Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to clear it up, sorry I don't make sense sometimes. I have paid £4000 £1200 of that was suppose to clear the £1200 debt.   Meaning I have sent a extra £2800 on top of my normal mainternance money.   Thank you
    • Try CPR 31.15 Possibly but a party is not compelled to disclose any documents pre allocation
    • Hi, I shown my key worker a letter that was sent to me saying that I owe £1200, she setup a standing order around 2021, this was to pay back money I owed, with my mental health status I have had complex issues to deal with and I just simply forgot about this standing order so it has been running for about 3.5 years acording to my key worker, anyway I'm not worried about the money that was sent that I call a overpayment, it went towards supporting my child's household so I am just happy with that, I am a little sad that I am being told I still owe this £1200, I have sent bank statements over 3 years worth but they have not taken away this £1200 bill and still say I owe it   Thank you
    • She did try contacting EON in the early days of the debt but they refused to speak to her because she could not pass the security checks. She didn't know the answers on an account she hadn't opened?   I also saw this article recently which could be what has happended here: Debt collection agencies in the UK are using fair means or foul to link people to an address where an unpaid debt has been run up, sometimes years after they have moved out The Guardian Anna Tims Mon 22 Apr 2024 The letter from the debt collection agency arrived out of the blue, and it was intimidating. It informed Joshua Simpson* that he owed £2,212 to Octopus Energy, and accused him of ignoring previous requests to settle the bill. If he did not stump up within 14 days, he was told, further action would be taken to recover the money. Simpson checked his Octopus account – it was in credit. Then he noticed the address where the debt had been accrued between 2022 and 2023. It was his childhood home – which his family had sold 18 years previously. "Since I was only 16 when we left the property, I was astonished that they'd linked my name [to it]," he says. "The debt collection agency insisted I provide a tenancy agreement to prove how long I've lived at my current address. I couldn't, since we bought our home. "They are now actively pursuing me for this debt, causing me a huge amount of stress. We are about to remortgage, and if this debt prevents us switching to a better deal, we will face real financial hardship." Simpson had been sucked into the shadowy world of "identity tracing", whereby investigators recruited by creditors seek to locate individuals who have moved home without paying their bills. It is an unregulated sector where anyone can set up as an agent in a back room without a licence, or scrutiny, and use fair means or foul to identify debtors. Reputable companies join a trade association that operates a code of practice, but membership is not mandatory, and mistakes are common. Last year, a teenage boy was chased for a debt of more than £900 by debt collectors acting for the energy company Ovo. A "trace agent" had somehow linked him to the debt because his parents had previously rented the property in question. An investigation by the Observer established that the debt had been run up by a subsequent tenant. The consequences of mistaken identity can be catastrophic. Individuals who are erroneously linked to a debt face, at worst, court action, bailiffs and a ruined credit rating. At best, they can endure weeks of stress and paperwork in order to prove they are not the debtor. It is estimated that 20m identity traces are made in the UK every year, many on behalf of companies that are owed money. Personal data is often obtained from credit reference agencies, which record applications for credit, and details are supposed to be verified with several different sources before being used for debt enforcement. In practice, however, this does not always happen. Simpson's details had been passed along a chain of intermediaries before the demand was issued. Octopus had given the unpaid account to a debt collection agent, which had contracted a tracing service, GBG, to find the debtor................ Full Article: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/oct/04/a-cry-for-help-energy-providers-play-the-villain-in-dramas-to-chill-the-blood ..............The Financial Ombudsman Service, which investigates complaints about financial firms, states that debt collection agents have to produce convincing evidence to link an individual to a debt, rather than rely on names, addresses and birth dates. According to the trade association, the Institute of Professional Investigators, an unknown number of investigators and trace agents are operating below the radar. Many more are merely inept, as data protection compliance training is not mandatory. "We have been campaigning for many, many years to try to get all private investigators regulated," says secretary general Glyn Evans.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Bank Charge issues Post Test case - Repayment: how will charges be repaid?


BankFodder
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5263 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 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

the bank defaulted on the court directions on my claim before the test case was announced then like many others a stay was put on it i unsucesfully applied to have it removed ..guttin as i was days away from my day in court . Is that it now have i wasted all my time an hard work im unsure what this all means for me

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with this country?

 

How can 5 old farts say that it`s ok to rip people off, trap them in debt and ruin their lives just to save the Banks from paying out what`s not theirs?

 

This is nothing more than legalised extortionate profiteering. I still think these Banks have paid the judges a few million each to rule in their favour.

 

This makes me sick. I hate Banks, I hate the spinless courts and I hate the dicks in charge of this bum hole country.

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How can 5 old farts say that it`s ok to rip people off, trap them in debt and ruin their lives just to save the Banks from paying out what`s not theirs?

 

That's not what they said. See also the announcement.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not, but that`s what has happened, just in different words.

 

We are nobodies, the goverment and courts will always protect the banks. There`s too much money at stake.

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump ...I will be interested in what the OFT plans next - I for one will be contacting them to see if they will progress this through the "unfair contracts " bit - I appreciate the judges have said "you agree by the terms of the account when you go overdrwan etc etc " but what if those terms change ? eg my bank initially charged me £8 per day for being over then bumped that up to £25 without my agreement ......(rhetorically) where's the fairness in that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not, but that`s what has happened, just in different words.

 

Again, that is not what has happened. Read what I've linked you to above - especially take note of the site announcements in big col *ahem*, big coloured letters. It's not over - people that have followed CAG's advice should still be in good stead, and the Court has made things easier in some respects. From the outset, we were not about getting your money back but fair play - getting your charges back is no good if you're only going to have to pay through the nose again. Some fees had moved by small amounts in the past, and most will remember the £12 débâcle, so to see banks slashing their fees from £38 to £5 is a step in the right direction. If others start following suit, we have definite progress. It's not bad news, and it's not the end for claims (albeit they now need to be more carefully construed).

 

was this ruling for all charges or just overdraft charges?

 

Neither. It was for the OFT's ability to take a particular course of action. Won't affect most people using the templates here. Some cases in progress might need to amend Particulars of Claim, and those not started yet might want to wait a couple of days first. Otherwise, water still wet, sky still ... whatever colour it is these days.

 

Keep calm and carry on.

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

On a quick initial read of the judgement summary it looks like the door is still open to proceed against the banks under Regulation 5 of the Unfair Contract Terms Regulations 1999.

 

Is my hasty decision correct?

Edited by Number6

I will not make any deals with you. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own. Number 6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think so No.6 - hope so anyway cos I'm going through that door:p

 

 

Absolutely, me too:) There seems to be a lot of media hype involved with the Supreme Court's decision but one has to look closer at what exactly they have ruled against. Everything else still stands:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m wondering how this will affect older bank accounts, with no opening/application form available from the bank.

 

I have an account which Lloyds TSB is chasing. I haven`t bothered with it for a year now, they have added charges and interest on and are asking for it back. They claim I have broken the agreement between the bank and myself, yet they have not shown up with any paperwork other than statements.

 

No agreement, no application form. Just the usual BS.

 

As far as I make it, I have not agreed to be charged in that case. They will say I have agreed to the T`s & C`s by using the account.

 

So, they are unable to supply me with the T`s & C`s from 24 years ago. What does that mean?

If I have helped or made you laugh in any way in your hour of need, then please click my scales <<<<<<<<<< ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I`m wondering how this will affect older bank accounts, with no opening/application form available from the bank.

 

I have an account which Lloyds TSB is chasing. I haven`t bothered with it for a year now, they have added charges and interest on and are asking for it back. They claim I have broken the agreement between the bank and myself, yet they have not shown up with any paperwork other than statements.

 

No agreement, no application form. Just the usual BS.

 

As far as I make it, I have not agreed to be charged in that case. They will say I have agreed to the T`s & C`s by using the account.

 

So, they are unable to supply me with the T`s & C`s from 24 years ago. What does that mean?

 

I agree. Let them PROVE our original agreement (which they won't be able to find) allowed them to change the T&C's and that we agreed they could impose these draconian charges.

I think I may try this with one of the smaller accounts I have to see how I get on. I'll keep you all posted on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so does this mean if I claimed for x then there's a chance the 'fair bank charge fee' would be deducted from this and the rest payable to me?

 

I nearly threw everything out yesterday 4 claims from when it was stayed, I'm so glad I didn't.

 

PS what the hell is a poc and N1 it's been so long I've forgot!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...