Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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

Barclays Capital - Rate swaps.


grange1971
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4241 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

thanks slick 132

 

so if i understand what you are saying is everything has to be open ?????

 

that will be great for Barclays Captial to read perhaps what we should do is invite them to this site as well ? !!!!!!!!

 

i must be missing something here i think FOS would say we are stupid as well as agreeing to there Miss-Sold product

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 175
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Anonbarcap

 

I don't have the required number of posts to PM you either! Once I have enough I'll drop you a line.

 

I agree that it is likely that Barcap monitor forums so perhaps not every strategy should be discussed openly!

 

Unlike other posters I have some faith in the FOS based on cases that I know have settled this year.

 

There are also a number of possible routes for litigation. Again I am aware of cases settling at the LBA stage rather and at issue stage. I am not aware of any cases that have made ir as far as a hearing.

 

Given the very varied circumstances of each individual case I'm not sure group action would be appropriate.

 

Lets keep this thread rolling as there are routes out of these terrible products!

Link to post
Share on other sites

that will be great for Barclays Captial to read perhaps what we should do is invite them to this site as well ? !!!!!!!!

:-)

 

You would be very foolish to assume that they are not here already - this is an open and public forum. We know that banks, DCA's and others follow our forum closely.

 

Of course you should be guarded in what you say and about keeping anonymity.

 

What I am saying is that the forum is far more use to folks generally if topics are discussed openly as far as possible.

 

If everything is discussed in secret by PM, the forum will have little to offer anyone.

 

By all means, communicate with others by PM if you want, but please share everything that you can on the open forums.

 

Thanks :-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Barclays seem to be doing without question is targeting the businesses that challenge the sales method and validity of the product they have acquired in basic terms they are sending such individuals to there SLS team and believe me if you are not financially stable or without sufficient equity they will bring you down and they have several ways of doing that

Even now I am not certain I am safe but they will not get away with this the choice we all have is simple

We await a precedent which will be a long time coming but will come I am certain or go head to head with them as a consortium my belief is they will settle the consortium I have it on very good authority there biggest concern is the two “p”s

Precedent

Publicity

The difference with this case as apposed to PPI they have screwed businessmen and we have not got where we are today without a fight we can I believe a lot more and a lot sooner that just individual members of the public

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like taking on the Maffia, isen't it -we know we are innocent - we trusted the banks we had been with for years and years - and basically what they have done is set up a dictatorship - we trusted them and they took us for everything they could.

 

Even though my bank has written off what they said I owed, it will never make up for the 3 years of hell and, in my opinion, my partner's stroke due to the stress.

 

The FOS - having dealt with them (one person who took 13 months to come backt to us was allegedly promoted and passed us on to another person who then immediately went on maternity leave, and passed us on to another (v sympathetic it seemed at the time) person we spoke to and explained we were having our first holiday in 3 years who then sent us a letter the day after that saying they had found in favour of the bank... (therefore cutting down our time to reply). We appeal, again the 'senior ???" says he/she finds in favour of the bank???

 

If they were so impartial why did the bank back down very quickly when we got a specialised solictor involved (he wasn't cheap but a snip compared to what the banks wanted).

 

One of the bank 'managers' who got us into the swap thing - when we thought it was a totally straight forward loan was in my local paper - posing as having done a charity bike ride - if you see a headline in your papers "Pensioner knocks bank manager off bike and kicks him" -that'll be me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for that can you tell me why you think the bank gave into you what was it the solicitor raised that fos did notsee or should i say wish to see you are one of the first that i have spoken with that actually got money back there definatly seems to be a diffrence if its in a personal name as i have a felow buisnessman that has two swaps one in a ltd and one in a personal name and they seem to be wishing to communicate over the one in the personal name

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't get my money back - the bank wrote off the 'debt'. The agreement was that if they did that, there would be no further claims.

 

When I first took out what I thought was a straightforward loan ( had never heard of swaps at that stage) , I used my normal solicitor to check the papers before I signed, and he raised the alarm pointing out that they wanted me to sign over my house as well - and he said "That's not on". Signing over my house had never been mentioned at the bank meetings.

 

The bank phoned me a couple of times saying "You haven't signed the papers about your house?" and I replied that in their paperwork it said to consult a solicitor before doing so, and that I had, and that the solictor advised me not to sign. Therefore it shows I was not accepting their terms from the beginning.

 

From experience with FOS I have learnt that the 'contract' actually took place when I received a phone call from a representative a couple of days after I had received papers from the bank about the loan and having read the papers, the representative was told "This is not what I agreed to?" He assured me it was the same thing, to sign, and if there was a problem it could be sorted out by my bank advisor. So I signed. My signing the papers, if I understand the FOS properly, was not the contract - the phone call was - this is the call that allegedly was recorded but, due to techinical difficulties, the bank could not supply a recording or transcrip of - now that would not have gone down well in court.

 

My new solicitor was as surprised as I was by the total turnaround by the bank - but they did push us to the limit - they won't give in if they think they can get away with it and that you will give in first - they are ruthless.

 

Things for you to think about - the banks have to use 'due dilligence' when selling this sort of product (I certainly wasn't told I was being sold something - I went there for a straightforward loan). Swaps were never mentioned, or the risks, or the fact it was a gamble - therefore they did not do due dilligence in explaining everything to me -I would have walked out there and then and said "No thanks".

 

Think back to when it first started for you - was it explained what the risks were - did you know it was a 'gamble'? Did you think you were securing a loan at the same rate for the life of the loan (I did). If you didn't, then the bank did not exercise due diligence.

 

On the other hand, if you knew you were entering into a 'swap' and understood it all, then you don't have a leg to stand on (ie no case).

 

I think this is a massive scandal - as far as I am concerned decent hardworking business people have been decieved, dreadfully decieved

Edited by Ennill
Wanted to cancel posting but don't know how
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
Hi, We have been put in the same boat with a interest rate swap deal, we did go to the FSA, which to be honest was a waste off time, I would be very interested in hearing what has happened with other peoples cases.? Paul

 

Hi,

Just to be clear, was it the FSA itself that you approached, or the FOS instead? If it was the FSA, how did you go about raising a complaint to them?

 

Abhishek

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...

There is a meeting of MPs in Committee Room 14 on Tuesday 24th April.

 

Please contact your MP as soon as possible so that he/she attends what will amount to a seminar educating them in the area of Swaps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The case at Bristol Mercantile was dealt with by SRBlegal of Newport.

 

Until recently they offered a free intital review of a complaint, but its now a £1000.00 plus vat fee due to them being swamped.

 

There has been a lot of press recently - The Telegraph are running a series of articles on the issue, all pretty much anti-bank.

 

As mentioned previously, there are a couple of documents the banks must complete prior to the swap taking place - the cases settled are as a result of the banks not doing their compliance paperwork properly - this left the client still classed as a non-investment professional and unsuitable to be sold the product, hence the banks had to back down.

 

If you took the swap as a sole trader or partnership, you should put in a data protection act notice to your bank, asking for copies of everything they have relating to you, then you need to go through it with a fine tooth comb, or get someone else to do it for you.

 

If you are a limited company the dpa doesnt apply to you - but you should still write to the bank asking for copies of the compliance paperwork - chances are if they have it they will send it to you, it does tend to indicate they are currently watertight.

 

FOS ? Complete waste of time - its free, and you get what you pay for.

 

Are the banks reading this forum - yes they are. How do I know - because in my pile of dpa paperwork from the bank was a print out of my comments on this thread.......

 

The FSA are currently reviewing the systems used by the banks to sell the poducts - in particular the use of advice of compliance paperwork plus the presentation handed to the client, when combined these two allow the banks to avoid the 'investment professional' issue. However......under the 2001 regs they couldnt do this, under the 2005 regs they can - and who changed the regs? Government after consulting with the FSA..............

 

Dont overlook the involvement of third parties. If you had a loan brokered for you by a financial advisor, then you may also have a claim against them - particularily if you asked them for a fixed rate loan and you were given a rate swap on the basis it was the same thing - the one thing the FOS are adamant on is that the term Interest Rate Hedge (aka rate swap) CAN NOT be considered a Fixed Rate, it may achieve similar results but it is definitely not the same thing.

 

The FOS normally use this to defeat complaints - ie the terms of the loan stipulated an interest rate hedge, not a fixed rate, so you shouldnt have taken the loan if it wasnt what you wanted. This is the bit that may assist in claiming from a broker - if their own paperwork only mentions fixed rate loans, yet they negotiate a deal that includes a Hedge then they have not arranged what you asked for, nor have they advised you in relation to the hedge.

 

As regards a group action, its not going to happen due to individual nature of the dealls.

 

What you could consider is forming an action group, everyone put a bit of money in the pot and use a solicitor to cherry pick the best cases. There are a few small groups already in existence, but its very time consuming and whoever runs it will find it takes over your life.

 

There is also the issue of continuing to deal with the banks, you can quote me all the banking agreements you want, but I can give you speciific examples of peoples lifes being made very hard once they start to complain - businesses being handed over to the 'Recovery Unit' is the standard practice.

 

Dont make the mistake of thinking that Recovery means they want your business to recover - Recovery means that the bank wishes to recover all the debts it thinks you owe it, going over to them is a harsh time indeed.

 

So what should you do?

 

Firstly, you need every piece of paperwork relating to your swap.

 

The presentation they gave you.

A copy of the advice of compliance form.

Your bank mandate.

 

The advice of compliance form must be signed in accordance with the bank mandate.

 

If you have them, consider starting a group where you can pool your knowledge and individual experiences, there are tens of thousands in the same boat as you at the moment, you are not suffering alone.

 

All2lgain

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen paperwork that makes it quite clear that it was a "Fixed Rate" yet the FOS found in favour of the bank, the adjudicator swallowed a very comprehensive defence from the bank's complaints department and even issued an Ombudsman's final decision on that basis. Having read what the bank said and compared it with what actually happened according to the paperwork I can only conclude that the FOS needs a kick up the backside.

 

As for people saying you don't need a third party when taking a complaint forward I would say that is misleading in the extreme, particularly when you are up against the banks and an apparently submissive FOS. Sadly the damages some people are entitled to is many times greater than the award available from the FOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats about the same as my experience with then, complete waste of time in these matters - the view they take that this is a commercial deal, and thus both parties are considered equal in ability etc, is completely contradicted by the many individual conplainants I have spoken to, who have clearly had their inexperience taken advantage of.

 

As said though, they have clearly stated that the terms fixed rate and interest rate hedge are not interchangeable, there are definitely some uneasy brokers at the moment.

 

An action group, headed by someone who isnt on a gagging condition in their loans, with its own members website and private forum is what is needed - I'm sure the handful of solicitors taking on these cases, and the financial people offering consultancies, would be happy to advertise and pay the website fees!

 

Cheers

 

A2G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

It is indeed good news....for the banks.

 

FSA have identified a large percentage of mis-selling in the 50 cases they examined, so they have handed the investigation over to....the banks.

 

An unbelievable cop out. A large part of the complaint is that the banks arent investigating complaints thoroughly - Barclays have already said they will do as the FSA ask, but that they anticipate a very small level of genuine mis-selling cases to be uncovered. I'll bet.

 

I previously mentioned a pressure group was needed, well one has formed and is doing sterling work, google Bully Banks to find their (free) site.

 

Cheers all.

 

A2G

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...