Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • what rights of access do you have on your agreement with the landlord?   i suspect you shouldn't have to pay a thing.
    • then there is your proof to them why would you pay for BB twice!!   for my notes: GENERAL NOTES ON CHARGEBACK & Continuous Payment Authority & BACS   .....  We have been telling people to put a letter into their bank instructing them  not to make any payments under any circumstances to these companies  . http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/- it works! usually this should be done using the number on your debit card  .  banks MUST follow written intructions from their customers ! . CANCELLING YOUR DEBIT CARD DOES NOT STOP CPA'S  .  This fsa guide has now been updated:  . http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/consumer_info/know_your_rights_guide.pdf http://www.fca.org.uk/news/continuous-payment-authorities-your-right-to-cancel https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account  .  Here's the text:  .  Cancelling a regular  card payment:  .  When you give your credit or debit card details to a company and authorise them to take regular payments from your account,   such as for a gym membership or magazine subscription,  it is known as a ‘recurring transaction’ or ‘continuous payment authority’.  . These are often confused with direct debits, but do not offer the same guarantee if the amount or date of the payment changes.  .  In most cases, regular payments can be cancelled by telling the company taking the payments.   .  However,   you have the right to cancel them directly with your bank or card issuer by telling it that you have stopped permission for the payments.   Your bank or card issuer must then stop them – it has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments.  .  Be aware, though, that you will still be responsible for paying any money that you owe. and that CANCELLING YOUR CARD WILL NOT STOP THE CPA  .  ..  .  New june 2013  .  Regulator orders Banks and mutuals to review complaints about not cancelling recurring payments from November 2009.  .  Consumers who have set up a regular payment from their account will now be able to successfully cancel that arrangement   by contacting their card provider, the Financial Conduct Authority said.  .  The FCA has been examining how easy it is for customers to cancel Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs)   due either to payday lendersicon or for other regular payments such as subscriptions or gymicon memberships.  .  CPAs, which are also commonly called recurring transactions or recurring payments,   are relatively easy to set up but can be hard to cancel, causing problems for consumers trying to manage their finances,the FCA said.  .  Now, following the FCA review of how the largest high street banks and mutuals process requests to cancel CPAs, they have agreed that they will ensure that when   a customer asks for a recurring payment to end, that will be sufficient to cancel the arrangement. They have also confirmed that should a payment go through by   mistake following cancellation by a customer the customer will be refunded immediately.  .  In addition to securing this commitment, the largest banks and mutuals have agreed to review every individual complaint they have received about the non-  cancellation of a CPA and to pay redress where payments have continued to be made despite the customer cancelling the arrangement. This applies to all complaints   since November 2009 when the Financial Services Authority, the FCA’s predecessor, began regulating banking conduct.  .  Clive Adamson, the FCA’s director of supervision, said: “It’s important that consumers are confident that banks are meeting their everyday banking needs. Today   customers can be confident that when they ask for a Continuous Payment Authority to be cancelled – it will be cancelled - and that it can be done easily.   . “We recognise that historically this is an area where some customers have struggled but the banks and mutuals have responded positively to our work on this issue.   From now on we expect them to be getting this right. In addition, they have committed to review past complaints.” .  .  Also mentioned your displeasure that as whomever took your money had obviously attempted this many times   probably activating your banks own anti fraud software - nobody had the decency to inform my you this was going on.? .  .In the FSA's own words:  .  ..  What should I do about a payment from my account that I didn’t authorise?  .  Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction.   Money can only be taken from your account if you have authorised the transaction   or if your bank can prove you were at fault –  . see below.  Contact your bank immediately if you notice an unauthorised payment from your account. .  If you are sure you did not authorise the payment, you can claim a refund.  .  However, your bank does not have to refund you if you do not tell it about the payment until 13 months  or more after the date it left your account.  .  Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction  .  ------------------  .  Your bank may only refuse a refund for an unauthorised transaction if:  .  ? it can prove you authorised the transaction  – though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password,   card and PIN proves you authorised a payment; or .  ? it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently,   or because you deliberately,   or with gross negligence, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction  .  -----------------------  .  How quickly must my bank refund me for an unauthorised transaction?  .  The bank must make the refund immediately unless it has evidence that one of the above reasons applies.   Your bank may ask you to answer some questions and fill out a form confirming what has happened,   but it cannot delay your refund while it waits for you to return the form.  If the bank has evidence that one of the above reasons for refusing a refund applies,   it may investigate before making a refund   but must look into it as quickly as possible.   If your bank rejects your claim for a refund it should explain why.  If the transaction was on a credit card, the refund may not happen immediately.   But the card issuer cannot charge interest or ask for repayment of the amount unless it can prove you are liable to pay        
    • Only asking because I want to get my facts right before I approach the bank! Yes, BT is coming out of the same account.
    • not if they want to make the OP the named claimant no!! let them take the other party to court themselves!! the op can be a witness then..   one bitten...read this thread..      
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
        • Thanks
      • 9 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
        • Like
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
      Thanks for reading 
        • Thanks
      • 16 replies

Northern Rock Discontinued but now having a go again!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3649 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

Hi Folks,


Over the last year thanks to the great help from you guys Northern Rock Discontinued, due to the fact that they sent two DNs on the same date with different amounts. Here is the thread:



However this week I've received an Application Notice from the local court, Northern Rock are seeking permission to open a new case against me! The date of the hearing is next Thursday 19th August. Here is what I received:






Can anyone advise what I should do at this hearing?


thanks muchly!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Ford. Lots of info in that thread that I can use. So I guess my central argument is going to be that


A) they should not be given permission to open a 2nd claim unless something very different has come to light. Them manufacturing a DN to try and correct things is not something exceptional that should give them the right to a 2nd claim.

B) In any case there is no contract anymore that they can issue a new DN against as they terminated the contract by taking me to court the first time.


I know I'd need to flesh it out a bit more but can anyone confirm those are the main things I should concentrate on? Anything else I should point out?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


as you say, maybe, in the main, go with that thread? its a shame there doesn't seem to be a citation for it!

anyway, further, as per the linked thread - 'It is clear that the intention of rule CPR 38.7 was that permission be granted where there were exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the claimant which prevented the Claimant from bringing forth its whole claim in the original claim...'

(the requirement to serve a compliant dn, in the first place, is not 'beyond the control' of the cr! ie, it is for them, and no one else, to serve a compliant dn in the first place!)

wait for further opinions? :)

Edited by Ford




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



Obviously you need to attend the hearing on Thursday. I suggest that you use the argument/judgment outlined on the linked thread from janesteve. It looks like this case was a decision of the Court of Appeal but without the names of the parties it will be difficult to check. Pity because quoting it would end their little game.

Arrow Global/MBNA - Discontinued and paid costs

HFO/Morgan Stanley (Barclays) - Discontinued and paid costs

HSBC - Discontinued and paid costs

Nationwide - Ran for cover of stay pending OFT case 3 yrs ago

RBS/Mint - Nothing for 4 yrs after S78 request

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I kept these by when in litigation with a well know Indian based DCA ;-)






This form of abuse of process has in recent years been taken to be that described by Sir James Wigram V.-C. in Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 at 114 where he said:


"In trying this question I believe I state the rule of the Court correctly when I say that, where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the Court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time."


In any case, by an order of the court, a claim between the same parties over subject matter which I understand is similar or identical to the subject matter of the recently issued proceedings, was struck out by order of the court. That order was evidently, not appealed and therfore remains the order of the court in relation to the issue.


The basis of the doctrine as it applies to issue or cause of action estoppel involves the policy which favours the benefit of finality, the sanctity of decisions of the court and the avoidance of the risk that courts may issue contradictory decisions. It was neatly set out in the speech of Lord Goff in Republic of India v India Steamship Co Limited [1993] where he said:


“…the cause of action, having become merged in the judgement, ceases to exist, as it is expressed in the Latin maxim transit in rem judicatem…”


Here lies the distinction between the availability of a second action where the Claimant falls on his sword by discontinuing his claim (and where the claimant wishing to bring a second action satsfies certain conditions) and an order for strike out. The former will involve no judicial decision on the merits whereas the latter often will. I'll deal with the situation where it doesn't shortly. Evidently, the Judge who struck out the first claim decided either there was no merit in the claim, or prospect of success or possibly, that owing to contumelious disobedience of one or more orders of the court, the claimant was undeserving of having the claim progress to trial.


It will be necessary to be satisfied that the first and second claims represent litigation over the same subject matter and for the purpose it will be necessary to see the Particulars of Claim of both first and second proceedings. Assuming the second claim mirrors the first, the proper thing to do is to submit a Defence pleading all that may be available by way of defence (there may be an issue over the default notice I gather) plus a plea of res judicata and that the cause of action now relied upon merged with the order striking out the claim which was not appealed and remains the decision of the court on the set of facts forming the second claim.


Having served the defence I would then be inclined to make an application under CPR 24 for summary judgment on the basis the Claimant has no reasonable prospect of success owing to issue and cause of action estoppel etc.


As for any contention from the Claimant that the decision to strike out did not involve a decision on the merits, I would maintain the court has the power to strike out the second action as an abuse of process under CPR 3.4 (mentioned in CPR 24) where unmeritorious proceedings are begun such as this second action. The basis underlying the abuse is that if for example, the first case was dismissed for failure to produce documents in obedience to an order of the court (implying the possibility the decision was not based upon the existence of merit in the claim itself) and the Claimant is now in possession of those documents which it would wish to employ in the second claim, so called 'extended' res judicata principles will apply in the sense that with due dilligence, the claimants would not have begun the first proceedings without first having possession of those documents and with due dilligence, the first set of proceedings were sufficiently available for the Claimant to litigate the issues.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice everyone, very much appreciated.


I have one little problem, in the thread about the Appeal case, janensteve appears to quote from The White Book – Civil Procedure Volume 1 (Sweet & Maxwell) with this text about CPR 38.7:


"As a matter of common sense, where a claimant who has brought and then abandoned a claim ought not as a general rule to be allowed to start another claim arising out of the same facts.


A Claimant, who wishes to do so, is first required to seek permission. The court is likely to give permission for example where the Claimant was misled or tricked by the defendant, where important new evidence has come to light or where there has been a retrospective change in the law. (e.g. House of Lords case overriding a Court of Appeal decision which had led the claimant to discontinue). All these examples are of course, exceptional cases and assume that the limitation period has still not expired."


Problem it doesn't say in his post what page, etc this is from. I would love to quote this tomorrow but what if I'm asked where in The White Book I got that from?


Does anyone have The White Book and could tell me page number, etc of the above text?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or is there anywhere online I can access The White Book perhaps?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi eddie, I doubt it will be online, mainly because Volume 1 costs £366.20 (from here-)




Possibly partially available on gooogle books or from a library.


I recently asked a court clerk if the green & white books were available for public viewing at court. Just got a blank look & "no" for an answer.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, so I guess I'm not going to be able to get access before my hearing today at 2:30PM.


If anyone reading this has access to the White Book or is familiar with it and knows roughly where in Volume 1 (even a Chapter or whatever would do) it deals with CPR 38.7 please do post. Thanks :)

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...