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

    • i would suggest you look at the dates of posts on those other forums paypal do not sell debts and even if they do, there is stuff and all any debts buyer could do yo you in the UK. forget it, or even better go complaint to your bank and tell them paypal did not advise you £1200 would come out of your a/c, which they should do, and that it was the result of fraud. you don't have to tell them any details.   as for the rest of your debts..   debt IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE IN THE UK..where the beep did you get that from!!   pers i'd be opening a parachute account and getting asll your income paid into that so NO-ONE can get their hands on it. cause NW are just about to introduce 40% OD int rate and they will forever be draining you of money   get OUT NOW from them.   dx      
    • I'm aware there are some grammatical and reference errors but the post expired before I could fix. I'd really like to know if I've made valid points or not. Thanks.
    • Another thing, they say they have photographic evidence of the entry and exit times, but have not included it in the SAR. If they have photos shouldn't they provide them in the SAR? And if they don't have them now, how can they prove anything?    Should I ask OBS to produce the photos?
    • Is this any better?  I've resigned myself to losing. Admittedly, I don't quite know what I'm doing. I just hope I get a remote hearing, that should save me some embarrassment.      1) The Claimants pleaded case is that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Provident subsequently assigned to Vanquis Bank Limited under account reference xxx.    2) It is admitted I have had financial dealings with Provident in the past. However, have no recollection of the alleged reference number the claimant refers to.   3) In February 2019 I made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.    4) On the 21 June 2019 the Claimant sent a response which enclosed a reconstituted copy of an agreement, default notice, notice of assignment Provident to Vanquis, notice of assignment Vanquis to Lowell. [EXHIBIT x, x & x].   5) On 30/07/19, I received a claims form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £369.84. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £369.84 in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no xxxx  pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).   6) Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Provident to Vanquis. The claimant states a further assignment to them occurred on 12/06/2017 with notice given.    7) It is denied notice of assignment from Provident to Vanquis and subsequently Vanquis to Lowell were ever received.    😎 The claimant states documents were received at both addresses. The claimant doesn’t appear able to confirm my address and therefore cannot say with certainty said documents were received. Furthermore, the client did not issue said documents and therefore cannot prove delivery.     9) It is denied any communication took place with myself and Vanquis Bank Limited. Any alleged legal assignment to part of the “Fresh Start” initiative had not been informed. I have no previous knowledge.   10) Under the consumer credit act 2006, until debts have been repaid, there is an obligation to send statements and notices to the debtor at prescribed intervals at no more than 12 months. The statement should explain the money borrowed, money paid, interest in all cases and the outstanding amount. Consequences of failing to make repayments and the opportunity of making minimum payments should be informed. The Claimant has submitted a statement of accounts dated March 2019. This having followed my request for a credit consumer agreement. It is denied this document and any such required statement of accounts required under section 77A during the alleged agreement were ever received.   11) The claimant states that a default notice was issued on 18thJanuary 2017. The payment date requested by Vanquis Bank Limited on said document is  28thFebruary 2017. The formal Notice of Default that was accompanying this letter displays a requested payment date, 28thFebruary 2019. (Exhibit x, x)   12) I argue that this is not in fact a COPY of an original default notice, that they state was issued during February 2017, but that this is a fabricated version of a default notice created by Lowell. Either way the default notice was not issued by the assigned creditor (Vanquis).   13) It is therefore contended that the original creditor failed to serve a valid Default Notice pursuant to section 87(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or in accordance with section 88 (a “default notice ”) is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the debtor of a regulated agreement.   14) The Claimant states a default notice was not required. If there is a default in payments during the fixed term a default notice must be issued. The Claimant states they were informed a default notice was sent on 18thJanuary. The Claimants case relies upon being informed and does not constitute fact.   15) It is denied a default notice was ever received.    16) It is admitted I responded to the Claimant’s pre-action protocol letter addressed in my name. I indicated I did not know if I owed the debt. I indicated as such having no recollection of affiliation with Vanquis nor Lowell. A default for the allege debt appearing on my credit file only November 2019.    17) I understand that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct or bad debts which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed and which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income.   As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   18) Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.
  • 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 
      • 6 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
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3999 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

Hello All,

 

Recently I had a car accident involving myself and barrier which caused the car to be written off L

To cut a long story short, I called the police & ambulance they breathalysed me which to my horror I failed but passed the blood test at the station. The blood test come back at more than half under.

After sending a copy of the results to the ins company to show that everything was okay they are refusing to pay for a) the car & b) damage to the barrier because I was ‘under the influence’.

I’ve spoken to them about this clause and what actually constitutes being ‘under the influence’, would a sip of a shandy be okay? They keep stating that each case is treated on its own merits.

Has anyone else come across this before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason for a blood test is because the roadside breath test is NOT an accurate measure of your blood/alcohol level.

 

The breath test is an indicator of the likelihood of someone been over the prescribed limit, if you pass the roadside test you are on your way there and then, if you fail you are taken to a station for either another breath test (on a far more accurate machine) or a blood test. The result of this second test determines whether you are to be charged or not.

 

Several things affect the result of the roadside test, the main one is how long it has been since your last drink. Just because you blew a positive breath test at roadside does NOT mean you are over the prescribed limit, there could be any number of reasons why that happened (faulty test unit, recent drink etc etc).

 

Refer this back to your insurers and tell them that you were NOT charged with the offence of drink driving because you were not over the limit, threaten them with the Ombudsman and if they still refuse to deal with the claim then that's your only option.

 

You don't need to get into specifics about what you actually drank, just the fact that you passed the second test is enough to negate the drink drive allegation.

 

Mossy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mossycat is absolutely right.

 

You cannot be charged or convicted on the basis of a roadside test - it is merely a filtering device. All that matters is the reading at the Police Station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old_andrew2018

Thats good advice from Mossycat, you will need a final response from your insurers before the FOS will look at any complaint.

look at this link Financial Ombudsman Service

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your insurer does not have a leg to stand on. You were legally under the limit. I would put more pressure on them they will concede.

 

Which insurer out of interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very strange as dont you have to be over the limit to be deemed legally under the influence?

 

Aviva used to have this clause,do they still have it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for their responses especially mossy I shall see what they say :-D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they still refuse to deal with your claim post back what their response is and we'll see what we can suggest before you go to FOS

 

Mossy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old_andrew2018

Hi can I just add if you have not conducted communication with them in writing, then you should from now on, this will ensure if they refuse you there will be evidence to assist with an escalation to the FOS.

Can someone confirm that the insurance company are still required to pay a fee to the FOS as part of the investigation.

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
very strange as dont you have to be over the limit to be deemed legally under the influence?

 

Aviva used to have this clause,do they still have it?

 

As far as I can see, Aviva doesn't have a clause like this. Whether they did in the past, I'm not sure, so I'll take your word for it.

 

Can you let me know where you bought this policy, so I can check the relevant policy wording?

 

Insurers are required to pay a fee to the FOS if a case reaches the investigation stage - this fee applies regardless of whether the complaint is upheld. This document explains when a case becomes chargeable.

 

My bet is that your claims is being handled by an inexperienced claims adviser and they have made a mistake. I can understand why one might try to reject a claim if the driver was actually convicted of drink driving (dependent on policy wording), but not if no conviction was ever made.

Edited by LemonTwist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Old_andrew2018

Hi

I've looked at the policy document Elephant fail to clarify anywhere what exactly they mean by under the influence, I suspect its left like that as a catch all IMO the FOS wont like that one bit.

 

Andy

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...