Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

spamheed

OFT throw in the towel

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3635 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

So they can't stop the banks from Trading Unfairly, they can't enforce a statute that is already in place and they can't protect the public from financial institutions who want to charge exhorbitant fees.

 

So can anyone tell me: what is the actual purpose of the OFT?

 

BBC News - Regulator drops bank charges case


Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To lead the public on a wild goose chase and keep their minds focused on the false hope that they will get some sort of justice.

 

The OFT should be sued for misleading us :mad:, they knew what they were doinf right from the start, its all a game for them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errrrrmmmm..................I can't think of any reason they exist


I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No heart... or some backhander was negotiated.

 

I can't think of any reason for a regulator to exist where they can't regulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the OFT should be closed down for incompetence - they have never taken their authority over these companies seriously and seem to exist to 'shore up' the establishment.

 

Its also another example of the big boys manipulating the legal system in their favour and scaring off any recognisable competition.

 

I think the OFT are as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Office of Farce Trading?

 

Nothing I have seen dissuades me from the thought that a deal has been struck "somewhere".......... for the historic charges case to be put to rest and new "fairer" i.e. less small print perhaps on new charges.

 

The banks clearly cant afford to pay out yet more "tax payers money" repaying yes you've guessed it tax payers.... and so long as a deal is struck on future charging, Brown/Darling will trumpet it as "another" succesful campaign on behalf of the great British tax paying public.

 

Yes I'm a cynic :-(

 

S.


Are You as Anonymous on CAG as You Think You Are? *Link*

 

The CAG is a free help site,should you be offered help that requires payment,please report it to site team.

 

Deal with your debts:

STEP ONE - Dont Panic! | STEP TWO - Priority & Non Priority Debts | STEP THREE - Personal Budget Sheet | STEP FOUR - A SAFE bank Account | STEP FIVE - Dealing with Priority Debts | STEP SIX - Non-priority Debts | STEP SEVEN - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt1 | STEP EIGHT - Non-Priority Debt-Repayment Opt2 | STEP NINE - Perils of Consolidation | STEP TEN - RE-Evaluate Frequently

 

***** SERIOUSLY IN DEBT, DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO, TRY NationalDebtLine's MoneySteps *****

 

 

IMPORTANT: Please take my advice in the spirit it is given and on the basis that I am expressing my opinion, These opinions are not endorsed by CAG in anyway and are offered informally without prejudice or warranty of any kind. These opinions are solely based upon the knowledge I've gained from this fantastic site and life in general. I have NO legal training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They (The banks) lose two court battles and appeal and win in the supreme Court when all of the evidence is that they are in the wrong?

 

and then the entire claim is dropped in favour of a non legally enforceable agreement?

 

It stinks, This government are rotten to the core and the sooner My lottery numbers come up and I can afford to live elsewhere..... the better


Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is, the banks hold all the financial power in this and other countries. The Government will never let the OFT do anything to upset them. That's the ONLY reason they have shied away. In anycase, the Judges will uphold anything that the banks say, as they are controlled by Government in things lioke this (even though they're supposed to be independent)


I am a lawyer, but I am an academic lawyer. I do not practice as a barrister or solicitor. You should consult a practising Solicitor BEFORE taking any Court or other action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the essence of the whole affair is that 'fairness' isn't a legally-recognised concept.


I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairness is only a legally recognised concept when applied to the reclaiming of MPs unlawfully claimed expenses.


Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew they'd bottle it,the banking sector is in crisis. Personaly I think it just came at the wrong time for the consumer. Be prepaired for more changes regarding banking practices in favour fo banks.

 

Justices, fairness are things that no longer apply to this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying this about the OFT and the like for a long time

 

Hate to say I told you so,but....

 

"I told you so"

 

People-as far as possible you need to organize your affairs to make sure that your exposure to the banking system is as limited as humanly possible

 

Cash was,is,and shall be king in our household

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the boss of the OFT was on TV this morning stating the bleeding obvious that they are not going to try again, but are Hoping tha the banks play fair - idiot


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
No heart... or some backhander was negotiated.

 

I can't think of any reason for a regulator to exist where they can't regulate.

 

 

Had we won this would have cost the banks billions,they would have lost a revenue stream that generates billions and they would have to right off billions in OD's.

 

Are you suggesting some underhand tactics were at play? Surely, not, how dare you suggest such a thing, that would never happen in country like the UK. :cool:


We live in an unmoderated country why should the net be any different?

Bring back free speech we miss it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have reduced our exposure to HBOS by paying the mortgage the minute my ill-health works pension hits the bank using Visa Electron card over the phone,and when the benefits go in that we get via BACS,withdraw them to cash

 

still get some giros which the Post Office deal with,and direct debits on the account total 3,all for insurance

 

we hope to pay the house and car insurance in one go at renewal,doing away with 2 of them

 

it can be done....HBOS don't make a cold cent out of us,as we operate a basic account with no bells and whistles.They wanted us to upgrade to a "normal account" but we told them we were fine ,thanks!!


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party -- Government Pensions Etc to only be paid via the Post Office, close all Bank Accounts where possible or Leave main stream Banks, 2 months of non use of banking system bring to their knees?/ only an idea, remember people power, call on all politicians to give proper power to the Regulatory Authorities or disband them.


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now is the time for all good people to come to the aid of the party -- Government Pensions Etc to only be paid via the Post Office, close all Bank Accounts where possible or Leave main stream Banks, 2 months of non use of banking system bring to their knees?/ only an idea, remember people power, call on all politicians to give proper power to the Regulatory Authorities or disband them.

 

 

This is the whole point, if everyone could avoid being excessively overdrawn, or prevent their becoming eligible for the banks special rates for the less well off then not only would the debt mountain be massively reduced, but the banks would get a financial smack in the mouth.

 

But it's not that simple, people do get made redundant, people do get paid late, or become victims of fraud, or simple benefits cock ups, the banks make it their business to target these unfortunate people and the Government by their allowing of the OFT to be neutered are showing that they approve of this situation.

 

They had their chance to let the banks go bust, but it wasd deemed to be not in the publics interest to do so.

 

They had their chance to put them back in their boxes when we bought them out/saved them/however you want to phrase it, but they didn't do so

 

And finally they had their chance to make the banks behave by enforcing existing laws and giving the government arm responsible for the safety of their consumers the powers to deal with it and yet again they refuse to do so.

 

I have a mortgage with Northern Rock, a bank which, in principle I have an interest in, yet the rate applied to my mortgage is a massive 4.25% above the BOE rate, this is the reason that Northern Rock are "repaying" the loan, not because of the actions of any politicians, or even the prudent management odf the bankers themselves, but because the politicians allow the bankers to squeeze their customers. This OFT cop out is just another extension of the same policy


Hope this helps

 

 

If you feel that this site has helped you in any way please leave a donation if you can afford to do so.

 

If you feel that have been helpful please feel free to tip the scales.

 

 

The large print giveth, but the small print taketh away. ~Tom Waits, Small Change

 

 

Please note: i am not a qualified lawyer, any advice is offered in good faith and is based on my own and others experiences and a penchant for research and a desire to help others to empower themselves

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I can't see what point there is in the OFT.

 

Yes, I do think backhanders or arm twisting has gone on behind the scenes.

 

And no, I won't be voting for either of the two main parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another useless government 'quango' masquerading as a Consumer Knight in shining Armour.

Yet all they do is protect their fat salaries, Bonuses and no doubt inflation proof pensions.


If I have been helpful please tickle my scales or better still contribute to CAG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Issues like this one, will bring the government down;

not that anyone in their right mind will vote for them in the forthcoming election!

 

The OFT and Trading Standards are out of date and incompetant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

am i the only one who can feel something bigger coming from this whole episode?


post office WON 12/11/06

 

abbey.LBA sent 30/10/06.MCOL claim submitted 8/11/06.allocation questionnaire sent 16/12/06.schedule of charges sent 16/12/06.WON

 

2nd abbey claim SAR sent 3/1/07.WON.complaint letter sent 18/1/08

 

alliance and Leicester.WON

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need the template letters - someone suggested all hitting the courts at the same time? sounded good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
am i the only one who can feel something bigger coming from this whole episode?

 

No, you are not alone in your thinking...

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...