Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds


You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds



BankFodder BankFodder


BankFodder BankFodder

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello   I agree with dx100uk.   Send them a CCA request which is a request for them to produce the original agreement that gives rise to the debt.  They have a limited amount of time (I think around fifteen days) to send you the document.   Here are the possible follow-ons from that:   1. They don't respond within 15 days and so you are legally entitled to stop paying until they do send a response. 2. They send a letter saying they have gone back to the original creditor to ask for the document and they need more time.  You (legally) stop paying after fifteen days and don't pay them again until they send proof. (This is the most likely first response as they wont have any of your documentation as they bought your debt as part of 1000 others on a spreadsheet on a CD ROM or USB stick). 3. They send you something that looks like a contract or which might be something else that they want you to think is the contract within the time frame.   After either of the above  whatever they send you should be referred back here for an assessment as they will often send you unsigned documents or made up bits of nonsense.  Even if the contract turns out to be the genuine one it still might not be enforceable due to errors made by the creditor at the time of signing.   The only potential downside to the above is that they could try to damage your credit record but probably it is as much damaged as it can be by this debt already so nothing else they can do will make it worse.   Following on from the above you can continue to not pay them.  I would setup an on-line savings account and pay yourself the money instead which has the advantage of creating a resource in case you need to resume payments in the future.   They may send you further letters either inducing you to resume payments by threat or by offering you a deal.  If the document is not valid then the only deal you need to take is the one you unilaterally entered into at T plus 15 days when you agreed with yourself not to pay them another penny.   It is not impossible that they will send you a letter saying the debt is unenforceable (miraculously I have actually seen one!) and asking you to pay anyway which you will of course ignore as you should not be giving any member of this low life industry any encouragement.  
    • I agree and I've no doubt that will happen in the future, but if a court claim is issued and a ccj successfully registered against the debtor then it will never be sb anyway, so are we more likely to see more court claims in the future ?      Can it not work both way though, if the sb date is ultimately aligned to the date of the default notice, essentially giving the creditor 6 years to collect or issue a court claim then regardless of when the debt was last acknowledged / payment made, a debtor could just tell the creditor to eff off after the 6 years is up, figuratively speaking     
    • Received acknowledgement of defence submission from court. VCS now have the option of continuing their claim or not. Watch this space !!!!
    • Yes it doesn't work HB  In Wales someone needed a test on a Sunday, the testing station at Llandudno Hospital was closed, so they could either go to Manchester, 75 miles, or Cardiff 200 miles and a 10 hour round trip.   But as Manchester is England no guarantee on getting test results.
    • Hi, Few days ago my car was taking by Tower Hamlets for parking in a single yellow line. The contravention time states in the PNC from 10:50 to 10:56. Is it possible that they can take my car just for 6 minutes contravention? Is possible that due to the COVID-19, I can challenge that PNC? My neighborhood is always full of cars and there are not enough parking spaces, so everyone parks in a single yellow line if there is not any parking spot available. I do not hold a parking a parking permission. I was not able to apply for it due to the covid.  Any help? Thank you very much.
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies

Men in Tights................... ......

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4033 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

Banks 'not Robin Hood in reverse'



_45958081_jex_390930_de01-1.jpg Billions of pounds of past and future bank income are at stake


The House of Lords has been told that banks are not "Robin Hoods in reverse" when they levy overdraft fees. Seven banks and the Nationwide Building Society have started their Appeal to stop the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) regulating their overdraft fees.

Jonathan Sumption QC claimed the banks were not taxing the overdrawn for the benefit of others.

However, he told the Law Lords that overdraft fees involved a large element of cross-subsidy.

The outcome of the hearing may decide if millions of bank customers are able to reclaim billions of pounds in past charges from their banks.


Mr Sumption, for the banks, argued that existing consumer contract regulations did not give the OFT the power to regulate prices.



Nearly a million people have claimed for the return of their unauthorised overdraft charges but their cases are on hold

If the banks win this week's appeal, these people are unlikely to get any money back

If the banks lose, then the legal arguments should move on to a key stage - a case to determine whether these charges were fair or not

Only then will people have a clearer picture as to whether billions of pounds will be handed back to customers




Crunch time for bank charges case


He said that bank overdraft fees were required to be clear but were not necessarily required to be fair.

The High Court and the Court of Appeal have both previously upheld the right of the OFT to scrutinise the fairness of bank charges under the 1999 Consumer Contract Regulations.

Mr Sumption said both of the lower courts had been wrong, and had both over-refined and overcomplicated the interpretation of the regulations.

He pointed out that the regulations were not designed as a mechanism of price control and were not aimed at regulating what services were offered or the price charged.

They did not, he argued, apply to the main subject matter of a contract or the price being charged for it - only to ancillary or contingent charges.

"The overdraft charges are too fundamental to the bargain to be declared unfair," he said.


He told the five Law Lords hearing the appeal that overdraft fees involved a large element of cross-subsidy.


_45957399_000305063-1.jpg Jonathan Sumption QC is arguing the banks' case


People who went overdrawn without permission were paying part of the cost of providing current accounts to people who always stayed in the black.

So the charges exceeded the cost of dealing with an overdrawn customer because "the revenue stream is essential to the whole of the current account structure".

Mr Sumption explained that cross-subsidies were common in the banking industries of other countries such as France, Canada, Australia and the US.

He said they were common in the charging structures of many other complex sets of services such as airline ticket prices or mobile phone tariffs and were not objectionable.

One of the Law Lords asked if it was the case that bank charges included a surcharge to subsidise those who did not go into the red.

Another Lord suggested overdrawn customers were being taxed for the benefit of others.

But Mr Sumption said it was "tendentious nonsense" to suggest that banks were operating as Robin Hoods in reverse.

He went on to say that a victory for the OFT might render all past overdraft payments unenforceable and might lead to "restitution".

"The OFT has significantly raised the stakes," he said. "The issues are of considerable importance to consumers and the future of retail banking."

Earlier rulings

Mr Sumption spent the rest of the day picking apart the earlier rulings by the High Court judge Mr Justice Andrew Smith and the three judges in the Court of Appeal.

In particular, he said the Appeal Court had been "fundamentally wrong" to draw a distinction in the regulations between essential terms and prices, which could not be scrutinised by the OFT, and non-essential or incidental terms and prices - such as overdraft fees, which could be regulated.

"The distinction between core and non-core prices have no place in the regulations," he said.

"No such distinction can be found in the language of the regulations. All prices are by their very nature essential as the contract cannot work if the price is unenforceable."

Mr Sumption went on to describe the Court of Appeal's approach as "opaque and impractical" which might lead to "absurd" conclusions.

"The courts are not authorised to treat some prices as inessential," he said.

The hearing is expected to finish on Thursday.

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...