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that has been supplied via Blair Oliver & Scott acting for HBOS is a copy of the original application form. This is signed by me on 16/4/85 and stamped WSCRA CLEAR. From what I have read elsewhere on this forum this is not a valid agreement. I wrote back on 15/5/2009 advising them:

 

“I refer to communications received from Blair Oliver and Scott acting under your instruction and draw your attention to past communications in connection with the above accounts. I suggest that you pay close attention to what was requested and review what you sent because what you have supplied to date is not the data requested.

 

Once again I refer you to my letters of 2nd and 21st April and in particular my remarks regarding your failure to comply with section 78(6) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I informed you that your failure to comply had placed my accounts into dispute and that this meant that you were not entitled to default or enforce the agreement until your breach has been rectified.

 

I also issued you with a statutory notice under section 10 of the Data Protection Act instructing you to cease processing any data in relation to this account with immediate effect.

 

At this moment in time you have not complied with the aforementioned requests and may be committing a criminal offence.”

 

All has gone quite since.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In today’s mail I have a letter from Blair Oliver & Scott which reads:

 

Your repayment arrangement of £1.00 is now due for review. It is important that you contact the helpline number below to discuss your monthly payments.

 

Please have your income and expenditure at hand for our collection specialists to assist you.

 

We note that repayments on your account have been maintained in line with the existing arrangement. Please continue to pay while this review is undertaken.

 

Now what is strange is that I have two of these letters, one for my BOS account and another for my Halifax, however, at no time did they ever accept my proposal to make only a token gesture payment. Furthermore, I have not paid them anything since 6th March when I paid £70 to each of these accounts.

 

They have so far failed to adequately address my CCA request. In the case of Halifax the sent the original Bank One application form which does not contain the correct data within the page and in the BOS case the application is so old it fails to even state that it is a credit agreement.

 

Any suggestions on how I should respond would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Contrary to the above they have registered a default. Furthermore, there is a poll at the index page of this site which reads:

Some banks say they don't hold data beyond 6 years.

Are they telling porkies?

We expect that they keep everything forever - in some form or other.

We think that they are just trying to avoid their debts.

Let us know how far back you got your data.

This poll is important. Please don't spoil it.

Please don't complete it until you know that you have got everything you can from them.

 

I tried to answer to indicate that I knew the Bank Of Scotland went back to 1985 but that option was not available. Here is the proof:

 

bos-1.jpg

 

As you can see this application form does not even contain the words Consumer Credit Act let alone all else that is necessary for it to comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Apex have started sending silly text messages to my business phone line, I had to get BT to block these, then tried phoning where I failed to go through their “for security” questions and are now writing to me re this Band Of Scotland account.

 

On a separate matter I’m already giving Halifax a run for their money in the Scottish Court and they are desperate to abandon the action. I suspect this matter has therefore been passed to Apex for nuisance value.

 

The above application form is all that HBOS have ever produced when asked for a CCA so I consider this account to be in dispute.

 

I have replied with:

 

I will not be reaching any agreement with you as intimated in your letter dated 2 February and refer you to my letter of 8th January from which you should note that I repudiate the claim made by your client.

 

I also advised you that you were in breach of Office of Fair Trading's Guidance on debt collection and your continued activity merely compounds this offence. I have therefore registered a formal complaint against you in particular and Apex Credit Management in general with the OFT.

 

I shall not engage in any further communications with you and if your litigation team are so foolish as to seek a County Court Judgement they will be advised any court issuing such decree could not have jurisdiction in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My letter to Apex referred most specifically to this account yet they have responded detailing two accounts that they are managing which relate to me. In the first the acknowledge the matter to be in dispute and on hold, however, they claim to own this account and seem to refer to requiring confirmation from their client. In the second, the one I wrote about, they say “we have not received a complaint on the account”. Does that not seem bizarre? They reply to my letter of complaint stating that they are unaware of any complaint! Anyway they say the matter is on hold for two weeks and then invite me to phone in and make arrangements to pay or alternatively log into their site where I can manage my account! Aye right!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Apparently Apex are disappointed that I have failed to communicate and invite me to log on to myapex etc or to call their experienced debt advisors. Aye right, I’ll just go do that now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this in an email. Is this a spoof or a genuine message?

 

Dear Customer,

 

We invite you until April 15, 2010 in your Halifax Branch, with the ID card to update / confirm your personal data.

This is a legal requirement applicable to all banks in United Kingdom in accordance with Regulation FSA 2 / 2010.

Failure to fulfill these obligations on served time may lead to temporary restraining access to your accounts.

Updating process is very simple and could be achieved with the ID card and the Halifax Secure Form in your Halifax Branch.

Regarding this, please complete the attached Secure Form and submit it until April 15, 2010, accompanied by documents

attesting Changes (if any), in your Halifax Branch.

 

To protect your interest in the situation that until April 15, 2010 you did not submit the completed/printed form to update

the identification data, we reserve the right to temporarily restrict the conduct of certain operations on your account.

To help identify information that needs updating, the Halifax Secure Form is attached:

For Your security you will complete and print the form on your computer.

 

Awaiting with interest the submission of these documents we will provide you our entire consideration.

 

 

Genuine emails from us may contain links to product information and application forms, but never to the online banking sign-in page.

If you are in any doubt about whether an email is genuine, don't click the link!

If you get a suspicious email that claims to be from us send it to [email protected] so we can investigate.

 

 

 

 

 

Bank of Scotland plc. Registered in Scotland No. SC327000.

Registered Office: The Mound,Edinburgh EH1 1YZ.

Halifax is a division of Bank of Scotland plc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...