Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • we need the exact particulars of claim, not what you have put please.  
    • Thank you everyone for your quick responses I just wish I posted here in the first place    I probably shouldn't have filled in the claim form however on the letter it said I had limited time to do so and because I was dealing with CST law trying to come to an agreement with paying off the debt I didn't think it would get to this point and now I have probably made my situation worst. Of course, I would have posted here first before sending it off had I not been in communication with CST to set up an agreement.    I sent the letter back to the court as some point in early August, the issue date on the claim form is 28th July and the most recent letter I have received 'Notice of fast track' is dated 18th November    If I am honest I can't fully remember what I wrote word for word in my defence, it would have been along the lines of why I left, my reasons and the fact I returned to my old career in an office plus taking a pay cut to do so. There wasn't much room to write a long winded defence so I kept it relativity short.   The above document Andy has posted is the exact document I am now looking at very confused in what exactly I put where    I just want to re-iterate I never agreed with this money I owe due to the training bond but it has gone on for so long at this point I'm happy to set up a payment plan if the balance can get reduced or a small one off payment upfront and this is exactly what I was trying to do prior to receiving the most recent letter    I have had zero communication from CST law, Centrica advised me to deal with them directly and I was waiting for a response from CST with the offer we had put across to Centrica - I chased it multiple times the following weeks and they kept telling me they haven't had a response and when they do we'll contact you which they still have not   Ideally I would rather not give them any money however I feel like I am out of options at what I probably should have done years ago is attempt to get it reduced and set up a payment plan    Please let me know if I have missed any critical info out    Thanks again for everyones help    What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? I left a British Gas apprenticeship within the first 12 months of starting and went back to my old career in an office , my reasons for leaving were down to the completely differant job role which I realised quikcly was not for me and it was impacting my mental health massively. The claim is for a training bond which was in a contract I signed based on a sliding scale Year 1 - £9,000 year 2 £6,000 year 3 £3,000     What is the total value of the claim? £13433    Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No  Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Training bond due to leaving an apprenticeship before 3 years    When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? They have sent me a virtually signed document with the contract   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? No   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Centrica are claimant, CST law are dealing and the court   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I believe so yes   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? I have had multiple letters like everyone else who has been on the forum over the years regarding this matter   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? I am unsure, but when I left I had contested the original claim as I was dealing directly with Centrica’s collection team and they never got back to me after the final email I had sent and didn’t hear anything until years down the line   Why did you cease payments? N/A   What was the date of your last payment? N/A   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? Correct I oringinally contested what was owed back in 2017 and gave my reasons for leaving and I assumed the matter was closed   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No  
    • OK thanks again Andy.   And understood 👍😉
    • Thank you for this. The first thing to be say is that this means that you are winning. It is pretty well unheard of in my experience for the bank to give way and finally return the money. The fact that they have done this under the threat of a judgement for breach of statutory duty indicates even more that they are worried about their position. Nowhere have they indicated that they have complied with the requirements of the Proceeds of Crime Act and informed the National crime agency. I don't believe they have and this is a very serious breach of statutory duty. Not only that it is a very serious breach of the FCA BCOBS regulations in that they are required to treat you fairly. Treating you fairly in this case means that they must comply with the rest of their statutory duties. It appears that they really haven't done this at all and that they have acted in an arbitrary way in disregard of the law and that they are hoping to get away with it. I find myself wondering how many other hundreds of people have been treated in exactly the same way – and you are probably the first ever to have stood up to them and to get them worried. I think I've already indicated that a press contact of mine in the Sunday Times would be very interested in this story. He has already run stories about the very poor standards applied by banks when deciding that their customers are involved in some fraudulent behaviour. The first thing to say about the letter which you have received is that they are trying to apply conditions to releasing your own money. It's your money and there should be no conditions and my suggestion is that you object to this. Secondly, not only are they threatening to continue to withhold your own money – but also they are saying that if they release it to you you will simply have the net figure without any kind of interest or compensation. It's clear that while they have had your money, they have invested it and earn money on it. They have probably been lending it out at between 16% and 20% and although the usual rate of interest is 8%, it seems to me that justice can only be served by repaying you your money plus the commercial rate of interest – at a compound rate. Normally the 8% is calculated at simple. Thirdly, they are not offering to pay you any compensation and clearly they are hoping to get away with it without any kind of sanction or not even a slap on the wrist.   Fourthly, they had the nerve to impose a seven day deadline. Don't worry about their deadline. It's a load of huff and puff. This is all part of their bluff game designed to intimidate you. At the end of seven days – what? Are they then going to insist on going to court?   If they really believe that they had done everything correctly and that the money was fraudulent, then they would not offer it to you back under any circumstances. It would be illegal for them to do so. You can be certain that these people do not want to go to court. In fact they probably wish they had never started.   Finally, they want the matter to be kept confidential – and I can't say I blame them. I would be ashamed if people knew that I had treated somebody else in this way and I'm sure they are worried about reputational damage. I'm also sure that there are extremely worried about what will happen if you get a judgement against them for breach of statutory duty. It will have to be reported to the FCA. It will have to be reported to the NCA. And of course it should be reported to the newspapers because people need to know what is going on. If you want, you can simply accept their proposal – get your money back, given confidentiality – and that's the end of the matter. However, you have no idea how this will impact on your record in the future. I imagine that they will bar you from ever opening an account with them again. – But at least you will have your money and you can get on with your life. However, if you want you can stand your ground and make it clear to them that you are going to be mucked around and treated like this and that you are prepared to go to court if they won't make a proper offer. I understand that you need to pay a court fee of about £350 in the next seven days. I expect that the bank is making this offer now hoping to dissuade you from spending any more money and hoping that you will back down. If you have the money to proceed then I would suggest very strongly that it will be a very serious sign of strength that you tell the bank that you're not interested in that you are paying the fee for the next stage of the court process. If the bank knows that you've called their bluff on this and that you have been prepared to invest further money in moving this legal action forward, then they will start to reflect and I can perfectly well imagine that they will make you another more interesting offer – once again on conditions of confidentiality. Without seeing any further offer, I'm already suggesting that you will probably be best off turning it down. In any event, I would remind you going back several months that I already predicted that the bank would make you confidential offer – and that has happened. I'm not saying that I'm always going to be right here – but I think that now basically the bank have pretty well admitted that they need to pay you your money, there is no chance of you losing it. You will get your money and it really is just a question of how much else you will get in addition. If you'd like to continue then let me know and I will suggest a draft response to them.
    • The cost of living in Britain over a person's lifetime is over £1.5m, new findings have claimed as the nation feels the squeeze amid soaring energy costs and dismal interest rates on cash savings.View the full article
  • Our picks

outrage over new bank charges


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4447 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

In a clear-cut case of anti-British discrimination, the partially taxpayer-owned bank Lloyds TSB charges British people £200 for an overdraft and Muslims £15 for the same facility, it has been revealed.

The disparity has come about as a result of the introduction of Sharia banking by Lloyds and other banks in response to the Islamic colonisation of Britain.

This Muslim colonisation of Britain has, in turn, been caused by the Third World invasion immigration policies pursued by Tory and Labour governments.

The “Islamic account” offered by Lloyds TSB was set up to attract Muslim customers by “allowing them to keep faithful to their religion.” Apparently, Sharia law does not permit the payment of interest so the Islamic account at Lloyds TSB has been set up without an overdraft facility. No interest is charged on Islamic accounts, while customers with a normal account are hit with charges of up to £200 if they go overdrawn.

If a Muslim customer who has insufficient funds in the account tries to make a payment, it is blocked and a “return item fee” is charged.

However, on some Islamic accounts such a payment is authorised and an “unplanned overdraft fee” of £15 is then levied. The bank says this is a management fee, not a payment of interest, so does not contradict Sharia law.

Non-Muslim customers who go into the red without authorisation are fined with an “unplanned overdraft fee” of £20 a day for a maximum of ten days, plunging them into a £200 debt which is avoided by Muslim customers.

* There is good news: the “Islamic account” is available to all customers at Lloyds TSB. This bank needs to be taught a lesson for their initial exploitation of overdraft fees and their blatant anti-British discrimination.

The one way to do this is for all Lloyds TSB customers reading this story to go down to their branch and demand that their account be made into an “Islamic account.”

If enough people do this, the banks will not be able to steal as much money from the public as they would like. It will also send a message to the banking community that more and more people are sick and tired of their blatant discrimination.

All other High Street banks offer Sharia banking as well and there is no reason why all customers cannot suddenly claim to be Muslim and open these sorts of banking accounts to teach all the banks a lesson in people power.

Earlier this month, it emerged that ‘losses’ at Lloyds had escalated to £13.4 billion. It has already been bailed out by the taxpayer to the tune of £17 billion and is 43 percent taxpayer-owned

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

no i cant ... and even if i could . why have a diffrant rule because of your own religion

Why can't you open one?

There is no religious test to opening the bank account. There is no discrimination because of race creed or colour.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't you open one?

There is no religious test to opening the bank account. There is no discrimination because of race creed or colour.

 

 

well we shall see if i can change my account ..i guess that you cant just change for the sake of not getting any charges

 

but there is discrimination on religious grounds

Link to post
Share on other sites

well we shall see if i can change my account ..i guess that you cant just change for the sake of not getting any charges

You can't change the type of account you have but you can open an account and move your payments over.

The £15.00 fee is not entirely correct since you can be charged unpaid fees. I saw the article elsewhere and read through the charges bit.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't change the type of account you have but you can open an account and move your payments over.

The £15.00 fee is not entirely correct since you can be charged unpaid fees. I saw the article elsewhere and read through the charges bit.

 

from there site : Islamic-Account-Lloyds.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

lets get this right and call me a racist if you want

i dont care

 

there is only one law in this country

 

its called the houses of parliment and the house of lords

 

we cut off a kings head for these rights

 

how dare any company bring in this sharia law which by any standards is barbaric

 

public stoning and beheading for instance

 

how is the goverment etc allowing this

 

this is europe, not the middle east

 

the rule of law as laid down by magna carter is for every one

 

all faiths

 

 

we are now becomming a split society thanks to the pc brigade

 

this has to stop

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the source of this particular piece of crap?

 

Well, I had guessed it, but just for confirmation:

 

Taxpayer-Owned Bank Overdraft Fees: British Customers Pay £200, Muslims £15 : The British National Party :rolleyes:

 

PS: How can it be "clear-cut anti-British discrimination", when a large proportion of born and bred Brits are in fact Muslim? :lol::rolleyes::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the terms in which Sparks199 expresses himself to be utterly repugnant. There has been no Islamic colonisation of Britain. When anyone applies to be allowed into Britain his religion, quite rightly, is not taken into consideration. Since most of the Muslims applying for a sharia account will be British, I fail to see how there are can be any anti-British discrimination. Further, being a Muslim, or indeed of any religion, is not incompatible with being British.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And the source of this particular piece of crap?

 

Well, I had guessed it, but just for confirmation:

 

Taxpayer-Owned Bank Overdraft Fees: British Customers Pay £200, Muslims £15 : The British National Party :rolleyes:

 

PS: How can it be "clear-cut anti-British discrimination", when a large proportion of born and bred Brits are in fact Muslim? :lol::rolleyes::lol:

 

this has nothing to do with racist

 

dont play that card ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and it is nothing new, early CAGgers reported on this 3 yrs ago, when someone noticed it (can't remember which bank though).

 

And just to add to the controversy a tad, I'm afraid it has nothing to do with PC or not, but with free market. If you don't like Barclays dealings with Zimbabwe and supporting Mugabe's regime, then you bank elsewhere. If it helps you sleep better believing Co-op's claims they are "ethical", then you bank with them.

 

Please let's not make this a race or religion issue when there is none. If we ALL had to bank according to Sharia law, then you'd have reasons to moan. In the meantime, each to their own. Maybe my bank charges me more for going overdrawn, but at least I don't risk getting stoned to death for disagreeing with my husband, thank you very much.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the terms in which Sparks199 expresses himself to be utterly repugnant. There has been no Islamic colonisation of Britain. When anyone applies to be allowed into Britain his religion, quite rightly, is not taken into consideration. Since most of the Muslims applying for a sharia account will be British, I fail to see how there are can be any anti-British discrimination. Further, being a Muslim, or indeed of any religion, is not incompatible with being British.

 

 

but why have that account .. when its clear that its on religious grounds

 

why should 1 account charge x amount and the other charge x amount

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact it was the Daily Mail who published the article first(yesterday) and the BNP that took a BNP view to it this morning. Not the other way round.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

this has nothing to do with racist

 

dont play that card ...

It has EVERYTHING to do with racism. :-? The BNP is making it so. "anti-British discrimination".

 

Oh ok, it's not racism, it's xenophobia. It's just the BNP doesn't use that word often because most of its members probably don't understand its meaning, least of all how to spell it. :rolleyes:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In a clear-cut case of anti-British discrimination, the partially taxpayer-owned bank Lloyds TSB charges British people £200 for an overdraft and Muslims £15 for the same facility, it has been revealed.

The disparity has come about as a result of the introduction of Sharia banking by Lloyds and other banks in response to the Islamic colonisation of Britain.

This Muslim colonisation of Britain has, in turn, been caused by the Third World invasion immigration policies pursued by Tory and Labour governments.

The “Islamic account” offered by Lloyds TSB was set up to attract Muslim customers by “allowing them to keep faithful to their religion.” Apparently, Sharia law does not permit the payment of interest so the Islamic account at Lloyds TSB has been set up without an overdraft facility. No interest is charged on Islamic accounts, while customers with a normal account are hit with charges of up to £200 if they go overdrawn.

If a Muslim customer who has insufficient funds in the account tries to make a payment, it is blocked and a “return item fee” is charged.

However, on some Islamic accounts such a payment is authorised and an “unplanned overdraft fee” of £15 is then levied. The bank says this is a management fee, not a payment of interest, so does not contradict Sharia law.

Non-Muslim customers who go into the red without authorisation are fined with an “unplanned overdraft fee” of £20 a day for a maximum of ten days, plunging them into a £200 debt which is avoided by Muslim customers.

* There is good news: the “Islamic account” is available to all customers at Lloyds TSB. This bank needs to be taught a lesson for their initial exploitation of overdraft fees and their blatant anti-British discrimination.

The one way to do this is for all Lloyds TSB customers reading this story to go down to their branch and demand that their account be made into an “Islamic account.”

If enough people do this, the banks will not be able to steal as much money from the public as they would like. It will also send a message to the banking community that more and more people are sick and tired of their blatant discrimination.

All other High Street banks offer Sharia banking as well and there is no reason why all customers cannot suddenly claim to be Muslim and open these sorts of banking accounts to teach all the banks a lesson in people power.

Earlier this month, it emerged that ‘losses’ at Lloyds had escalated to £13.4 billion. It has already been bailed out by the taxpayer to the tune of £17 billion and is 43 percent taxpayer-owned

 

I see where the BNP view comes from, a copy and paste from their site. Poor choice of article sparks since the Daily Mail article would have been a better choice and is already posted on the forum.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where the BNP view comes from, a copy and paste from their site. Poor choice of article sparks since the Daily Mail article would have been a better choice and is already posted on the forum.

 

 

look again ....the article came from the Daily Mail article

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...