Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Need a new bank because of my loan and offsetting rules


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5051 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

I bank with RBS that as been bought by Santanader. My account is then switched over to these fools in 2011. I dont want to bank with Santander. I have a 11K loan with Alliance & Leic which as been transferred over to Santander but is with the FOS at present. If my account is transferred over to Santander then I am sure they will try to execute the offsetting rule and take money from my account for this loan

 

My credit rating is very poor and I claim benefits. Does anyone know of a bank other than Lloyds that offer people like me a bank account (that allows DD's and SO's). I cannot bank with Santander. I have heard some many bad things about them

 

Sorry if this is wrong thread

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not try this new Metro Bank, they seem to want to do things differently, slashing charges etc,

I have no legal training, any knowledge I have has come from this forum, and my own experiences. Always balance up any advice you get with your own common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for that people.

 

have been turned down by Barclays already

 

will try Natwest and Co-op

 

I cannot afford to be at the mercy of Santander in terms of them 'setting off'. I left Lloyds for precisely this reason.

 

Gonna speak to RBS on monday about setting off rules for them when the takeover happens.

 

thanks again

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to visit my local Nat West as there operation seems to broadly the same as RBS, being part of the same group at the moment. I'm happy with RBS but don't want to go back to Santander as Abbey used to be a nightmare!

Although my Mortgage is still with Santander, they've just let me sign up to a new deal 5 years fixed at 4.79% with no fees which with numerous defaults and a unsettled on paper CCJ against me was far better then I expected.

Can anybody confirm whether they would be allowed to Offset an Old Unenforceable Disputed Abbey Loan against a RBS current account.

Although as my old Abbey Loan has been sold to DLC, I don't see how it could be legally offset, but do I trust Santander???? Not when it comes to Current accounts, no I don't/ The Abbey Accounts were set up to get maximum fee's eg processing money going in & out at midnight, so you got charges if you were od even if you paid cash in the same day, taking 6 days to clear cheques etc.

RBS are different cheques normally clear in 2 days and they work charges out at close of business not start.

My account has been with RBS for 5 years and has a perfect record. It was a parachute account, setup when I knew money problems were looming, which i've managed to keep fine. The reason I went to RBS was because it was the only bank that I didn't have a connection with 5 years ago.

My credit file should be ok in 18 months-2 years as the ccj and defaults all disappear at about the same time. Not that I intend borrowing money.

Edited by jon888999
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering that since the Natwest are part of the RBS Group would it be easy to transfer my RBS account to the Natwest? Would Natwest allow that? As anyone done this?

 

My credit rating is pretty bad so I doubt other banks would take me on though i'm not a bankrupt or IVA etc.

 

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...