Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I Know I will get flamed for this , but for once time only I am with MET . The so called  “graffiti” is there to help people , Parent and child bays , Disabled bays , and electric charge point bays are all there for a reason  , just suppose you had an electric car and it was in need of charging ,had children in the car and need extra space to get them out ,had a disabled passenger who needs extra space . how would you feel  if the bay was obstructed . I have no doubt the experts here will guide you to having the parking charge cancelled . But morally ………..
    • I'm afraid that standing on principles almost always involves a bit of risk. I hadn't noticed the case that you have referred to – and our site team member @Andyorch has already commented on it that there is a lottery in so far as judges are concerned. I haven't seen the claim form and I don't know precisely how it was argued in court. I feel very strongly that the decision is wrong because it effectively allows contractual terms to overcome statutory rights – and this has to be in error. Whatever the case, it is most likely that Hermes will simply put their hands up and pay you out and if you had claimed 5 pounds more they would have done the same. Even if they had gone to court, your chances of winning on a claim for the £25 would be better than 95% and the worst you might have expected would have been for the court to refuse to award you the extra 4 pounds and simply to give you the £25. I think that Hermes and the other courier companies rely on the fact that their customers don't have sufficient confidence to refuse to pay for the extra insurance. Clearly this is something which needs to be tested at a reasonably within the court structure but of course this is most unlikely to happen given the value of claims. I was sorry to see that your original reason for not claiming the full value was that   I asked you to post up your claim form. I think it will be helpful if you did that.
    • 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 😉
  • Our picks

PGH7447

dispatches tonight 7 Dec on channel 4 - Christmas on Credit

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3649 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

As banks and building societies close their doors to all but the least 'risky' borrowers, Dispatches reporter Jane Moore investigates a highly lucrative financial industry that has stepped in to provide loans to the millions of people denied credit elsewhere.

She discovers that many of the loans offered by some of these doorstep operators, payday lenders, and rent-to-buy companies come with sky-high interest rates that can financially overwhelm families already steeped in debt. And the sting in the tail is that these loans are entirely legal.

While the Bank of England's rate remains at an all-time low, these companies are able to charge whatever interest they like.

The programme asks why the Government has resisted calls to impose interest rate 'caps' on the various loans on offer, allowing the market to be so under-regulated that foreign loan companies are switching their operations to Britain.

In the run-up to Christmas, the impact of these high interest rate charges can be financially devastating for some families. Dispatches visits areas of the country where whole streets, and sometimes virtually entire estates, are in hoc to such lenders.


PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The programme asks why the Government has resisted calls to impose interest rate 'caps' on the various loans on offer, allowing the market to be so under-regulated that foreign loan companies are switching their operations to Britain."

 

This has already occured in the late 90's, when the American Bank Credit Card Providers came in their droves to the UK;

they thought the streets of (non-regulated) Britain were paved with Gold...

 

Both Blair and Brown were responsible for the all the irresponsible lending that followed;

they did nothing, just as our present Government are doing now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

christmas on credit channel four 8.00 pm 7th


'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Eastenders but was disappointed, should have watched this, any good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its on 4+1 now


NEVER FORGET

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Help Our Hero's Website

 

http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/

 

HIGHWAY OF HEROES

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/181826-last-tribute-our-lads.html

 

Like Cooking ? check the Halogen Cooker thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bear-garden/218990-cooking-halogen-cookers.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some useful links.

FAQ's

Making Posts

Letter Template Library

Bank Contact Details

AQ Guide to Completion

Court Fees

Data Protection non Compliance

Witness Statements for Court Bundle

Banking Code Website

Limitations Act

Fast Track Costs

A-Z Index

Mis-Claim Tutorial

Step By Step Instructions

 

Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs-The Titanic by professionals.

 

Please click my scales if you find my advice helpful !

 

If your claim is successful, please donate 5% so that it can continue to help others.

 

Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

 

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

YOU CAN NOW COMPLAIN TO THE OFT ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst I welcome the Dispatches program I do have 2 criticisms the 1st being the reporter stated that consumers have to consider 'buyer beware' (Caveat emptor) this is rubbish its the duty of the retailer to ENSURE the customer know what they are getting into

 

2nd when the minister kept claiming 'consumer groups' has asked the government not to intervene in the extortionate rates the reporter should have asked that he identify them so she could ask them why they considered such lenders should be allowed to act with impunity when they claim to be protecting the consumer

 

It's unfinished business I want to know the names of the 'consumer groups' he claimed lobbied him to NOT act

 

Also seeing Ian McCartney's rant about extortionate rates made me laugh he was the minister who revoked amongst other things sec 127 of the CCA thereby considerably weakening consumer protection

Edited by JonCris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

focus on Brighthouse, we have a thread on them, also Provident, Payday Loans via Money shop etc, and question asked why Uk allows the sky high apr these companies charge, official reply was stated to be that it would drive the poor into the hands of the unregulated loan sharks - make what you will of that!


'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I noticed he kept saying consumer groups, well which bloody consumer groups - talk about inept investigative reporting


PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, saw it, swore at TV. Disgraceful. Dispatches says they only monitored the Cumbernauld store and couldn't comment on what else went on, they could have checked here, they would have found plenty more stories! :mad:

 

Govt mouthpiece says regulation would drive business away and therefore people would go for unregulated. In other words, it's ok to get fleeced, as long as the taxman gets his cut too! :rolleyes:

 

Kudos to France where yet again, they are a whole marathon of steps ahead of us when it comes to finance, imagine that, a MAXIMUM APR of 21.3%! Credit card providers, Provident, Brighthouse, store cards, catalogues and so on would be LIVID, my dear! :razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst I welcome the Dispatches program I do have 2 criticisms the 1st being the reporter stated that consumers have to consider 'buyer beware' (Caveat emptor) this is rubbish its the duty of the retailer to ENSURE the customer know what they are getting into

Yep, that's the bit I was really got into my stride swearing at the TV. :mad:

 

2nd when the minister kept claiming 'consumer groups' has asked the government not to intervene in the extortionate rates the reporter should have asked that he identify them so she could ask them why they considered such lenders should be allowed to act with impunity when they claim to be protecting the consumer
Damn right.

 

Also seeing Ian McCartney's rant about extortionate rates made me laugh he was the minister who revoked amongst other things sec 127 of the CCA thereby considerably weakening consumer protection
I did NOT know that. :mad: He was the only one in the programme I was nodding along to, very disappointing. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone who wants a copy of this programme i recorded it last night and will be happy to send it to whoever wants it.


:cool::cool: Blondmusic :cool::cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also seeing Ian McCartney's rant about extortionate rates made me laugh he was the minister who revoked amongst other things sec 127 of the CCA thereby considerably weakening consumer protection

 

New Labour - new duplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry to say it but it was another missed opportunity... I mean why did Jane Moore only highlight the fact that the charge for credit was extortionate? Why not highlight the disgraceful charges levied on these products too which ramp up the cost for people who are struggling.

 

Why were no consumer groups on the TV?

 

Why were there no customers who failed to claim on the "optional service cover"?

 

Why the hell did they have a woman complaining about Provident's sales tactics who WORKED THERE FOR 22 YEARS and was sacked?

 

Like I said... missed opportunity and lazy journalism. I could do better myself... who is with me? I honestly think we can commission our own programme... perhaps a 2 parter? If a movie costing $3000 can get to No.1 in the US chart then we can make a mini documentary with enough bodies and actually get to the nitty gritty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to C4, one of the problems with programmes like this (I was involved in a Dispatches programme, and have provided technical advice for another, and for a couple of other factual programmes), is that a vast amount of information has to be squeezed into a short time, presented in a way that someone who knows nothing about the subject will understand, and be entertaining. A huge amount of footage will have been shot - and then edited. I think that overall last night's programme achieved its aim.

 

The only criticism I would make is that the part with the reporter using a megaphone took up too much time; the facts could have been presented in a more straightforward way.

 

The programme demonstrated how Brighthouse and the like prey upon people, and how the government has signally failed to regulate interest rates. Not bad for an hour including ad breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair to C4, one of the problems with programmes like this (I was involved in a Dispatches programme, and have provided technical advice for another, and for a couple of other factual programmes), is that a vast amount of information has to be squeezed into a short time, presented in a way that someone who knows nothing about the subject will understand, and be entertaining. A huge amount of footage will have been shot - and then edited. I think that overall last night's programme achieved its aim.

 

 

Style over substance then ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Style over substance then ;-)

 

Maybe, and I agree that Dispatches has become rather more tabloid in style of late, but better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to Panorama these days, Dispatches is a model of thoroughness and in-depth journalism. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, even USA has put a cap on it, I thought the exercise to demonstrate just how much more the poorest pay for their goods compared to the others was good, demostrates what we all knew, the poor pay for the rich, what was that recent case where a judge talked about robberbarons ?? cant remember but basically tis true!

more needs to be done by the govt on this, there seems to be a blame culture in this country which says you deserve to suffer, folk dont deserve to pay for the rest of their lives because their job disappears due to ill health, the company collapeses in the credit crunch and so on - its all very well thinking why didnt they save, not everyone has enough salary in the first place to be able to save, its easy enough to do the maths, the poor generally remian poor while the rich get richer, thats the UK!


'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT's response

 

Credit Today online


PGH7447

 

 

Getting There Slowly

---------

 

Advice is given freely but is in no way meant to be taken as Gospel:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 threads merged (Theres also another one in Brighthouse forums)


Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair to C4, one of the problems with programmes like this (I was involved in a Dispatches programme, and have provided technical advice for another, and for a couple of other factual programmes), is that a vast amount of information has to be squeezed into a short time, presented in a way that someone who knows nothing about the subject will understand, and be entertaining. A huge amount of footage will have been shot - and then edited. I think that overall last night's programme achieved its aim.

 

The only criticism I would make is that the part with the reporter using a megaphone took up too much time; the facts could have been presented in a more straightforward way.

 

The programme demonstrated how Brighthouse and the like prey upon people, and how the government has signally failed to regulate interest rates. Not bad for an hour including ad breaks.

 

I was featured in the programme (Nikki Halliwell) and i did 3 days of filming most of which they edited out. It was difficult to do but i think it got the point across.


:cool::cool: Blondmusic :cool::cool:

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...