Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I remember a similar issue with a customer claiming that 'alexia' had ordered something that wasn't ordered and when it should have been off, .. with Amazon quoting evidence that they had that the customer had said a word 'similar' to the activation word - which 'accidentally' activated it .. followed by 'accidental' ordering due to interpreting what was said   I would not ever consider one of these things in my house.
    • is installing an Alexa type device in your home similar to having bug listening devices installed by Police or security services ?   Woman finds recordings collected by Amazon’s Alexa – and you can hear yours WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Amazon customers can request all their data from the shopping giant, and can automatically delete voice data in the Alexa app  
    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

LMoore v's Halifax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5603 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

 

Firstly, a massive thank you to those who've put this website together and provided such vital information to us all.

 

Ok, my DPA has gone, 1st class recorded delivery to the 'Customer Relations' address detailed in the Halifax Contact Details thread.

 

My initial rough calculations suggest they've taken around £600 from me in the past few years in charges, of which many were as a direct result of them charging me in the first place...

 

Anyhow, its very early days so i'm not going to get too excited (better get my best suit to the cleaners incase I need to put in a court appearance) although its encouraging to read some of the other threads where people are obviously having some success.

 

I'll make sure i keep this thread upto date with my progress, bye for now.

 

Cheers,

Leigh.

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a reply from the Halifax (Trinity Road address) in response to my DPA, just a confirmation of receipt really, but thats better than nothing, however its interesting that it pertains to come from a "Data Protection Consultant":

 

Thank you for your letter requesting a complete list of transactions and charges on the above account.

 

I am currently processing your request and a copy of the information will be supplied to you as soon as possible.

 

In the meantime, if you have any queries regarding your request, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Julie O'Donnell

Data Protection Consultant

Retail Business Risk

 

I'll keep this thread updated with my progress.

 

Cheers,

Leigh.

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a second letter today from the the Halifax, which i can only assume is an attempt to buy more time, or to avoid having to provide any information.

 

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above account.

 

We can provide the information requested but to do so, there is a £5 statement charge.

 

However, if you wish to continue with the Data Protection Act disclosure request, please advise us of this and we will refund you with £5.00 (as £10.00 received from you.)
No action will be taken until we receive this
.

 

Please note that the majority of transactions on your account are automated and all application of charges is automated. The only manual intervention around charges would be when a refund is made
.

 

Therefore, if you require any further information please contact us.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Nicola Cormack

I called the call centre and was put on hold for at least 10 minutes, but finally managed to convey the fact that i still want to proceed with the DPA disclosure as i beleive that this way, i controll when they send the info to me, rather than them dragging their heels over a simple statement request.

 

I have also sent them a written confirmation of this and faxed it so there's little chance that they can claim they haven't received my reply.

 

I've also reitterated that i also want details of any manual intervention relating to the bouncing of direct debits and not just the application of charges.

 

Here's the letter i've sent to them in case anyone wants to use it:

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

 

With reference to your recent letter dated 6th April 2006 and my telephone conversation today with your call centre representative, Deborah Griffin.

 

Please note that I wish to continue with my Data Protection Act Disclosure request for disclosure of all activity on the above account since it was opened in 2003.

 

Please also note that I require details relating to manual intervention leading to, or resulting in charges being applied to my account and not simply the application of the charges themselves.

 

Specifically I require details of manual intervention required as a direct result of you having to refuse a direct debit payment from my account due to insufficient funds being available. If there are no records of such manual intervention then please state this as part of your response.

 

May I respectfully remind you that the deadline for this information to be provided is still 40 days from my original letter of March 27th 2006 and failure to provide the requested information within the timescales set out in the legislation will result in this matter being referred to the Information Commissioner without further warning.

 

Yours faithfully

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We seem to be following the same path. I also had a reply from Julie O'Donnell stating the same. They have now cashed my £10 cheque so I will probably have the second letter asking for permission to refund £5 of it back before they can send out my statements. They are just buying time!!! I will ring them tommorrow if I don't hear anything.

Halifax Data Protection Act requested 5/4/06

Prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £2299.00

£219.00 offer 20/5/06

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclays prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £150

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 1 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £100

LBA sent 22/5/06

£50 rec'd back

Last request for remainder 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 2 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £160

LBA sent 22/5/06

Last ditch attempt letter sent 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i agree, definitely trying to buy more time... which if the charges were legitimate, you'd think they wouldn't need to bother doing!

 

Good luck with your claim scarlet.

 

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

'Investors Account Report' arrived today. At 1st look, they've taken £1566.48 since i opened the account in Aug 2003.

 

Going to go through it again to make sure i haven't missed anything and send my request for repayment ASAP.

 

Fingers crossed!!!

 

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a letter today in response to my initial request. Seems to be the standard letter most people are getting:

 

"Understand you're unhappy with charges... We're keen to deal with concerns... Customer relationship manager will investigate... Here's a leaflet..."

 

Oh well, LBA will be going off on Thursday of next week...

 

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone,

 

As i've had no further response to my initial request, I sent my LBA on 18/05/2006.

 

If i get nothing before the 14 day deadline expires, i'll be issuing my Money Claim on Monday June 5th... Watch this space!

 

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Finally had a response to my LBA, a rather insulting 'full and final settlement' offer of £273... I called to reject this amount and was immediately offered £535. Again like many other people on this site, i've got absolutely no idea how they arrive at these figures.

 

I told them that like their initial offer, this too was not sufficient, unless it was an interim offer and the balance would be paid within 7 days. To this I was told that this was their FINAL offer.

 

I remained polite throughout and ended the call by stating I would be putting in a court claim today... which I've just done!!!

 

Including interest and costs, i'm claiming £1836.36 so fingers crossed! To be honest, as I clicked the submit button on the money claim website I felt really sick, no idea why but hey. I felt a little better however when i paid the court fees with my Halifax Visa Debit card he-he!

 

Wish me luck,

 

Leigh.

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are at exactly the same stage I am on the moneyclaim form at the moment but I am having trouble working out the 8% interest to add to the claim. My software is microsoft works database which isn't supporting any of the spreadsheets on the site. I have been trying to download the free alternative to excel but without broadband it has taken over 1 hour already and still downloading. Do you have any advice? Of the £1836.36 how much is interest out of curiosity.

 

thanks

Halifax Data Protection Act requested 5/4/06

Prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £2299.00

£219.00 offer 20/5/06

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclays prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £150

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 1 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £100

LBA sent 22/5/06

£50 rec'd back

Last request for remainder 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 2 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £160

LBA sent 22/5/06

Last ditch attempt letter sent 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

The claim itself is for £1,566.48, plus £149.88 interest and £120 costs, totalling £1836.36.

 

The interest though could realistically be completely different on a claim of similar value, depending on the age and value of the specific amounts.

 

You can download a 60 day trial version of Microsoft Office Standard Edition from the Microsoft website, which should enable you to use the Excel version of the interest calculator. Click here: http://www.microsoft.com/office/editions/prodinfo/standardtrial.mspx

 

Microsoft also have an 'Excel Viewer' available to download, but it only allows you to open, view and print Excel files, but will mean you can still access the files you create with the trial version after the trial has expired. You can download it here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C8378BF4-996C-4569-B547-75EDBD03AAF0&displaylang=en.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Including interest and costs, i'm claiming £1836.36 so fingers crossed! To be honest, as I clicked the submit button on the money claim website I felt really sick, no idea why but hey. I felt a little better however when i paid the court fees with my Halifax Visa Debit card he-he!

 

Wish me luck,

 

Leigh.

 

Good Luck Leigh - I'm a few days behind you, first MCOL on 8th, with another one a week later (in different valid names to avoid them being combined)! :D

Jeep (The Wife & I)

Halifax joint a/c (£3800 charges + £40 interest on charges over 11 years) - paid in full 23/06/06

Halifax joint a/c new charges £1100 - LBA sent 02/08/06

Halifax 2nd a/c (£1500 charges + £150 interest on charges) - partial payment received 13/07/06 (no s69 interest) - AQ filed 07/08/06 - Court awarded 50% of s69 interest (Bank didn't turn up!)

Halifax Visa (#1) Data Protection Act sent - statements arrived - £350 so far

Halifax Visa (#2) Data Protection Act sent - refunded £170

DONATE - Support this site, it supported you!

Follow the route: FAQs > Template Library > Parachute Account > Bank Forums > Spreadsheet

All advice given in good faith and without prejudice or liability, to be taken at your own risk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Leigh

 

Just to say that I am also at exactly the same stage as you. Had my claim which was issued on 5/6/6 "acknowledged" today.

 

Good luck.

 

Mariana

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, i had a confirmation from the court today which said the claim would be considered served on 11/06/06, which gives Halifax until 25/06/06 to respond.

 

No doubt they'll delay as long as possible but i'm happy to play the game if that's what's required.

 

Good luck to you and everyone els going through the same.

 

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

bet their busy, my issue date was 6/6/06 - good luck all :)

Halifax Credit Card - £408.16 - Settled in FULL 26/6/06

Halifax Loans - £397.97 - Settled in FULL 25/8/06

GE Money Topman £216.75 - SETTLED IN FULL

Marbles LBA - £475.00 - £250 Offered :rolleyes:

Halifax Current Account LBA - SETTLED IN FULL

Yorkshire Bank Current Accounts £2271.77 - Issued 30/6/06 - Default Judgement Issued - Warrant of Execution Requested

Capital One - LBA - £88 Knocked of Balance

Egg PPI - LBA

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oh my god, had a letter from the Halifax this morning stating that although they intended to defend my action against them, due to commercial reasons they have decided to settle... commercial reasons my @rse, they know when they're beaten!!!

 

A massive thank you to all at the CAG, as without them i would never have gotten anywhere near getting these charges back!

 

Good luck to everyone still in the thick of things, hang tight and you'll get what's yours.

 

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations.gif

 

 

does it state how they will be repaying you ?

Halifax Credit Card - £408.16 - Settled in FULL 26/6/06

Halifax Loans - £397.97 - Settled in FULL 25/8/06

GE Money Topman £216.75 - SETTLED IN FULL

Marbles LBA - £475.00 - £250 Offered :rolleyes:

Halifax Current Account LBA - SETTLED IN FULL

Yorkshire Bank Current Accounts £2271.77 - Issued 30/6/06 - Default Judgement Issued - Warrant of Execution Requested

Capital One - LBA - £88 Knocked of Balance

Egg PPI - LBA

Link to post
Share on other sites

As i still bank with them they've deposited it straight into my account... and i've promptly moved it into another account elsewhere... just incase lol.

 

Cheers,

Leigh

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Halifax A/c #1:

Court Claim Submitted: 05/06/2006 £1,836.36 - SETTLED IN FULL 22/06/2006!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5603 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...