Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and 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. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
    • It converts a forthwith to monthly payment which is set to suit your finances...so if £5 a month so be it...rubber stamped by the court....if you try to negotiate direct ...which it sounds thats what your doing.....they can alter it whenever they feel like it and if you dont comply can execute the judgment...but not if you submit an N245 as advised.   But hey what do we know ? 
  • 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 2376 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...