Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Blame Apple for completely changing how macOS apps needed to be written and verified overnight with Catalina.
    • Oh yeah... So there is. ..    Hopefully it won't try to upgrade 😂😂
    • There's the ability to download origin for macOS Mojave and older right on the EA Website. www.ea.com/origin-for-mac      
    • Hello All, I was hoping for some help with a  Claim Form received yesterday 15h May 2024.  I have read lots of threads but I just want to check what I am doing. I have acknowledged service noting my intention to defend all of the claim and I have left the contest jurisdiction un-checked. I will today/tomorrow issue a CCA request with a £1 postal order to the claimant and a CPR 31:14 to the solicitor.  For the CCA which section should I use? I am not sure which section Paypal Credit would come under. If the claim was issued on the 9th May am I correct with my defence filing date of the 11th June? Is there anything else I need to do? Thanks in advance   Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business Centre, Northampton Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio I Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self (just 1) Date of issue –  9th May 2024 Defence filing date: Tuesday 11th June?? Particulars of Claim What is the claim for  The claim is for the sum of £255.69 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a PayPal account with an account reference of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  The Defendant failed 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 has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 15-09-21, notice of which has 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 £0.00. The Claimant claims the sum of £255.69 What is the total value of the claim? £340.69 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Not applicable Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? PayPal credit account When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After April 2007  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, shows as defaulted.  Registered when it was bought by Lowell 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. Debt purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Cant find a letter that say so Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  Not sure Why did you cease payments? Financial difficulties and mental health issues What was the date of your last payment? ? Mid 2019 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No
    • In addition to the advice and questions asked by my site team colleague above, where did you get the template from which you used to reply to the letter of claim?
  • 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

OFT case over, hows YOUR court dealing with claims


ICY
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5222 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 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

excellent, stayed till 30 november 2010, so you needn't do anything yet, at least till the way forward is clearer, unless the bank / DG apply to the court so just check with the court in a couple weeks time, otherwise just be working on your case ready for when you need to take any action :)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same letter I had, I'm glad it means what I thought it means :)

 

I was a little worried the bank could ask for the stay to be removed but then why would they, does the bit about having tried to settle the claim apply to both sides?

 

I figure I may aswell respond to thier letter making it known that I'm not a muppet whos just going to accept thier legal advice at face value.

 

I'll update my thread and post the link so you guys can pick the letter apart, oops erm I mean refine and improve! lol

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bank can apply for the stay to be lifted, and would, and are in lots of cases, to get the claims struck out.

 

The settle bit, that is more of the 'why would they' part. they think they have this sewn up in a cast iron jacket.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is of great concern to me that the letters I and others have recieved seem to suggest this is an open and shut case which is very much not what the test case resulted in.

 

I'm going to borrow from the one template I've seen on here and propose a compromize. At least if they then apply to have the stay lifted I can show the court I've made an effort to settle, and hopefully the new arguments will be ready to deploy by then.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims! It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case? From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down. I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. :rolleyes: It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me. :rolleyes: ***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!*** Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. :confused: You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!! :lol:

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was marking that post I'd give you a partial credit. Whilst I agree it is clear individuals can still pursue thier own seperate they DO need to POC's. The OFT case closed down the penalties route which many people have relied upon so using the same POC's is not a good idea.

 

I still think its worth a shot particularly with regard to consent. Of what value is consent when the only choice an individual is between virtually identical (and unfair) terms and conditions. It is of no value whatsoever.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was marking that post I'd give you a partial credit. Whilst I agree it is clear individuals can still pursue thier own seperate they DO need to POC's. The OFT case closed down the penalties route which many people have relied upon so using the same POC's is not a good idea.

 

How did the OFT loss close down the penalties route? I think you have been brainwashed to believe it did, but it didn't. Think about it a minute!

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the OFT loss close down the penalties route? I think you have been brainwashed to believe it did, but it didn't. Think about it a minute!

 

The first OFT Test case judgement specifically stated that apart from one single term of NatWest's which was as follows:

 

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims!

It does and it doesn't to be honest. It does in one sense because we all thought regulation 5(1) of UTCCR 1999 would be tested in court and in fact, UTCCR 1999 6.2(b) was tested. Furthermore, penalties in law doctrine went out on the first judgement of Justice Smith.

 

It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case?

It would have had an effect if the case had been successful for all claimants in that charges in the future would be assessable for fairness and the level of them would come into the equation.

 

From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down.

Cases were stayed because the test case was supposedly going to resolve the issues of penalties in law and UTCCR 1999 once and for all. In fact it didn't resolve the latter whatsoever.

I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. :rolleyes: It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me.

I completely agree with you and we have lost the media battle at the moment. We may not lose the war but the biggest battle so far has been lost and we are kinda regathering the troops and seeing where we go from here.

 

***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!***

Have you done this yourself and have you received a response yet? Please do not advise this if you haven't since their response would be ideal so that others know what to expect.

 

Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. :confused: You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!! :lol:

 

Mate, have you taken your own advice and what is the outcome? If you haven't can you bell the cat and do it and then write on here or your own thread what the result was because words on a page are futile if you are doing it yourself. I can't do that for obvious reasons but have can do that?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first OFT Test case judgement specifically stated that apart from one single term of NatWest's which was as follows:

 

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

Don't be vague. Quote the text of your argument, not the exception. Contextualise this within the raised arguments between individual cases and the OFT test case. Please post on the thread I specifically created for this topic. Thanks.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, have you taken your own advice and what is the outcome? If you haven't can you bell the cat and do it and then write on here or your own thread what the result was because words on a page are futile if you are doing it yourself. I can't do that for obvious reasons but have can do that?

 

I don't have an open court case. I can see no harm whatsoever in writing to your County Court for further explanation of their logic. I am raising the issue of continuing with exsiting POC's for 'discussion'. Please post on the other thread. I will post back later. Thanks.

 

P.S. Meanwhile, how about you go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread? :)

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be vague. Quote the text of your argument, not the exception. Contextualise this within the raised arguments between individual cases and the OFT test case. Please post on the thread I specifically created for this topic. Thanks.

 

I don't read signatures so if it is on there then I can't see it so can you link to it on this thread?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an open court case. I can see no harm whatsoever in writing to your County Court for further explanation of their logic. I am raising the issue of continuing with exsiting POC's for 'discussion'. Please post on the other thread. I will post back later. Thanks.

 

P.S. Meanwhile, how about you go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread? :)

 

WHich thread mate, please LINKIE LINKIE or no FINDIE FINDIE ;)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

WHich thread mate, please LINKIE LINKIE or no FINDIE FINDIE ;)

 

If you don't have the brains to 'findie findie' it, then please don't 'postie postie' on it. As I said, please go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. Or you want me to stick your name down for you in case you can't find it? :)

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have the brains to 'findie findie' it, then please don't 'postie postie' on it. As I said, please go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. Or you want me to stick your name down for you in case you can't find it? :)

 

It would be nice if you could be civil to me on the thread since my attempt at light hearted humour has clearly gone down like a lead balloon. I have found one thread and is the March thread the one CARO started?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if you could be civil to me on the thread since my attempt at light hearted humour has clearly gone down like a lead balloon. I have found one thread and is the March thread the one CARO started?

 

If you can't briefly scan 3 inches on a pc monitor for 2 seconds, then I give up.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

How long was that term in operation? Does that mean anyone who was charged when this term was in operation would have a case for getting those charges back?

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

How long was that term in operation? Does that mean anyone who was charged when this term was in operation would have a case for getting those charges back?

 

No because a court would have to determine if it was penal. The High Court judgement did not say that it was penal.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually YB, I'm not sure. The High Court has said that charges for going overdrawn are not capable of being penalties. THis one is a bit different because it clearly talks about 'using your card'. If you did use your card to go overdrawn, that looks to me like a breach of the agreement and any charge would then be a penalty. This wouldn't apply to any other charges, onl to those where you used your card.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't briefly scan 3 inches on a pc monitor for 2 seconds, then I give up.

 

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

 

I disagree with you. I think he/she is a 'gatekeeper'. I fully stand by my comments, as I saw him/her viewing the said thread before he said he didn't know where it was. In fact, that makes my comments too kind. Save your pluck for the corrupt banks... :)

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

 

I fact I think it's fair to say that he's sacrificed more in the bank charges cause than anyone else on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with you. I think he/she is a 'gatekeeper'. I fully stand by my comments, as I saw him/her viewing the said thread before he said he didn't know where it was. In fact, that makes my comments too kind. Save your pluck for the corrupt banks... :)

 

Can you explain the gatekeeper comment because I do not understand the definition you have for the word?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...