Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Do you have broadband at home? A permanent move to e.g. Sky Glass may not fit with your desire to keep your digibox,, but can you move the items you most want off the digibox? If so, Sky Glass might suit you. You might ask Sky to loan you a “puck” and provide access as an interim measure. another option might be using Sky Go, at least short term, to give you access to some of the Sky programming while awaiting the dish being sorted.
    • £85PCM to sky, what!! why are you paying so much, what did you watch on sky thats not on freeview?  
    • Between yourself and Dave you have produced a very good WS. However if you were to do a harder hitting WS it may be that VCS would be more likely to cancel prior to a hearing. The Contract . VCS [Jake Burgess?] are trying to conflate parking in a car park to driving along a road in order to defend the indefensible. It is well known that "NO Stopping " cannot form a contract as it is prohibitory. VCS know that well as they lose time and again in Court when claiming it is contractual. By mixing up parking with driving they hope to deflect from the fact trying to claim that No Stopping is contractual is tantamount to perjury. No wonder mr Burgess doesn't want to appear in Court. Conflation also disguises the fact that while parking in a car park for a period of time can be interpreted as the acceptance of the contract that is not the case while driving down a road. The Defendant was going to the airport so it is ludicrous to suggest that driving by a No Stopping  sign is tacitly accepting  the  contract -especially as no contract is even being offered. And even if a motorist did not wish to be bound by the so called contract what could they do? Forfeit their flight and still have to stop their car to turn around? Put like that the whole scenario posed by Mr Burgess that the Defendant accepted the contract by driving past the sign is absolutely absurd and indefensible. I certainly would not want to appear in Court defending that statement either. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will do the contract itself later.
    • Yes - ignore. Because of another MET victim today I looked at all our MET cases back to June 2014 ... yes, 10 years. They have never dared take a motorist to court and argue their case before a judge.  They have started the odd court case, but as a means of trying to intimidate the motorist into coughing up, when the motorist defended and refused to give in it was MET who bottled it and discontinued.
    • Unpaid wages should be pretty straightforward if you did the work. Don't be intimidated. You need only show you were due money, and did not get money.   The risk is that they have no money to pay you (and legal fees) - frankly a solicitor maybe be costing them more than your claim is for and I might have expected them to make a commercial decision to settle before this point regardless of the merits of the case.
  • 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

Are overdrafts covered by cca's


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5051 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

Hi,

 

Well I've already sent them the "in dispute" letter, as this response is well outside the 12 &2 day cca time frame.

 

I'm unfamiliar with the McGuff ruling (sorry to be out of touch!), what impact will it have on the situation of those who are challenging banks when they don't/won't produce a CCA for their OD ?

 

What defence do we have with ODs and no agreements, compared to those that we have on similar situations with credit cards & loans ?

 

Abs x:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 188
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi,

 

Well I've already sent them the "in dispute" letter, as this response is well outside the 12 &2 day cca time frame.

 

I'm unfamiliar with the McGuff ruling (sorry to be out of touch!), what impact will it have on the situation of those who are challenging banks when they don't/won't produce a CCA for their OD ?

 

What defence do we have with ODs and no agreements, compared to those that we have on similar situations with credit cards & loans ?

 

Abs x:)

 

McGuffick was basically the judicial system saying "up yours.... claim firms".. i.e. the ones who said do a s77/s78 request and if they dont comply take them to court to demand unenforcability... the judge basically said that recording bad/late payment markers on the credit file is allowed as its not an enforcement action.

 

Basically it appears the defence of not complying with s78 has been removed BUT they still need something to show the court to say an agreement existed.

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think the McGuffick case actually invited the banks into a potentially explosive 'false sense of security' actually. Many people will challenge the 'rules' surrounding an OD and ask for proof of any agreement and typically the banks state an OD is not regulated by CCA law, usually choosing to uncomplicate things by ignoring the exemptions aspect of their 'right' not to have to produce a regulated agreement.

 

Whilst any dispute continues the bank will register a default on your credit file safe in the knowledge that this is not considered to be an act of enforcement, thanks to the McGuffick ruling.

 

This of course does not mean that the registering of that default was appropriate, justified or correct. For those who have such an entry made against them that is subsequently found to have been incorrect an injury to credit claim or counterclaim could be anticipated. All the more so for someone with a previously unblemished credit file.

 

Given the increasing level of argument and lack of documentation the banks have frequently failed to preserve it can only be a matter of time before such claims will become commonplace. If they do it will no doubt be in part to the implied presumption of the banks that the McGuffick ruling effectively made it 'OK' to deface individual credit files on masse when in fact there always should have been an overriding emphasis of responsibillity in recording such notices on credit files, as intended by the CCA legislation in the first place.

 

Bankers appear to have short and very selective memory however and clearly this 'now justified permission' to issue DN's like candy will at some point in the future become a larger issue of contention than it appears to be today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well we've still had nothing back from DLC/Hillesdean/DL&C for ours other than the std mcguffick letters, that case doesn't apply to me as

 

WE won't be taking them to court

they haven't got any paperwork yet so can't apply a default as per the case

in any case i've already got a default on my CF anyway re this acc so thay can't put another one on

 

we've had a few calls, and a "contact us urgently" letter but nothing else

 

they've been CCA'd and it's been put in dispute and all they can do is quote inapplicable case law at the minute

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ..

 

I also won't be taking NW to court over the OD, but bearing in mind their response to my CCA request saying that ODs are only partly covered by the CCA74 - in respect of reporting ... what would be the best next move for me?

 

My original CCA request included the following regarding the regulation of ODs under the CCA74 ..

"you will be aware that an overdraft is a debtor creditor agreement as defined under section 8 and 13 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA74), and is a running credit account as defined in section 10. Accordingly, s78(1) of the CCA74 sets out quite clearly what is required in order for you to comply with my request, and quote “shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it”. (I then went on with the standard CCA request letter)

 

The register of a default doesn't bother me, but what does worry me, is NW or their reps getting this into court .... in this case shall I just keep re-sending the "in dispute " letter, including ref to the above as defence to any possible litigation

Any thoughts ?

 

Abs x:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Abby

 

I suspect FOS will be useless (as usual!) - but it might be worth contacting them in any case just to see if they can help - especially if NW do threaten court action. If nothing else it delays things while FOS investigate - at NW's cost of ££££ and hassle!

 

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...

I don't suppose someone can have a peek at my thread below?? Please, pretty please....

 

I got a ccj 2 years ago about a NW overdraft debt.

There is a discrepancy about the balance anyway: Solicitors claim total is x amount; NW claim total is y amount.

ccj is on x amount which solicitors say is the total debt to NW.

But NW keep sending interest accruing statements on y amount, despite having the ccj and a payment plan with solicitors on x amount.

x amount is a fifth of the y amount NW say is the total debt.

 

Now I have read this thread I am wondering if I can get the ccj set aside and the OD proven unenforcable ??

 

Advice is really, really appreciated as the solicitors have just sent a letter asking me to increase the monthly payments or they will re-start legal action against me...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-bank/258751-hp-mum-nat-west-new-post.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

well had an update today on one off the acc's, after a bit of letter tennis. Barclays can't provide DLC/hillesdean with the required paperwork, so the acc's on hold with nothing else going to happen unless the correct doc's appear. (never gonna happen)

 

and the default fell off the credit file last month as well :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in a current tennis game with Credit Security (DCA for \Barclaycard). How old is your CCA? I suspect mine (predating 1999 but not sure exactly when) is lost too? (I hope so!)

 

BD

 

 

this thread was regarding a barclays OD, but i have had a dca comeback with no CCA in exsistance for barclaycard. I've even got a letter from them when i asked about a PPI claim saying they had no record of any account for me.

 

mine was around the same time as yours.

 

maybe try contacting B'card yourself with the account number, if they write back saying no record as well, forward that to the DCA then tell them to do one :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have my own thread regarding my od - which has a faulty DN - and whereby the bank has disputed regulation under the act, save for the issue of a default notice which they say they must strictly adhere to .

 

I have recd today a offer of a reduced settlement ...

 

Anyways, I have been directed to this thread by one of the site team, and had a good read ... its all a bit much to take in at the moment, but wondered if you thought this letter is ok to send back to the bank ...

 

Or if you can suggest any amendments, or know of a better one ?

 

Also, I read here that the original od letter must contain the procedure to terminate the agreement.

 

My original OD letter has the agreed od limit, monthly and annual interest rate, but with regards to termination it says " your overdraft is reapayble upon demand. But if we increase or reduce your overdraft, we'll write to you three weeks beforehand". Does this mean the requirements for detailing the procedure to close?

 

Desperate for any help ... as I say I have a thread of my own, so don;t mean to hijack, but seeing that lots of people are contributing to this though it would give me a good chance to post this letter up, to get lots of points of view ... hope ok.:)

Edited by robinredbreast
attachment removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

RR

 

HBOS are currently using the "overdrafts not covered by CCA" excuse to try to wriggle out of the current case against them in Glasgow Sheriff Court ( see the thread and Govan Law Centre's own web site for more info). It looks as if we'll get an answer to this before long.

 

Keep your od facility letter safe - few people still have these - and the banks tend to lose them too after a number of years!

BD

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...