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
pompeyfaith

Lib Dems pledge Parliamentary motion for automatic bank charges paybacks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3972 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

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has pledged legislation on bank charges to back the MSE campaign to ensure everyone who's had an unfair charge will get their money back without having to ask.

This radical move is the first time politicians have got directly involved in the campaign to reclaim bank charges. It's an unprecedented step, potentially meaning a guaranteed payout to millions of people, totalling over five billion pounds.

 

It came about in an unusual way. Clegg (pictured, right) is one of the 3.5 million recipients of the MoneySavingExpert.com (MSE) weekly money tips email. In it, three weeks ago, he spotted an open letter to David Cameron where MSE asked the Tory leader to back the campaign for automatic refunds.

While Cameron has not replied, Clegg, and his Shadow Chancellor Vince Cable, in a letter to MSE this week (see full text below), have promised to table a Parliamentary motion after the summer recess.

That motion will require banks and building societies to automatically compensate charges victims if and when "scandalous" fees are adjudged unfair.

Currently, a landmark test case on fees is now at the House of Lords, with a decision expected in autumn. It'll decide whether fairness rules apply to the charges of up to £35 a time for going beyond your overdraft limit.

The banks, arguing fairness rules do not apply, have already lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

'Consumer revolution'

Martin Lewis, creator of MoneySavingExpert.com, from where 6.2 million free bank charges reclaiming template letters have been downloaded (see the Bank Charges guide), says: "Outrageously, politicians as a tribe have kept their lips firmly shut in the three and a half years since the bank charges campaign started.

"That in itself is a surprise as it's been the biggest consumer revolution since the Poll Tax riots.

 

"Yet, finally, one party has had the balls to take a stance, and it's an unexpectedly brave one, pushing reclaiming to the max. Now it's up to Messrs Brown and Cameron to respond.

"It's about time the major political parties told us their stance. I want them to agree to automatic pay-outs, but at the very least, I want to know if they reject the idea."

Nick Clegg's full email to Martin Lewis

Dear Martin,

As a subscriber to your weekly email, I saw your recent comments on unfair banking charges. I couldn't agree more with you about the scandalous nature of these charges.

The Liberal Democrats have taken a strong stance on this for a long time - in particular, in our manifesto for complete reform of Britain's banking and financial institutions "A New Deal for the City", launched in May 2008 where we stated:

"The treatment of charges by the banks borders on the scandalous. It is a continuation of the practice described above: a protected industry seeking to maximise profits by exploiting the weakness of individual consumers who lack information and sophisticated knowledge of products or legal advice. The principle should be established that bank charges must be transparent and cost based."

In your email, you made a further suggestion that banks should have to pay back all unfair charges automatically if the courts do rule against them. This struck me as an extremely good idea that we should do all we can to put in place. Vince Cable, my shadow Chancellor, and I would be delighted to support your campaign.

We will put a motion before Parliament setting out our support for your idea as soon as the recess is over, which will hopefully put pressure on the government and the banks to act to return the money they so unfairly took from customers.

Finally, I'm really looking forward to receiving the manifesto you've been compiling on your site regarding other consumer issues. And I'm pleased to be able to let you know we will be having a debate on consumer protection at our conference in the autumn, where we hope to adopt some strong new policies for our manifesto.

All the best,

nc.jpg Commenting on the letter, Martin says: "For people who are literate, numerate and with internet access, bank charges reclaiming should be easy and free once the current hold on reclaiming is lifted.

"Yet for many with financial phobias, mental health problems, literacy issues or simply members of a financial underclass, unless we have automatic payouts, they won't get anything. That's not justice. It's the main reason I think Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems need applauding for this stance.

"If we don't get this, then you can almost guarantee banks will use delaying tactics and try their damndest to not payout.

"Take the current mass of action to reclaim payment protection insurance. There, in cases where some banks lose nearly 100% of claims that get to the Financial Ombudsman, they still reject all claims as a default position when people first come to them - using language designed to dissuade people from taking it further."

Martin Lewis' open letter to David Cameron, 22 July, 2009 (which sparked the Lib Dems into action)

Dear Mr. Cameron,

I was delighted your party's banking white paper published this week, said bank charges were unfair, to quote: "There've been numerous examples of unfair treatment of consumers – the misselling of payment protection insurance and unfair bank charges."

It's the first time I've seen any major party say this. The only shame is it's too late by three years; 593,156 PPI reclaiming & 6,126,175 bank charges reclaiming template letters; and up to £2 billion of payouts.

It was back in the early days when people really needed your help, then bank accounts were being forced shut, and customers who attempted to reclaim were mistreated.

Forgive my slight scepticism that it's not a surprise to see the political elite calling these charges unfair now banks have become bogeymen, and we're near victorious at the final test case stage at the House of Lords.

So I want to ask you to support an act of real political bravery... these unlawful bank charges were taken from people's accounts without asking. No other companies have the power to take our cash in this way; if your energy supplier has a dispute with you, it needs to go to court to get the money.

So surely once it's finally legally decide they’re unfair the only right decision is for everyone who’s had bank charges to automatically be paid back the money without needing to ask for it?

Yes, it will cost. Perhaps £3 billion to £5 billion, but this is about justice, and with the nation’s finances in such a dire state, what better way to immediately stimulate the economy than putting this money back into real people’s hands.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Lewis, www.moneysavingexpert.com

Consumer revolution

Bank charges reclaiming has been on hold for over two years for most, pending the result of the test case. Yet in that time, over one million claims have been lodged by consumers hoping to get in the queue for when the floodgates re-open.

It's estimated over £1 billion was paid out to charges victims before the hold.

However, banks must still hear your case if you have serious financial problems (see the Bank Charges Hardship guide for template letters).

The Government has remained quiet on bank charges, even though the reclaiming bandwagon started in late 2005, when the party was already in power.

It stated last month it wants to establish a body to instigate mass group actions (see Govt plans class action body news story) against banks and other financial institutions where compensation is due.

It also plans to appoint a 'consumer advocate' to oversee this process (see the Consumer Advocate blog).

Martin adds: "The Government is in political power, yet it seemingly just wants to introduce another mouth piece to tell it what the problems are.

"We doubt half the people in the street could tell you what's going on. What we need is some political decision-making to solve the problem. The Government has it in its power to sort this, but it hasn't.

"Maybe the fact the other political parties are now stealing a march on it will spur it into action."


If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impressive but it will never happen cause the libdems will never get in


PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very True but even if they can cause a discussion in parliament its bound to help the cause.

 

PF


If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True:)


PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that can keep this issue at the forefront is a good thing in my mind.

 

PF


If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw this earlier - yes, the more publicity the better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Impressive but it will never happen cause the libdems will never get in

 

I have to say that stranger things have happend, both labour and the cons ideas are poles apart on how to run the economy, neither which will have a good outcome for the people of this country.... so the eventfull day may be approaching where the lib dems just might snatch it, even if through a hung parliment, which is what I predict will happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally some MPs have woken up to this!

 

(Even if it is the Lib Dems!)


My advice is given based on personal experience and any useful information I've picked up over the years. Always seek professional advice if there's any doubt.

 

<Please feel free to click on the star if you think I've been helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant understand why the population is so fearful of the lib dems surely thay can do no worse then labour or the conservatives.

 

conservatives will be high taxes and interest rates still not forgotten there last outing.

 

Labour well say no more its all in the media and press.

 

So i may as well chance my arm with the lib dems because until we give them a go we will never find out if they can do the job.

 

PF


If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cant understand why the population is so fearful of the lib dems

 

It's not fear, it's the fact that they are the least likely to get in at the next election out of the big three parties

 

So i may as well chance my arm with the lib dems because until we give them a go we will never find out if they can do the job.

 

I'm seriously thinking about it, although I can still remember a certain David Steel telling his party conference to go back to their constitiuencies and prepare for parliament... I think we all know what happened


My advice is given based on personal experience and any useful information I've picked up over the years. Always seek professional advice if there's any doubt.

 

<Please feel free to click on the star if you think I've been helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not fear, it's the fact that they are the least likely to get in at the next election out of the big three parties

 

Indeed Ajax but this is the point why are they the least likely,when it has been proven many times the other two cant do a good job in stabilizing this country.

 

I still believe the government of today is out of touch with the real world

 

PF


If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still believe the government of today is out of touch with the real world

 

I don't, I think they are 'more' in touch than you and me. I am of the firm belief that thy just don't care.

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...