Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've inserted their poc re:your.. 1 ..they did send 2 paploc's  3. neither the agreement nor default is mentioned in their 2.        
    • Hi Guys, i read a fair few threads and saw a lot of similar templates being used. i liked this one below and although i could elaborate on certain things (they ignored my CCA and sent 2 PAPs etc etc) , am i right in that at this stage keep it short? If thats the case i cant see what i need to add/change about this one   1)   the defendant entered into a consumer credit act 1974 regulated agreements vanquis under account reference xxxxxxx 2)   The defendant failed to maintain the required payment, arrears began to accrue 3)   The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 29 September 2017 and notice given to the defendant 4)   Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of 2247.91 remains due outstanding And the claimant claims a)The said sum of £2247.91 b)The interest pursuant to S 69 county courts act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £xxxx, but limited to one year,  being £xxxx c)Costs   Defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply.   3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all.   5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • i understand. Just be aware I am prepared to take some risks 😉
    • Thanks Tnook,   Bear with us while we discuss this behind the scenes - we want you to win just as much as you do but we want to find the right balance between maximising your claim without risking too much in court fees, and in possible court costs awarded to the defendant bank.
    • Tell your son and think on this. He can pay the £160  and have no further worries from them. If he read POFA  Scedule 4 he would find out that if he went to Court and lost which is unlikely on two counts at least [1] they don't do Court and 2] they know they would lose in Court] the most he would be liable to pay them is £100 or whatever the amount on the sign says. He is not liable for the admin charges as that only applies to the driver-perhaps.If he kept his nerve, he would find out that he does not owe them a penny and that applies to the driver as well. But we do need to see the signage at the entrance to the car park and around the car park as well as any T&Cs on the payment meter if there is one. He alone has to work out whether it is worth taking a few photographs to help avoid paying a single penny to these crooks as well as receiving letters threatening him with Court , bailiffs  etc trying to scare him into paying money he does not owe. They know they cannot take him to Court. They know he does not owe them a penny. But they are hoping he does not know so he pays them. If he does decide to pay, tell him to wait as eventually as a last throw of the dice they play Mister Nice Guy and offer a reduction. Great. Whatever he pays them it will be far more than he owes as their original PCN is worthless. Read other threads where our members have been ticketed for not having a permit. [We know so little about the situation that we do not know if he has a permit and forgot to display it. ]
  • Our picks

BankFodder

Lloyds Bank to start making an honest living (sort of)

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3418 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

MONEYSAVINGEXPERT.COM NEWS COMMENT

Monday, 26 July 2010

Lloyds Banking Group to stop selling Payment Protection Insurance

Consumer Revenge site MoneySavingExpert.com has just learned Lloyds Banking Group (including Halifax) has stopped selling Payment Protection Insurance on all its loans, credit cards and mortgages. Instead it will simply hand out a generic leaflet about PPI with such products.

When the site asked the bank about this, all the Lloyds spokesperson would confirm was...

"Lloyds Banking Group stopped selling PPI from Friday, 23 July across all brands. The group does not expect this move to have an impact on income and the group will continue to receive income from existing policies."

Martin Lewis, creator of MoneySavingExpert.com, comments:

"This is a quite astonishing move. This insurance, which has been scandalously missold for years leaving many consumers in misery, is estimated to be worth up to five billion pounds a year for the industry.

"Frankly we're jumping for joy at this news, and hope the other big banks follow suit. The product itself isn't bad, it can provide useful protection to people if they're sick or lose their jobs as it covers their repayments, but people should go to competitive standalone insurers rather than banks. That's because they sell it at four or five times over the odds, often without checking suitability, meaning many have been duped into paying a hidden £1,000+ extra on policies that are worthless for them.

"To all those who've got or had one of these policies - even on a now paid off loan - I'd urgently suggest you check it's suitable, we've had over 900,000 template letters for PPI reclaiming downloaded and countless millions paid back, you may be eligible for serious money."

How will Lloyds claw back all of the money they are making from PPI policies? They'll probably start by increasing their charges and being tougher about them too.

 

I think that Lloyds announcement indicates that they aren't really able to sell the product without substantial misselling. They have finally given way to pressure from very half-hearted regulatory authorites.

 

Of course, with their present rates of interest so disproportionately high, this was a pretty good time to abandon the PPI rip-off scheme anyway. Notice the word "duped" in Martin Lewis' press release.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many millions have they racked in? They will still be minted because

people haven't claimed it back.


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

Although this is good news, I feel they have not done this with the customers best intentions at heart.

 

The FSA and CC have already given there views on this product and made the selling of it very difficult indeed a ban was already in place and nearly all financial organisations had already withdraw it from literature and websites.

 

Lloyds had no choice but to take this step just a shame hey did not do it a lot sooner instead of wasting millions in putting up a fight and trying to justify its worth.

 

PF


If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a brilliant result for consumers in the UK and completely proves that campaigning works.

 

However, the biggest challenge faced is the banks' attitude to their customers. How are they going to move away from treating us collectively like a profit centre and instead treat us as individuals with needs that must be responded to – and do it without losing face?

 

How is the present uncompetitive market ever going to deliver the momentum to achieve it?

 

The tide is slowly changing but when will we experience a sea change? A tipping point when massive and swift action floods the banking market?

 

As I said, a great result (especially as it's Lloyds TSB) and here's to many more in the near future.

 

Bornrich


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets be frank here, LLoyds have cancelled the sale of PPI for commercial reasons more than customer pressure.

 

Martin Lewis has done a fantastic job in opening up peoples eyes to the fact that they may have been taken advantage of over the purchase of unecessary PPI but this is not the reason for them pulling it. There have been many missold cases but the black and white of it is that with claims on PPI/ASU being the highest that they have ever been given the state of the country they can only see PPI being unprofitable due to the increased sales process regulation and the increased likelyhood of a claim being made - effectively its more expensive to sell with more of a chance of a claim being made. The misselling aspect is big but in reality the profits that were made from those products have been made and taken already, the losses are made when the claims are paid back (i.e. Now) and we know who has to foot the bill for this - us!

 

Its not necessarily a good thing as with a major provider out of the marketplace, the likelyhood of increased premiums for those who legitimately would benefit from this type of policy will increase and availability will decrease (As per personal lending impact at present).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They appear to have forgotten to mention what they're going to do about re-imbursing all the people who have been mis-sold policies. I wonder why.:rolleyes:


 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...