Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apologies dx100uk  I did not put the answers in red  Thank you all for your patience. H
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? Overdales solicitors  How many defendant's  joint or self ?  Self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account 4546384809766042. The defendant faild to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. The dbt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim.  It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor?  Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment?  May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
    • what device are you using? copy all the questions then come here to this thread and paste them. then answer each question click on red give answers here. when done  hit submit reply bottom right.  
  • 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

Supreme court rules


Consumer dude
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5228 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

ok example for u , i go to a high street foood retailer to by my dinner a day before payday, i haven't had time to check my balance but im pretty sure i have £10 in my account, now i spend £9.80 in said store, in fact i had £8.30 avail, now the transaction gets authorised for that and i get charged £38 for unathorised overdraft request, ok the T&C's of my account probably say that that will happen, but i don't have a choice i can't bank else where, where this doens't happen?? how can that be fair.

 

You MUST check your balance though. You would not go into a shop with £5 in your pocket and buy something for £7, as you dont have anough. If you choose to keep your cash in the bank, you need to chech how much is there.... I an in agreement that these charges are indeed unfair, but the account holder has a duty to ensure they have enough in said account in the first place.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Quite seriously......would my money be better off in a fireproof matress?

 

Well considering interest rates are so low that we are earning and the banks are lending OUR money out at massive rates to anyone that dares ask for a loan....It's a farce and we are being forced to use banks to make payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just see the news regardng the test case, what will happen now ???????? have a claim which went to court and the court uled that the defendant the Halifax must file their defence by 16 Nov 4pm which they did not and the court stated that their defence after this dtae will be stuck out so on the 18th Nov 09 we filed for the judgment, which the judgement papers are with the judge. Can the judge now stop our claim due the the test case or confirm the judgement as the defendant dd not file defence by the date set by the court. we are hopng that the court will issue the judgement as the claim was filed before the test case hearing and the defendant did not replied to the court papers

 

here hoping

 

No he can not. All the judgement means is the OFT can not asses for unfairness, not that the charges are not unfair. If he does not issue the judgment, the case will have to proceed. Cases can not just simply disappear, and the good news is stays are now history.

Please note nothing I say constitutes legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Bobsp

 

isn't that the point though? you are now paying £8 where it would have previously been much higher. That's because the inflated charges were unfair

 

I agree, but I can live with an £8 charge, not the £30 I was being charged, as I no longer go od, I check my balance alot more now, I can live with 1 £8 over 2 years....

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really, don't break the rules and there aren't any penalty charges.

 

What is it with you people ?

 

 

I haven't broken the rules and im sure all the people here haven't broken the rules...

 

I worked very hard (40-60 hours a week) in a damn hard job and have never claimed a penny in benefits...and because i got made redundant through no fault of my own some bloody faceless pen pusher who has probably never had to spend time away from their family to put food on the table and clothes on their back can take all that hard earner cash from me!!!

Comments like that are just plain rude!! :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You MUST check your balance though. You would not go into a shop with £5 in your pocket and buy something for £7, as you dont have anough. If you choose to keep your cash in the bank, you need to chech how much is there.... I an in agreement that these charges are indeed unfair, but the account holder has a duty to ensure they have enough in said account in the first place.....

 

Yes but if you don't have enough to pay the shop would refuse to serve you. They wouldn't let you have the goods and then follow you home demanding an extra £39. If you haven't asked for an overdraft and make a mistake of going over then they should decline the payment until you confirm that you want the credit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite seriously......would my money be better off in a fireproof matress?

 

Actually your are probably right.

 

I saw on the TV the other day that the interest being paid on deposits is so low that savers are losin money.

 

If this is case all we need right now is a simple account to pay our bills and put the rest if a safe or in an account not affialiated with the High Street Banks

 

ST

RBS/Triton - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Moorcroft - Gone way No CCA

RBS/AIC - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Intrum - Gone Away No CCA

RBS/Regal - Gone Away

 

Cahoot/Link - CCA in Dispute

 

Capital One - Settled

 

Lloyds Bank - Awaiting Outcome from Supreme Court Hearing.

 

Lloyds Credit Credit - Repayment Plan

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok example for u , i go to a high street foood retailer to by my dinner a day before payday, i haven't had time to check my balance but im pretty sure i have £10 in my account, now i spend £9.80 in said store, in fact i had £8.30 avail, now the transaction gets authorised for that and i get charged £38 for unathorised overdraft request, ok the T&C's of my account probably say that that will happen, but i don't have a choice i can't bank else where, where this doens't happen?? how can that be fair.

 

It doesn't seem fair and £38 appears excessive. However, the Banks rely on people being forgetful and or blase concerning their accounts. By keeping a close eye on your balances most if not all charges can be forgotten about. I am not a supporter of the Banks at all. If you all want to hurt the Banks then manage your accounts effectively and deprive them of 2.4 Billion pounds of income per year.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but if you don't have enough to pay the shop would refuse to serve you. They wouldn't let you have the goods and then follow you home demanding an extra £39. If you haven't asked for an overdraft and make a mistake of going over then they should decline the payment until you confirm that you want the credit.

 

 

you got my point exactly!, nobody asked me if i wasnt to borrow that money they assumed...you you know want assuming does :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Dear. I have a case stayed . HSBC were late in filing their AQ very crafty they knew the case was about to start. What hope do I have now.

:Cry:

 

Plenty, the court did not rule the charges are not unfair, just that the OFT can not asses their fairness. Apply to have the stay lifted.

Please note nothing I say constitutes legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crapstone this isn't a troll at all. Using unauthorised overdraft charges as an example please explain to me why I am wrong ?

 

Regards

 

Because, you plank, it was banks levvying unfair charges that forced people into unauthorised overdrafts.

 

Just go back to your bedsit and play your video games with a w*** break every 5 minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this had been in France there'd be a strike or riot about now, that would scare the hell outta the government here there'd be brown benches in the houses commons/lords.

Seriously! Remember when French lorry drivers blockaded roads in the 90s over the high price of fuel. Remember how when the French government tried to introduce speed cameras the French people overnight just said “non!” and began destroyed them overnight.

 

As much as I dislike the French, they know how to take action when things matter to them. We just sit back and watch – That is certainly what I’ve been doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegnomeat is very well named. Obviously has no balls either and is a banking slave making cups of tea for the bank (robber) manager. Open your eyes and take off your bank tinted glasses. This is about fairness or the lack of it in this case. The banks have for years gotten away with daylight robbery with excessive charges and penalty fees. Taxpayers have bailed them out following years of inadequacy. These thieving bankers have played roulette for years with customers monies enabling themselves to manipulate the books in order to rewards themselves for failure. This decision is disgraceful and corrupt but not unexpected. I for one will never keep money in a bank account other than to cover direct debits. Hopefully others will follow suit thus preventing the **** bankers from using our monies to make their fortunes. Investors/Bank account holders receive a paltry amount of interest for monies on deposit yet the Bank robbers pass this money (our money) on to borrowers at an exorbitant rates. Another sad day to be had by many. Hopefully, this aint over

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but if you don't have enough to pay the shop would refuse to serve you. They wouldn't let you have the goods and then follow you home demanding an extra £39. If you haven't asked for an overdraft and make a mistake of going over then they should decline the payment until you confirm that you want the credit.

 

Yes but if you check your balance you will know what you have in your account. The same as checking your wallet before you go in the shop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because, you plank, it was banks levvying unfair charges that forced people into unauthorised overdrafts.

 

Just go back to your bedsit and play your video games with a w*** break every 5 minutes.

 

Nice offensive post, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple really, don't break the rules and there aren't any penalty charges.

 

What is it with you people ?

 

This is probably the most childish comment going. Have you ever been in a situation where you cant pay your bills as you have to fork out £250 in charges therefore more bills cant be paid then more charges occur. It is a spiral that is very hard to get out of and causes massive amounts of stress.

 

Dont get me wrong I am all for paying penalties or charges if I mess up, but not £35 for going 10p overdrawn now that is robbery dont you agree?

 

In future I think you should tone down your opinion :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the last 12 months have been enough to demonstrate even to those marooned in a bunker the character of banking financial institutions and a government/political elite who will bend to their every whim. Banks are quite happy to quote the law when it suits - if anything this ruling emphasises the gulf between the law and justice for the consumer

 

Surely our best route forward is loud, public and concerted action - letters to MP's, demonstration in London, class action from all consumer groups joining together and using the law against them

 

I had little faith in the law before this - it is now totally extinct

 

Time to raise a fighting fund maybe?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but if you check your balance you will know what you have in your account. The same as checking your wallet before you go in the shop.

 

Not always. You can have money in your account but because of ghosting they will refuse transactions as they mark the same debits twice. And don't forget the right of set-off. If you fail to make a payment on a CC or loan with the same group they will take the money without asking however much you've tried to tell them you are in financial trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but if you check your balance you will know what you have in your account. The same as checking your wallet before you go in the shop.

 

 

ok bob, i didn't check my wallet, get to the tills and ive only got a £5, the till operater is quiet happey for me to put some stuff back and buy what ia want with what ive got....don;t get the option with a darn card do i!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not wether they were unfair but wether the OFT can say whats fair or not they have left a little door open but as martin lewis says they need to do a lot of reading and a lot checking the law

Its not over yet

Any way they may well not have paid up for some time as it would all have to be assessed

It affects an awful lot of people lets just hope someone finds a way round this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously! Remember when French lorry drivers blockaded roads in the 90s over the high price of fuel. Remember how when the French government tried to introduce speed cameras the French people overnight just said “non!” and began destroyed them overnight.

 

As much as I dislike the French, they know how to take action when things matter to them. We just sit back and watch – That is certainly what I’ve been doing.

 

 

I don't dislike the French but I am very proud to be English/Scottish 50:50, however I dislike the way we're pushed about by OUR government, who work for US!

We in Britain tend to have a grumble about things and that's as far as we get.. I think we fear standing up and shouting because are scared me might find ourself standing up alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apply to get the stay lifted and proceed as planned.

Keep the faith. EiE.

 

Capstone Mortgage 'Services' - Sub-prime garbage - unlawful behaviour/MULTIPLE consumer abuse, TOTALLY in Defiance of REGULATIONS and the law

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/gmac_rfc.pdf

 

CONTACT CIB Here

 

http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/Complaintformcib.Htm

 

Kevin Hughes(Compliance Manager-main) @ 02920 380 633

 

Lee Jenkins(prosecuting Amany Attia) 02920 380 643

 

Mark Youde(accounts compliance) 02920 380 955

 

Charlotte Allan @ 0207 596 6108 investigating all the Lehman lenders

 

Jeremy Pilcher 0207 637 6231

 

NO KAGGA LEFT BEHIND...

 

"We would not seek a battle, as we are; Nor, as we are, we say we will not shun it"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...