Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Might be worth passing story to RIP off Britain?
    • Thanks, I've had my fill of this lot. What makes me so mad is that I had to take out student loan to get any DHSS help. And then when I tried to help myself and family they presented obstacles.
    • there is NO exposure if you simple remove your name address/ref numbers etc from docs, over 10'000 pdf uploads are here. which then harvests IP addresses off of the people that then do so..which is why we do not allow hosting sites. read our rules and upload carefully thats exactly why we say capture as JPG, redact, then convert/merge to one mass PDF. then online sites to achieve that we list do not leave watermarks.  every once in a while we have a user like you that thinks they know better...we've been doing it since 2006 with not one security issue. thank you.
    • was at the time you ticked it  but now they've still not complied . if you read up, here , you'll see thats what everyone does,  
    • no they never allow the age related get out, erudio are masters at faking supposed 'arrears' fees which were levied before said date and thus null its write off. 1000's of threads here on them!! scammers untied that lot. i can almost guarantee they'll state it's not SB'd too re above, but just ignore them once sent. dx    
  • 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

Mike v Halifax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6483 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

Hello Mike

As Michael says, it is up to you.

However, you might find it of further interest to read through my thread ‘Halifax persist with unlawful charges’ where I was kindly given advice by both Michael and jonni2bad.

You can read the letter I finally sent in the thread ‘DeviousDame Vs Halifax (Need Advice Please) #16

As I said in a previous reply, HMCS will give them 14 days to reply irrespective.

PeterG

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I am now about to file with MCOL, doing it at this very minute. I've looked all over for the particulars of claim to fill out online,(a shorter version of the N1 claim) seen it loads of times and now cant find it. If anyone has a copy or knows where i can find it, can you please let me know.

 

Many thanks....... Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had a pound for every time Ive posted this!!!!

 

Claimant has account (A/C No) with Defendant from (Date a/c opened)conducted on their standard terms and conditions. Claimant is claiming the return of (£0.00 = amount of charges claimed) taken by Defendant in charges over (X) years. The Defendant's charges are a disproportionate penalty and therefore unenforceable as they are contrary to common law. They are also invalid under the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 s.4 and under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.Para.8 and sch.2.1.e.

In the event that the charges are not a penalty they are unreasonable within the meaning of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 s.15. Defendant has declined justification of charges despite repeated requests. Claimant claims interest under Sec.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% a year from(Date of 1st charge) to (Date of filing claim) of (£0.00 =The interest in the 8% spreadsheet calculation) and also interest at same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of (£0.00p = Amount of charges claimed x 0.00022).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much Michael, I would willingly give you a pound mate, your help is so very much appreciated. I actually found it just after my last post & have been busy filing my MCOL, all done now & i feel loads better for getting that bit out of the way.

 

Just 1 querie i have now, Do i need to send off my schedule of claims to anyone. I have 3 copy's all printed off as my original plan was to file in person using the N1 claim form. MCOL was so easy & less time consuming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I had a pound for every time Ive posted this!!!!

 

Now, now, does it really cost you a £1 to post.....???? :lol::lol::lol:

Halifax Plc - £1,956.00 + £360.15 interest = £2316.15

Preliminary Letter Sent - 7/8/2006

Standard blah, blah Letter arrived - 12/8/2006

LBA Letter Sent - 21/8/2006

Filed Moneyclaim - 04/09/2006

Moneyclaim Issued - 05/09/2006

Moneyclaim Acknowledged - 06/09/2006

**Settled in Full** - 11/09/2006

 

Barclays Bank Plc - Statements arrived - £250.00

Preliminary Letter Sent - 12/9/2006

 

 

Step-by-Step Instructions

A Good Place to Start

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have filed my claim & recieved a letter from MCOL today just saying my claim has been issued & will be deemed served on 17/9/06. I also got a letter from Halifax with yet another charge of £39. Can i claim this back too, is it too late to add it onto my claim. If not, what should i do to add this extra charge on?

Thanks...... Mike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update on my claim. I filed my MCOL on 11/9/06, had a letter back from them the next day to say it had been issued & deemed to be served on 17/9/06. I just checked MCOL to see it had already been acknowledged. I guess i just sit back & wait now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, I recieved a letter from Halifax this morning & before i jump for joy, i would like to say 'A MASSIVE MASSIVE THANK YOU' to Michael Browne, Mechs, PeterG, & Everyone who has posted in my thread for all the help & support you gave me throughout my claim. Also to all those people & site helpers who keep this site going & continually updated. Without any of you guys & this site of course, i would never of gotten anywhere. Your help was & is so much appreciated.

Well after saying my thank you's, I guess the only thing left to say is...............

 

 

 

WOO HOO! I WON.

Halifax have agreed to re-unite me with my money. Total of £3979.40.

I shall fill out the survey & once money is here be making my donation.

Thanks Again Everyone, & for those just starting or part way through a claim,

STICK WITH IT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

congratulations Mike as for the help this is what the site is all about, can you please keep us updated then when you recieve your money we can then change the thread title

 

Thanks

:) Go on ... you know you want to click me :)

:lol:don't be like the banks - give a little back :lol:

:D There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered! :D

In progress:

Mechs and Mother (deceased) V Halifax - N1 form filed at Court 9 Aug 06

Advice & opinions of mechs, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...