Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Go and show All the paper work to a solictor then and seek their advice, think its becoming pointless anyone from CAG advising you anymore !
    • The Court appears to have accepted the fact Fitness Superstore were served the full particulars of claim. This is indicated under "recent transactions" where the date of service is recorded as 21/12/2021 in keeping with the certificate of service that was re-filed to the court with the correct address.
    • Things are becoming more involved, Redwood Collections have been attempting to contact me for the past 4 days without leaving a message and using a different number each time. In addition I have also had an application for credit declined as a result of "information provided by credit reporting agencies".   The plan of action is to pay what I think is owed at the end of the contract period on 31st Jan, check the credit file and send a SAR to the company which denied the credit application to see if more can be understood.   I now may not be the only person directly affected by Shell Energy's inaccurate data processing. However as suggested above I wish to formally receive judgement regarding Shell Energy's incomplete disclosure. I think this will be important evidence indicating their data processing is in disarray. There are two considerations: 1. If it really is best to wait until the incomplete disclosure case is heard this could significantly delay bringing further action. 2. On the other hand as a result of intervention by the ICO Shell Energy did finally disclose the evidence which shows their inaccurate data processing so it may be prudent to simply proceed once the steps above are complete in order not to significantly delay the action.
    • With reference to the claim for harassment against Shell Energy the cause for action could be substantiated by their multiple breaches of CONC. Shell Energy are a registered member of the FCA. I have attached a single true copy indicating the format of each message received.   @BankFodder Do you think these messages fall foul of CONC 7.9? CONC 7.9 - A firm must ensure that a person contacting a customer on its behalf explains to the customer the following matters: (1) who the person contacting the customer works for; (2) the person's role in or relationship with the firm; and (3) the purpose of the contact.   I expect the rabbit hole to take the following path: SE claim it wasn't a person that contacted me claiming they don't have to allocate an actual person provided they act as a reasonable person. I would respond that given the explicit instruction not to contact me via text message that the reasonable person would have written to me with their name, role and contact details, as well as to have complied with CONC 7.5.3 and CONC 7.14.5 below.   There appears to also be a breach of CONC 7.5.3 A firm must not ignore or disregard a customer's claim that a debt has been settled or is disputed and must not continue to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the customer's claim is not valid.   CONC 7.14.5 - A firm must provide a customer with information on the outcome of its investigations into a debt which the customer disputed on valid grounds. As per the data they have elected to disclosure so far no investigation has been carried out. SE - Msg example.pdf
    • I've tried to call and send text messages, but I'm being ignored by the Agent who sold me the vehicle now.  Can you please recommend what next steps I would take? Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

Reviving old claim


acslater
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4535 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

I started a claim with Barclays (Woolwich) in 2006 for a larege amount - approx £12k plus interest. I put in my claim to Barclays and they came back to me in 2006 offering me only £1000 to close the claim. I phoned them to see why only £1000 and they came back and increased the offer to £2000. I didn't accept.

I really need the money now and I know 3 years have almost passed. Can someone let me know, can I continue with my claim where I left it back in 2006 for the whole amount (12k plus interest)- my claim would have been for charges between 2000 and 2006, or can i only claim 6 years from now.

As the claim went in to Barclays, I am wondering does the claim need to go into the court?

 

Please help.:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, this is bank charges, not credit card claim?

 

EDit: Ok I see from previous posts it's bank charges

 

Can someone let me know, can I continue with my claim where I left it back in 2006 for the whole amount (12k plus interest)-
Yes, it will still be registered with Barclays

 

my claim would have been for charges between 2000 and 2006, or can i only claim 6 years from now
That's fine. Even if you were starting now, under the FSA waiver you can go back 6 years from 27th July 2007 ie from now back to 27th July 2001

 

As the claim went in to Barclays, I am wondering does the claim need to go into the court?
As a bank charges claim it would be stayed anyway, plus it would be Fast track. I'd leave it as it is frankly. Edited by Michael Browne
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I now need to got to court to claim?
No you don't have to. Filing a claim at court would ensure your right to s69 8% interest, rather than relying on the FSA waiver, which covers this, but of course isn't law. Plus there would be court fees to pay now.

 

 

 

I am in a very tight financial situation at the moment due to the economy - is there a quick way?
If you have priority debt arrears (rent/mortgage, utilities, council tax etc) you could claim financial hardship under which the bank may make an interim payment. But it won't be 12 grand:D and it ain't necessarily quick.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...