Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well.   But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them.   If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction.   Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

Bookworm

Complaint about Halifax new charges regime, template letters here.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2642 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

Ok, here goes, no 1.

 

Work in progress, and do tweak to your purpose, don't just blindly cut and paste. Some of you may get the higher charge than £1, change that. This is not one size fits all, it fits mostly. OK?

 

 

Make sure you READ it and UNDERSTAND it. I know it sounds obvious, but you'd be shocked as to how many just copy blindly and fall on their backsides when they get a reply.

 

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax

Customer Relations

PO Box 548

Leeds LS1 1WU

 

[Name]

[Address]

 

[date] [sort code/account no]

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I refer to your letter/leaflet of [date], in which you advised that my regular overdraft would be subject to a £1 per day charge from December 2009.

 

I wish to state my refusal of these unilaterally imposed terms. The agreement between you and me was that this overdraft was provided without a charge apart from the interest it attracts, and I have no wish for this to change, nor have you given me a choice in the matter.

 

I am in a situation where I can not just pay off my overdraft and leave, which effectively leaves me at the mercy of your iniquitous charges.

 

Please be advised that I am reporting the matter to the attention of the Office of Fair Tradings, as I believe your actions:

 

  • Contravene the Consumer Protections from Unfair Trading Regulations Act 2008 and are in fact prohibited under Part 2, section 3.-(3)(a) and (b): "(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a) it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

b) it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product."

  • I also believe your actions contravene the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, section 5. (1) to (4):

5. - (1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

(2) A term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term.

 

(3) Notwithstanding that a specific term or certain aspects of it in a contract has been individually negotiated, these Regulations shall apply to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of it indicates that it is a pre-formulated standard contract.

 

(4) It shall be for any seller or supplier who claims that a term was individually negotiated to show that it was.

and I also refer you to

Schedule 2 "INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR",

1. (k) enabling the seller or supplier to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the product or service to be provided.

I don't consider the "simplification" you claim is your primary reason for this change to be a valid reason.

 

Furthermore, I don't believe that your changes pass the test of transparency, as you have failed to give clear examples of what that daily charge equals in terms of the interest rate this equates to under typical amounts. Indeed, I believe that translated in a percentage, those rates would put your average loan shark to shame. Please feel free to correct those figures, but this is what I have seen reported:

£0.01 Overdraft: 3,650,000%

£100 Overdraft: 365%

£1000 Overdraft: 36.5%

 

Furthermore the change is going to hit the hardest the people in the worst economic situation, as those who can afford it will leave in droves whilst those stuck in the living-in-the-overdraft trap will be the ones worst hit, unable to leave and hit for those fees month after month after month. In a lot of cases, it may lead people to try and raise additional funds by taking on consolidation loans to pay off the overdraft, when they may not be able to afford it in the first place, which would amount to irresponsible lending and/or a breach of the OFT's guidance on Unfair Business Practices 2.6 (b) "pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further borrowing or to extend their borrowing". Whilst I can't be sure of this happening, it is not inconceivable that quite a few of your customers will turn to you to find a way to solve the issue and may get talked into additional borrowing against common sense and OFT guidance.

 

Finally, I believe that this very material change to your Terms and Conditions is a direct breach of the FSA waiver to which you agreed, in that you are not supposed to alter your T&Cs in a manner which will disadvantage your customers whilst the OFT v Banks test case is ongoing.

 

I reiterate to you my absolute refusal to this change of charging regime and await your proposal to resolve this issue.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

[sign]

[name]

 

CC:

 

OFT

FSA

[your MP]

Edited by Bookworm
I am NOT good at maths!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice work Bookie.

 

Lex


Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!

 

Please don't rush, take time to read these:-

 

 

&

 

 

This is always worth referring to

 

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No 2, to OFT:

 

Enquiries and Reporting Centre

Office of Fair Trading

Fleetbank House

2-6 Salisbury Square

London

EC4Y 8JX.

 

 

[Name]

[Address]

[date]

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter I have today sent to Halifax Bank. I know the OFT doesn't deal with individual cases, but I believe this blanket approach towards their customer base does come within your remit.

 

In this particular economic climate especially, this unfair money-making exercise is going to create even more poverty, more vicious circle of charges begetting charges, all this in a period when the consumer is unable to seek remedy due to the FSA waiver. Meanwhile, banks such as Halifax happily flout the very same waiver and unilaterally impose their changes on their customers at a time when they are not supposed to.

 

This is a request for the OFT to immediately start investigating Halifax Bank's disgraceful behaviour.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

[sign]

[name]

 

Enclosed: [copy of letter no 1]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:!:HOLD THE FORT!!!:!:

 

I have just thought of something else to add to it as I was musing on the implications of the change. Don't copy the template yet!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent letter bookworm, just one thing though, in your example of interst rates you have got £100 listed twice with 2 different rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooops. My bad. Correction on its way, I actually copied that form another post. Proves what I said about not just copying and pasting, lol. :oops:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any maths genius about who can check the numbers? :-|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey thanks for this, goin to draft up for hubby. Can I ask though, the letter my husband received is not dated! so what shall I put where it says [date]?

 

thanks in advance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey thanks for this, goin to draft up for hubby. Can I ask though, the letter my husband received is not dated! so what shall I put where it says [date]?

 

thanks in advance

 

I just put the date I got it through the post , which was last Thursday.

 

The maths thing (previous post)...I did not spot that...and the letters gone...oh well...I think they get the gist of whats been said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bookworm and everyone else too for this

 

huge thanks fab as always

 

wonder if any national paper would be interested to persue this,

 

just carry on everyone and lets make some noise!!!

 

have a sunny day all laters angel x:cool:

Edited by angel_1
spelling,,,lol

Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)

 

my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"

 

This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just say that I had an interesting flyer addressed to me through the post today from Halifax - it was a flyer advertising nothing other than than their LOANS! Coincidence??? ...hmmm!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya all

 

have signed the government petition and now we can do facebook, fab

 

well remember when that lady spoke out about marks and spencer charging more for bras because more material and she did a facebook page, that worked a treat marks and spencer bowed down

 

so hey maybe this is the way to go too, fab idea gerrybhoy

 

laters all angel x


Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)

 

my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"

 

This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great letter Bookworm...lets hope it helps get rid of this iniquitous charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did they say about the issue on Watchdog? - missed it due to footy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What did they say about the issue on Watchdog? - missed it due to footy

The Watchdog feature was crap to be fair.

 

They simply stated the facts and said there were lots of angry customers interviewed by Martin .......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That will have HBOS quaking in their boots then. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hiya all

 

have signed the government petition and now we can do facebook, fab

 

 

Can you provide a link to the petition as I can't find it on the govt website. Thanks.

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...