Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for getting the signage posted up so quickly. The sign on entry should explain their T&Cs. As they don't it means that  what they have given you is  an offer to treat, not a contract. For there to be a contract they would have had to put their offer at the entrance.  You cannot put a notice saying that their T&Cs are inside the car park and expect motorists to be subject to those T&Cs when they are unaware what the terms are.. They have to be able to read them and understand them before they can accept them. My feeling is that the sign that includes the charge of £100 is too small to be acceptable On top of that the sign at the entrance is for Parking Control Solutions while the signs inside are from HX Management-a completely different animal. To strengthen your case for not paying them is the fact that their PCN is not compliant.  Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 there are certain wordings in  the NTK  that by Law must comply with the Act. They don't  have to quote that part of the Act in their PCN but the relevant wording has to be included. PoFA Schedule 4 paragraph 9 [2]   the notice must  [f]   warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;   Your  NTK does not include  [if all the applicable conditions  under the Schedule have been met ]thus rendering the NTK non compliant.  
    • I agree its about time but why has it taken for the National Crime Agency to flag this up for then to take action and not Ofcom.   Yet again a Government Agency that is meant to deal with this hasn't Ofcom but flagged by another Agency NCA.   If the telephone companies have this facility in place already to do this then why hasn't Ofcom been pushing them to stop all these scam calls and giving them massive fines for not doing so.    
    • Hi   Send this to them:   Dear Sir/Madam   Formal Complaint   Reference:            (insert their complaint reference number here)   Thank you for your response letter dated XX/XX/2021 which I received by email on XX/XX/2021 that contained your Original Email sent that showed due to your Maladministration that you had sent the Original Email containing my Personal Data to an incorrect email address due to spelling errors in the email address.   a)      Due to this Maladministration of this email being sent to the incorrect email address this email contained my Personal Data which is a Data Protection Breach therefore I require clarification from yourselves that this Breach has been reported to your Data Protection Officer and what action is being taken to ensure that my Personal Data contained in that Original Email has not been read by the recipient that you sent that email to with the incorrect email address.   As the email was sent by yourselves to my correct email address containing the original email showing the incorrect email address was due to spelling errors (maladministration) your IT Department will be able to obtain those emails sent.   If I do not get a satisfactory response that this has been dealt with by your Data Protection Officer, I will report this Data Breach to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/   b)      Due to this Maladministration I failed to receive your Stage 1 complaint response within the allocated time limit for a Stage 1 response therefore this complaint should be dealt with as a Stage 2 Complaint and if you refuse to treat this as a Stage 2 Complaint, I require Full Clarification for your refusal.   I was placed in this Tenancy via the Rough Sleepers Initiative and I find your response about damaged/destroyed items that you would not be able to look into this as this happened 2 years ago but all tenants regardless of private or social housing are responsible for arranging their own contents insurance totally unacceptable as again, I was never notified nor informed of this requirement on taking up this tenancy.   I require clarification from yourself that when a New Tenant takes up a Tenancy Agreement with yourselves why are the not informed of this requirement of Contents Insurance which you should be duty bound to inform all tenants on taking up a tenancy agreement if such a requirement and it should also be noted within that tenants Housing File which you have full access to as dealing with complaint so I require clarification as well if this is noted in my Housing File.   You state multiple properties throughout the area were affected by sewage flood on the same day and the issue will have stemmed from the mains which is not your responsibility.   a)      You have failed to take into that the above statement from yourself blaming the Mains is without any actual evidence from yourselves to back up this claim therefore I require clarification as to what actual evidence you have and to be provided with copies.   b)      You also failed to take into account that in my initial complaint letter that on 12th July 2021 basement flats 1 & 2 were flooded by sewage exacerbated by blockage in the property’s drainage. The blockage has been confirmed by two contractors after the flooding including CCR who were subcontracted by Pyramid Plus that it was the properties drainage that was blocked. Also, while I was decanted from this property, I was contacted by CCR who confirmed that the drain was blocked but they could not access manhole as it was inaccessible as it is located in a utility cupboard underneath carpet, floorboards so how could this be the Main and not your responsibility when it is within the properties boundaries.   Your response about how complaints have been made by residents in relation to this issue is that your system does not allow you to find that information is completely unacceptable as your Housing Association should be able to produce these as part of ongoing repairs and maintenance/procurement processes to present these to your Board for there yearly Budget meeting if not why not.   Then you state you are under no obligation to share that information; therefore, your organisation is not being Open and Accountable to your Service Users and under which Article of the General Data Protection Act (GDPR) are you using for this refusal.   You have also failed to mention that I can make that above request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) and what is your process for such a request again not being Open and Accountable.   I await your response.
    • RE: EC261 Compensation   It's normal they won't have asked you to contact them . Your initial rescheduling was obviously done by a bot - and there was no human to notice the mistake, as far as the bot knew your scheduling was perfectly normal so there was no need to ask you to contact them.   As long as that was done 2 weeks in advance the carrier's liability to notify you is fulfilled.   (You could have contacted them there and pointed out that the new schedule was impossible. Unfortunately you didn't. Claiming you didn't notice is not likely to work in your favor)   The bot who sent you the 24h confirmation didn't notice the mistake either, obviously.   At some point a human or another bot finally identified the problem and that's when they called you. As far as they are concerned neither you nor them had noticed the scheduling mistake and they took it on them to notify you so you don't have a bad surprise when you try and check in.   However as far as I know, neither flight was delayed or cancelled. You could have taken both flights, if you had the power to be in two places at the same time.   So I don't think there is any scope to claim for EC261. But claim forms are free so feel free to try.     Then, you can certainly make an old fashioned claim (directly to BA)   What could perhaps play in your favor:   It's the carrier's responsibility to ensure that they don't sell you a ticket where the flyer cannot meet the minimum connection time or MCT.   This situation mostly applies to situations where the flyer doesn't know and gets caught. For example say you connect at LHR and you are given 35 minutes to connect. This may look just fine to an unsuspecting tourist, but in reality there is practically zero chance to make the connection, therefore the airline is liable here for selling you this ticket resulting in you missing your connection   In your case though it could be argued that even an unsuspecting tourist should be able to tell that it is not possible for them to depart 5 minutes prior to disembarking and therefore that you should have checked your notification more carefully.   The fact that the bot allowed such a glaring mistake to happen is certainly an argument in your favour shall you decide to make a complaint.     What doesn't play in your favor:   The airline obviously did their best to get you to your destination as soon as they noticed their mistake. They offered you more than one alternative (the first alternative would have got you in time at your destination, but you declined) and you then accepted another alternative, and fully travelled the ticket. That is a very strong position for them.     What did you lose and what do you intend to claim for?   You took the overnight connection so obviously you had to stay at an airport hotel. Is that correct? Did you keep the receipt for your hotel and meals?   You certainly should have asked them on the phone when negotiating your re-route that they provide a hotel. Within 20hrs of the flight it's something they would most probably not have denied to you (but airlines will generally avoid offering off the bat. Why lose money when a customer is just going to roll with it and pay for their own stay anyway, right?). After the fact it's going to be a lot more difficult to claim.   I do certainly think it would be reasonable to try and write them a polite but firm letter to claim for that. Not 700 euros, not damages and hardship and all that jazz, just the extra expense you incurred following a scheduling mistake that they made (that should have never happened) and that they didn't notice until way too late in the day , with your categorical inability to leave 3 hours earlier (you had very important business meetings or something critical, it certainly wasn't just convenience) and the extra costs incurred, and asking that they kindly provide compensation for the hotel and meals, which you feel it was their duty to offer you and you are politely disappointed that they didn't, and thafully you happen to have kept all the receipts. Put Alex Cruz on copy for good measure.   No guarantee but I feel it has a fair chance of success. Most probably you will be offered a heap of Avios instead of cash. It's then up for you to decide whether you want to accept that. Personally I wouldn't bother going further, but that's just me. See if anyone here disagrees, and do let us know what you decide and keep in touch with how it went.            
    • Well done El21.   You put a lot of time and research into that WS which paid off.   Funny that the Judge only mentioned that the NTK was  not compliant with regard to the time period but not query that you had not breached their T&Cs so never liable for a PCN in the first place.   Pity that since had the Judge thrown out the case you would have a great chance of claiming several pounds from them through a breach of GDPR.   I have used that time period argument before as the reason for the NTK being non compliant and it hasn't been mentioned by the Judge  so you have to put everything in to your WS since the Judge only has to pick one of the  points in your favour to throw out the case. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

prushton vs Abbey


prushton
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5314 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

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course............... but I wish Prushy would post the results up here...... Arrggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh..... the suspense :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in posting the result of todays court hearing, I am on nights this week and have just got in. Well here goes.

 

I arrived at Plymouth County Court half an hour early, checked the notice board and found the room number allocated for the hearing. I went through and saw the bloke behind the desk and told him I was here and the claim number.

 

He told me that the defence would like a word with me before we go in front of the judge. ( I was suprised they had even bothered to turn up - but hey ! it was good of them to bother.)

 

Anyway this suit turns up and we go sit at a table. He tells me he really hasnt a clue whats going on as he was only instructed at 6.50pm the night before. In his hand he has a document, which he shows me. It turns out to be a signed witness statement from a Debbie Waghorn - Head of data protection at the Abbey in London. He tells me that I have had all the information regarding my statements that the Abbey hold and that there is nothing left on Abbeys systems.He says that the Abbey would not lie about it as the consequences should they be caught out, now that the claim had reached the courts were serious.

 

It also turns out that the Abbey use a third party - a company called Ricoh as third party custodians of its microfiche records and that they had made inquiries with this company regarding my statements, but they too said they didnt hold any account information for my account.

 

I asked about destruction certs for destroyed data and he says that the judge has been shown the document and that he is happy that there is no more information to be had. He also says that they do not have to show destruction certificates as the document is enough to show there is no more data to be had.

 

Anyway, as a result of this cosy chat before going in to see the judge, my options are closing down fast. I can see that as the judge has seen the document and he is convinced that I have had all the information the Abbey hold on its systems , it would be pointless to argue that they did have my statements.

 

We go in to see the judge, who asks if I had seen the statement from this Debbie Waghorn, I said I had , and pointed out that the Abbey had left it until the very last minute to disclose the document and that had they disclosed it as part of the documents that they intended to rely on in court as per the judges directions ( which they didnt comply with ) , then the matter would not have reached the courts.

 

He agreed with me and asked the suit why it was not disclosed sooner. ( He tells the judge that he had only been instucted at 6.50 pm the night before and that he knew nothing of the document until just before the hearing , where he was given it prior to entering the court building.) The judge let the defence know he wasnt too happy about the late disclosure, and then asks me if I would like to adjourn for a further week or deal with the claim now.

 

I told the judge about the cosy chat with the defence outside and that as the statement by Debbie Waghorn had made it clear there was no more information to be had, it had effectively left me with very few options.

 

I told him that I wished to conclude the matter today and that if the court was satisfied there was no more information to be had then so was I. The judge then says that he has looked at my documents, and says that the only concern that he had regarding my claim for statements, was that my request to the Abbey for charges and interest information for the entire period that we held an account with the defendants( 1988 - 2002) may have been seen to have been excessive, within the context of the data Protection act.

 

It may be wise for anyone thinking of claiming beyond 6yrs and requesting statements to limit the number of years to say 10 - 12yrs ?

 

In conclusion, the judge said it would be best to withdraw the claim for statements as they didnt exist anymore, but he would award my costs against the defendants and that they be ordered to pay me £55 which represents £30.00 court fee and £25.00 mail costs.

 

I am looking at today like this, at least now I know that there are no more statements to retrieve.That my claim for the money side of things is for the most that I could hope to achieve when that reaches court in two weeks time, and I have recovered my costs. The icing on the cake is that I have caused the Abbey a significant amount of time and money in defending the claim :) .

 

Hope this helps you Lula x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I recieved a letter this morning from Inga Kirkman at the Abbey in London saying that in the interest of Blah ! Blah ! Blah ! the Abbey have decided to settle my claim - - - Hold on its not that good. They are going to pay me £970 which was for a claim for £3,800 . Ms Kirkman has decided that she will just cross out the estimated charges of 5 yrs totaling £2,700 - I know estimated charges are difficult to reclaim as the burden of proof is on the claimant, and therefore there is little hope I would get that amount in court , but I hoped they may a least made me a bigger offer to settle.

 

That Inga Kirkman is fast though !!!! - call me cynical but the letter she sent me today was drafted in advance of my statement claim and still managed to state that my statement claim was withdrawn yesterday and arrive this morning.

 

Now I am just as fast as she is because I knew she was going to do that - dont ask me how - so when I got back from court yesterday, I updated my schedule of charges totaling £3,800 including the estimated charges and sent her a letter inviting her to settle for the full amount , as the court claim was only 2 weeks away.

 

I sent it special delivery - to get there by 9am this morning. I imagine that at the same time I was opening her letter , she was opening mine, what a hoot !!!!! :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prush, I am going to pm you with some of my thoughts on all this, but you add on your 8% via the spreadsheet and that gicves you a total.

 

Now to get the daily rate you multiply the total by 0.00022 and then however many days it takes to settle, say 2 30 day months = 60 so you multiply the daily rate by 60 to give you a running total, hope all this makes sense

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not put in for contractual interest?

 

That way you'll get back what you wanted without the downer you've just had? :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, it seems all is not lost yet , as Inga seems to be under the impression that my schedule of charges is for my original request for payment at £3,600 which contained an element of estimated charges for the 4 yrs and 9mths of statements missing, and was the reason for the statement hearing on Tues. I have rejected her offer yesterday of £970.25 in settlement and hopefully she will settle on the £3,600 figure close to the court date. The worst that can happen is that it gets to court, I will have a revised schedule of charges for £1,109 already to go and tell the court that I have withdrawn the estimated element from the claim as we know its impossible to prove and therefore the claim is for the charges we can prove plus costs ie £1,109 :) any thoughts ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have decided to remove the estimated element from my claim, I have been in email discussions with Ms Kirkman and she says she will apply for adverse costs if I insist on keeping the estimated and it gets to court. The onus is on the claimant to prove the charges were made and as you know my court hearing for the missing statements didnt go well.So basicly I wouldnt stand a chance recovering the estimated charges as I couldnt prove they were applied.

 

But as the charges for 13mths only total £621.42 , by the time interest is added and my costs, plus charging Abbey £9.50 x 32 hours court preparation the claim is a healthy £1,505. As I can prove these charges and costs I expect that, at the very least I should walk away with the £1,505. I would expect Ms Kirkman to accept that this is the amount it is going to take to settle the claim. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi prush have been following your thread, the thing i can't get my head around is this. You are supposed to be able to get six years worth of statements from your bank, but your only managing to use 14 months, isn't this a bit convenient for the bank. I thought they have to keep 6 years by law? If they have not done so surely they are in the wrong not you? If thats not correct they will start loosing peoples info, left right and centre!!!!!!!:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for your kind words and suppport in my claim for statements, its really appreciated. The problem with my claim, and this is probably different to most peoples request for statements is that my account was opened in 1988 and closed in 2002. The last six years of statements would therefore cover 1996 - 2002. The Abbey are only obliged to keep records for 6 yrs and so thats six years from 2007, therefore the statements from 1996 - 2001 would have been destroyed according the Abbey.

 

This leaves the Abbey with approx 13-18 mths of statements left on file, which is what I recieved. Now I know that some people ( Armsoft) has received 12 yrs of statements from the Abbey, and this maybe because the account is still active , but since the Abbey produced the Ricoh statement, saying there were no more records to be had and this satisfied the judge, then I was left with no choice but to accept my costs amd withdraw my claim for statements. :sad: Thanks Karne maybe you could turn something up about Ricoh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the last page of the document that satisfied the judge that there was no more statements to be had:

 

 

7. I have made enquiries of the Defendant's third party custodian of customers microfiche records, Rlcoh. I am instructed that neither the Defendant, nor Ricoh has (any longer) microfiche records relating to the Claimants account which pre-dates June 2000. I am unable to say exactly when it ceased to have such information, to the best of my knowledge it would have been In accordance with the Defendant's policy which I describe above.

8. The Defendant Is therefore unable to comply with the Claimant's request for further personal data as the Defendant Is not In possession of It,

9. I believe that the facts stated In this Witness Statement are true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Print name: Debbie Waghorn

Address: Abbey .Notional House; S Triton Square, Regent's Park, London

Abbey House , 201 Grafton Gate East, Milton Keynes, MKL9 1AN

Dates 19 March 2007

3

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reclaiming my sisters charges from Hsbc, we have a directions hearing coming up on the 18th April at Bradford County Court, can anyone tell me what a direction hearing involves and what documents should be taken to the hearing ? if anyone has attended one of these things I would like your input please. Thanks for your help. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Anyone know what documents to take to a directions hearing? if anyone has been to one of these things I would appreciate it if you could let me know how to go about it. thanks ! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...