Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Tawnyowl here,i have been watching events over the last week or so as things develop. Labrat,such a sense of humour.😀 Hi honeybee13 . Sure does     Anti-fracking campaigners have reacted with concern to news that the British Geological Survey (BGS) signed a non-disclosure agreement with Cuadrilla over access to operational data. https://drillordrop.com/2019/08/24/suspicion-over-fracking-firms-secret-deal-with-geological-agency/   Cuadrilla has been accused of trying to downplay last night’s 1.6ML earth tremor caused by its fracking operation near Blackpool. The tremor, at 8.46pm, was the largest so far recorded at the Preston New Road site since fracking began there in October 2018. https://drillordrop.com/2019/08/22/living-in-fear-residents-respond-to-1-6ml-fracking-tremor/ Energy firm Cuadrilla said a 2.23-magnitude tremor was recorded at its facility near Blackpool at 11.01pm on Saturday – the third “micro seismic event” this week. While some local residents may have felt the movement, it was not strong enough to have caused any damage to property, the firm added.  Do you believe anything this company says. Like their so called micro seismic events you would think damage could have been caused to properties. Once buildings start shaking this must happen surely. I was approached this afternoon while at a cricket match. Just chatting way about this and that when the person said Did you feel the Earthquake last night. I had not even heard about it,tell me more i said. Lights and windows shaking moving around about a mile away on one of the North of Englands largest housing estates. And there are reports of many more people feeling this event covered on this link. Why should a community be put through this,waiting for the next one. People living around Cuadrilla’s shale gas site reported shaking buildings and windows last night from a 2.1ML tremor. This is the strongest seismic event so far induced by fracking at the Preston New Road site near Blackpool. It brings to more than 90 the number of tremors since fracking resumed at the site less than a fortnight ago. Within minutes of the tremor, there were reports that people had felt it from surroundings towns and villages including Blackpool, Weeton, Westby, Peel, Kirkham, Wrea Green, Great Plumpton and Lytham St Annes. Much more on the link. https://drillordrop.com/2019/08/25/call-for-fracking-ban-after-2-1ml-tremor-shakes-buildings-around-cuadrilla-shale-gas-site/   You might notice that the BGS has a page now for human activity causing Eartquakes-link Last updated: Sun, 25 Aug 2019 18:10:00 (UTC) This list contains seismic events for which there is strong evidence that they have been induced by human activities. It is linked to a database of seismic events and locations and magnitudes may change as events are re-analysed and revised. Background, tectonic seismic activity is reported on our recent earthquakes list. http://earthquakes.bgs.ac.uk/induced/recent_uk_events.html   I had better leave it there for now, more soon.,how will it all end because surely it will. Things cannot carry on much longer like this,can they? Bye for now. Tawnyowl writing from the Earthquake centre of Great Britain courtesy of Cuadrilla Fracking.
    • happy for mod to move it to suitable location under thread title Background: Thanks in advance for any thoughts you can share. This is a very long history, I appreciate your time. In 2011 I took out a £8500. loan from Borro private finance against art and jewellery to make ends meet. The agreements are attached below. This is a CCA. Borro regulated by the FCA. The interest rate is APR 68.8  % for 6 months.  I paid the interest and capital during the period term. On 3 May 2012  I renewed this loan at 79.4% interest for another 6 months.  Last week I requested all evidence the lender holds concerning the agreements. Missing are 03/05/2012 through 14/06 2013.( not under a SAR).  I fell into arrears on the loan and one piece of jewellery was sold, reducing the balance to £6400. Dec 2014.   The lender took a payment of interest £2044.16.  Renewed against the other items ( art etc) on this loan.  The new interest rate increased to 88.8%  . At the time the ring was sold, I requested all documents concerning the sale. Borro produced none. The ring is appraised at $17,5000.  £14,000.  The ring was sold for £3500.  I have an appraisal. I was notified prior to the sale. The ring was sold by "private treaty". I continued to ask for information about this sale until todays date. No information has been provided.  I took a huge loss . The ring is not clearly described on the inventory compared to the appraisal. Documents missing from Borro response to my request include 25/10/2014 to 10/04/2015. I was in arrears on this loan and a new agreement was made. The loan amount was increased to £10,810.00 and the interest rate decreased to  80%.  what is interesting is that the lender should have sold this ring, the value was sufficient to pay off my debts. But that is not what happened. someone got a deal on a nice ring.  II. ON 1, Jan 2012, I took out a second loan in the amount of £3000 against another piece of Jewellery. The interest was 68.8%. I paid the P&I on this loan.    Missing from the requested information is agreement from July 10/2012 until 12/12/2012.  I did pay interest during that period and on 12/12/2012 through 11/06/2013 I renewed  with an interest rate for 79.4 %.  I renewed on 04/07/2013 through 03/06/2014 interest rate 97.8%.  I renewed this loan on 03/01/2014 interest rate was 88.8. Take note there is very little description about this item. I redeemed the loan but ended up back in the pawn. 19/06/2014 to 18/12/2014 interest eat 94.5%. I renewed this loan again 19/03/2015 . Interest rate was 93.2%. Now there is a clearer description of the ring. Documents missing from Borro response to my request include 012/06/2013 to /10/2014 to 10/04/2015. Information on the  description is also scant until I took the loan out again in 2014. The last payment on either loan was March 2015. Default date was September 2015. The lender still has my property.   PROBLEM: In 2013, Borro became aware that the reason I had pawned these items was that I was a plaintiff in a substantial lawsuit in the US. I borrowed because I had lost my job. I was not able to work( I had been FCA regulated). I was facing eviction, had serious financial stability  and some mental health problems. I gave them a copy of the pleadings. They are aware that I had claimed these loans as part of my damages.  In 2015, Periodically I requested the accounting. Some was provided some was not. As a result, in  2016, the head of credit wrote to me " "Thank you for coming in to see me today. As discussed, we will freeze your accounts with us from today the 14th October 2016 until the 31st of December 2016. This will mean that no further interest will accrue until the 31st December 2016 and we will not consign to sale until on or after the 31st December 2016."  I did not hear from them again until  08 February 2017. On 30/03/2017 I responded to Borro request that I give them an update on the accounts. I wrote that I needed a settlement figure.  No response the following week I personally met with the manager I had been dealing with. She told me that " we are not going to sell your property". We understand that you have fallen on hard times, we are human. How long will it take you to sort this out. I responded about 2 months."   I did not hear from Borro again until I wrote to them on 18/03/2019 where I stated, " the last time we met you were going to give me a settlement figure". There was no response. As a result, on  18 March 2019 I sent  an email to - Subject: RE: Borro Accounts. Dear Lender. Hello. The last time we met, you were going to give me a settlement figure. Litigation is still ongoing. We have a potential investor that has asked me to get a figure from you. Depending on that number, I can let you know if I can pay the bill and collect my things in the next few weeks. Please get in touch as soon as possible". no response.   In early July 2019 I received a call from someone at Borro. It was not a good time. I asked him to call me back the following week. I did not hear from him again either. On  6 august 2019 I received an email from Borro that I should log into my account. I was unable to. The following week I wrote to them and in summary: On 13/08/2019 I wrote and included a summary of the events: I am writing to advise you that I am obtaining advice concerning the  account. You are aware that you have not pursued any further action on this account since approximately 2014(or earlier) . This is because I had an agreement with Name Deleted that Borro was not “going to sell my property,  I recited the above summary of events.   Certainly, I had no intention to give up valuable property for almost 8 years and pay interest and principal for this long. I want to develop a resolution to the matter between us. In order to achieve this, Please can you provide me with the following information which is attached in a spreadsheet: I need a very simple accounting and please answer the below: Any renewed loans where additional credit was extended through the re-appraisal of the assets ( ie using the asset as leverage) to extend further credit where the loan proceeds were applied to the loan for reinstatement purposes. What were the source of funds for the last payment made? Because I am seeking advice with a view towards finding a resolution, I would appreciate it if you could hold action on the above account for a period of at least 30 days to give me the time  I need to obtain advice. If you are adding interest or other charges to the account, I would be grateful if you would freeze these during this period so that my debt does not continue to increase. Please can you send me the enclosed spreadsheet and the documents you loaded into my account as soon as possible. This will enable me to obtain accurate advice. I will contact you again as soon as possible with further details of a  proposal to resolve the account. ( so far this lender has not complied with my request)   SETTLEMENT OFFER From: Borro Customer Service <Contact@borro.com> Sent: 14 August 2019 13:22 To: Subject: RE: Your Loan Account   Dear borrower. Thank you for your email and for getting in touch with Borro. As you would be aware there have been many loans with Borro, with two loans that remain outstanding which we are seeking to resolve with you. Given the significant period these have been overdue, the current balance on these two loans is almost £52,000 of which the majority is interest. In order for you to move on from this debt it is proposed to sell the collateral associated with Loan DIAMOND RING 175643 in full and final settlement and return all the items under Loan 198678 to you. This would generate a loss for Borro of approximately £49,000, however given your circumstance this is something we are prepared to offer. While I would love to pay Borro £3000. I do not currently have the funds. Borro is aware because I wrote to them on august 13 advising them i am not working. I do not want to lose my property. I need to find a way for them to walk away, give me my property back. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? Below are the questions I have or could raise in order to "negotiate with them". Is this a high interest short term loan? What are the effects of an CCA that has an interest rate of 93.6% and is renewed every six months? It appears that one loan was "Refinanced".  What FCA terms did they violate which might apply to this situation ? After the agreement expired and terms were changed, what rights does the PB have to collect further payments or sell the ring? Did they waive their rights to further payments? How can I use refusal to produce sale information concerning the first ring, to negotiate my way out of this? What is interesting is, they sold a £14,000 ring privately, concealed the buyer and other information, then turned around and INCREASED THE INDEBTEDNESS substantially. In fact they want to do this again, but this time are offering to  write off £49,000  in other interest. What am I missing? What effect does violations of FCA 6 and 7. help me to negotiate a settlement. Is the FOS effective threat to the firm to pressure a settlement? Does a cost cap apply to these loans and if yes what is the amount of the cap? How can I use the current appraisal and FCA or any other rules to stop them from selling the ring for less than market value? I have someone looking at the accounting to see if there are errors. found several when query. anything you can find that voids the agreements? Anything else you can think of THANK YOU!!!   RING.pdf art.pdf
    • I am so sorry I see the confusion now, I was meant to say CAB not CAG. They are just sending him letters to copy and send which doesn't seem helpful at all.    I also apologise for the vague details right now. I actually thought he had got rid of the car already until he mentioned it as he dropped me off home, so I've only got a vague idea myself, i just wanted to see if there was anything he could do other than send letters. I will get more details from him and update this thread, or get him to join as you have advised.  sorry 
    • It was a late payment, no default 
  • Our picks

Michael Browne

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2384 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

I can't find anything in the Judgment that supports that contention, in fact, there's lots that say they are Core, including the fact that the T&C's include details on what the charges are, how they are applied and how to avoid them in the first place.

 

From MSE on the new challenges recommended;

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges#legal

 

Hi

Sorry C i found this which seems to support the contention as far as i can see

But, the Supreme Court suggested that the OFT could judge the fairness of the charges in relation to different criteria because, they said, the Court of Appeal was wrong to make a distinction between a core package and ancillary services. They found that Regulation 6 (2) (b) "contained no indication that only the ‘essential’ price or remuneration was relevant. In fact, any monetary price or remuneration payable under the contract would naturally fall within the language of Regulation 6 (2) (b)"17

It seems to be saying that the court says the supreme court considered the chartges as part of a package as said, and the fact that they were not core charges is not relevant. On the plus side it does tie in with the argument that an agreement can be challenged on the terms i mentioned earlier as it ha nothing to do with the price.

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

So if this is true then the subsiduary prces even though being within the exclusion granted by section 6 would still be challengeable on the grounds that they where not core terms.

 

The core terms of the agreement would have been the ones that the customer would have used as comparison in order to get the best bargain, they would have been the terms that were controlled by commertial pressure, this is the only reason that a term like this can escape having to be individually negotiated, charges have no such escape route they are not a core term and they are not negotiated they are a breach. Maybee

 

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

Sorry C i found this which seems to support the contention as far as i can see

But, the Supreme Court suggested that the OFT could judge the fairness of the charges in relation to different criteria because, they said, the Court of Appeal was wrong to make a distinction between a core package and ancillary services. They found that Regulation 6 (2) (b) "contained no indication that only the ‘essential’ price or remuneration was relevant. In fact, any monetary price or remuneration payable under the contract would naturally fall within the language of Regulation 6 (2) (b)"17

It seems to be saying that the court says the supreme court considered the chartges as part of a package as said, and the fact that they were not core charges is not relevant. On the plus side it does tie in with the argument that an agreement can be challenged on the terms i mentioned earlier as it ha nothing to do with the price.

Peter

 

Fair enough. I'm putting a sticky together with all the Judgments, as it will get confusing not being able to directly refer to them. (Not that I'm making excuses for getting it wrong, of course :thumb:)


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough. I'm putting a sticky together with all the Judgments, as it will get confusing not being able to directly refer to them. (Not that I'm making excuses for getting it wrong, of course :thumb:)

 

HI C

 

Nothing wrong with being wrong C we all do it all the time, i was wrong once, july 25 1974 3pm thought it was going to rain, didnt.

 

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HI C

 

Nothing wrong with being wrong C we all do it all the time, i was wrong once, july 25 1974 3pm thought it was going to rain, didnt.

 

Peter

 

It has rained since though, so... :dance:

 

Wasn't wrong, was only playing Devil's advocate... remember... :madgrin:


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can ask an independent company to set up direct debits on your behalf and they only charge 50p per transaction, and thats with a 3rd party doing the work. The banks automated systems must be even cheaper than that, and if the bank state higher figures in a court of law that they cannot prove, as far as i see it, thats called perjury. Please correct me if i am wrong. Even a manual system with a typist at a desk has been worked out at no more than £2.00 per transaction, but it hasnt been like that for decades now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to write to the court to ask for the stay to be lifted, my case was only on hold, not cancelled. I had paid my £50 and wanted my day in court, even if i lost. Judge granted permission to lift stay and submit revised claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We had a Yorkshire Bank analyst on the site some time back who calculated the cost on their system, which was called CYNthesys. The cost was somewhere around £1.25 per returned item and that included the cost of overheads, staff time, postage etc. That would have been a few years ago now, but it's the nearest we've got to real evidence of what a returned item costs. I think 50p is being over-optimistic IMHO.


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i managed to keep it in the small claims court despite bank trying to have it moved up the food chain. I now have a court date set in june and have to supply evidence i am going to use in court. I am still fine tuning my arguments, but i know basically what i am going to say, but dont want to ruin the suprise for the bank just yet. The more time i give them, the better their attack on me will be. I suppose they read these comments too. Thanks for offer of support in court, but useful comments and references/links to documents that will stand up in court would be more useful at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i submitted revised claim and judge agreed to hearing. Today i have been given a court date in june and i have to supply written evidence that i will use in court. Links to useful credible documents that will stand up in court would be useful if anyone has any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the advantage of CCA140 is that it is up to the bank to prove the actual cost in court. If i can set up an independent company today to do it for 50p per transaction, shouldnt the banks own automated system be cheaper? I dont think i am being unrealistic but its up to them to prove i am wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the advantage of CCA140 is that it is up to the bank to prove the actual cost in court. If i can set up an independent company today to do it for 50p per transaction, shouldnt the banks own automated system be cheaper? I dont think i am being unrealistic but its up to them to prove i am wrong.

 

Hi

 

Doesent the bank just have to prove the charge s fair, i dont think that they have to justify making a profit on it under section 140.

I think that it has been established that a bank is enitled to make a profit on these charges.

 

Peter

 

 

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has rained since though, so... :dance:

 

Wasn't wrong, was only playing Devil's advocate... remember... :madgrin:

 

 

Hi

I prefer to say that. The salient assumptions which were generally perceived as being closer to the reality of the proposition seems to temporarily be out of synch with my own totally justifiable interpretation of the data available to me at the time.:oops:

Peter


VT against welcome finance costs returned

Refund against jetline travel

Caital one settled 6th November

N1 Filed Yorkshire Bank 26/09/06

£677+£172int.+£80Chgs acknowledgemment of claim recieved 29th/09,Defence recieved 27th October Recieved AO 30t hOctt Settled in Full 8th December

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the advantage of CCA140 is that it is up to the bank to prove the actual cost in court. If i can set up an independent company today to do it for 50p per transaction, shouldnt the banks own automated system be cheaper? I dont think i am being unrealistic but its up to them to prove i am wrong.

 

Automated? We are talking about Bank Account charges here, aren't we?


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can't find anything in the Judgment that supports that contention, in fact, there's lots that say they are Core, including the fact that the T&C's include details on what the charges are, how they are applied and how to avoid them in the first place.

 

From MSE on the new challenges recommended;

 

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/oft-bank-charges#legal

 

I believe they were considered ancillary as they were dependant on an event happening and, therefore, not applicable to everyone.


HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe they were considered ancillary as they were dependant on an event happening and, therefore, not applicable to everyone.

 

The problem with this approach is that you cannot compare the cost of the transaction to the price of any charges because the transaction is not what you are paying for and this is written in stone by the UK's highest authority, the Supreme Court.

 

''I agree with Andrew Smith J that a careful analysis of the transactions giving rise

to the obligation to pay the Relevant Charges leads to the conclusion that they are not the

prices paid in exchange for the transactions in question.............For these reasons I have

formed the conclusion that the Relevant Charges are, as the Banks submit, charges that

they require their customers to agree to pay as part of the price or remuneration for the

package of [general banking] services that they agree to supply in exchange.''

 

IMHO, this is probably the strongest argument under the UTCCR - that customers paying these fees for services are subsidising 'free, when in credit' Banking across the industry. From the new arguments on MSE;

 

Unfair cross subsidy

While it's accepted some cross subsidy is acceptable within business, here, the minority of customers are paying an excessive proportion of costs for the structure of banking. This creates a significant imbalance between the parties.


Always happy to help where I can!

:lol:

Beware of legal advice given on a private forum - do you REALLY know who is posting? Are they REALLY accountable for their posts? What if you follow their advice and get something wrong?

It was Winston Churchill who said; "Democracy is the worst way to run a country except for all the others"

 

Advice and comments posted by car2403 are offered purely without prejudice. They reflect only my personal opinion and do not represent the opinion of this forum or it's management. You should always seek legal advice from a qualified legal advisor. As a member of the site team, I disable reputation - reputation points mean nothing, please check my posting credentials yourself and make an informed decision. You shouldn't PM me and await a reply - I may be too late with a response. No replies will be given in Private Messages - just as with getting advice from the forum, getting advice via Private Messages is dangerous. CAG is about sharing successes so others can follow your example, this is primarily why I'm here, so please don't be offended if I don't offer replies in PM that doesn't comply with this. Help CAG to help others by keeping your thread up to date.

 

 

USEFUL LINKS; New User Guide to CAG | Can't find what you're looking for? | Intro to Consumer Credit Litigation | Is My Agreement Enforceable | Default (Surleybonds) Template Letter | Defaults - background, removal methods, challenges and taking a claim to Court | Digital Signature Guide | Overdrafts and the CCA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contador

You obviously know something about this and appear to have looked into it at quite some depth. However, imo, your posts do not seem to offer any ways forward??? Maybe it's just how I've read them but what are your thoughts on how this debate can be moved on, if at all, in the favour of the consumer?


The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only the gov't could do that if they werent spineless. As it standy you have to argue your case on a personal basis so everybody has a different case at the moment. There is no one way forward, apart from not to give up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what are your thoughts on how this debate can be moved on, if at all, in the favour of the consumer?

 

Remember people posting on here are giving an opinion and no matter how confident they may be, in that opinion, (my own included) until a case is raised which tests or disputes that theory then it is still inconclusive.


HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my own opinion will be tested in the small claims very shortly, June this year, so i will be in a better position to offer genuine comments after i either win or lose. I have 4 weeks to submit all paperwork to the court for my revised case, so any information before then would be appreciated. If i lose, then it weakens other cases, so help me win.

 

thanks

fireprism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to Consumer Action Group

 

'Challenges are what makes life interesting; overcoming them is what makes life meaningful.'

Joshua J. Marine

 

1) CLAIM BACK ALL PENALTY CHARGES CLICK HERE

2) CLAIM BACK ALL MIS-SOLD PPI CLICK HERE

3) COMPOUNDED CONTRACTUAL INTEREST CLICK HERE

4) REQUEST CCA FROM CREDITOR CLICK HERE

5) OFT- UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENTS CLICK HERE

6) CAREY V HSBC (2009) CLICK HERE

7) DON'T BE BULLIED BY CREDITORS / DCA's CLICK HERE

8) IN DEBT DON'T PANIC CLICK HERE

9) FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT CLICK HERE

10) SALE OF GOODS ACT-EDUCATE YOUR RETAILER CLICK HERE

11) DISTANCE SELLING-EDUCATE YOR RETAILERCLICK HERE

12) SOGA SUMMARY CLICK HERE

13) WHICH? TEMPLATES [/url]CLICK HERE

14) DOES YOU BANK TREAT YOU FAIRLY BCOBSCLICK HERE

15) EVERYTHING HOUSING CLICK HERE

16) UTILITY BACKBILLING CLICK HERE

17) OFGEM - COMPLAINTSCLICK HERE

18) OFCOM - COMPLAINTS CLICK HERE

DON'T GIVE UP, THIS SITE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH GUIDANCE AND EMPOWERMENT

 

Don't forget to donate to this site

 

Please let us know how your problem has been resolved, it could help fellow Caggers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been many moons since I was on, or had notification about, this thread and so it's gonna take some time to assimilate the info I've missed. However I would not wish to miss the opportunity to wish fireprism fair winds and offer any help I can - though I can't imagine what that might be. If support is needed come the great day, then I'd do my damnedest to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to see you around again Kenny 8-)

 

We have had a upgrade to the site recently, which might be the reason why you have lost some of your email alerts, you can check in your user CP.

 

Lex


Please help us to help you. Download the CAG tool bar for free

HERE and use the search option for all your searches. CAG earns a few pennies every time !!!

 

Please don't rush, take time to read these:-

 

 

&

 

 

This is always worth referring to

 

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by me are personal, are not endorsed by the Consumer Action Group or the Bank Action Group. Should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks MrL; I THOUGHT it was easier signing in!!

Now, so long as we can increase the degree of vigour shown by some participants and, hopefully, keep things relatively simple then we should, again hopefully, be able to overcome - and keep the OFT on the sidelines for heaven's sake. Pre SC levels would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Deadline has passed for bank to submit defence for hearing on 10 june, i will be writing to judge tomorrow to have their defence thrown out on the grounds of non-complaiance with court directives. They tried every dirty trick in the book to have my case thrown out or moved up to the fast track and a higher court so i would be liable for their costs if they won. They did not turn up to the last directional hearing, and have submitted no paperwork to me so it was all just a bluff. They have no defence and they know it. We are back to where we were 4 years ago, submit claims under revised regulation 5 and new CCA 140 and they will back down if your case is solid like mine, and you refuse to be intimidated.

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...