Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The US streaming giant is forced to lay off staff to minimise cost of viewers quitting the service.View the full article
    • Hi Dave2019   That response to your councillor is short and direct so lets see how your councillor will act with Platform.   I think you have noticed that Platform are not telling the correct facts to news article/MP/Councillor which is absolutely typical of these Housing Association to always give there version of events to make them look as if they have done everything by the book to make them look good we haven't done anything wrong.   This is when you challenge them as you have done and throw there own Customer Community Engagement Strategy in there face and you keep doing this with what I have pointed out in post#67 (as a reference).   The more you do this the more Platform are not going to like it as it impacts their own Customer Care Policy, Complaints Policy and that specific Customer Engagement Strategy as these look more like just a paper exercise to make them look good but putting them into practice they are not just failing but are in fact Breaching those Policies.            
    • Ok! I think it's about there, I've added those final points. Thanks again for looking this over!   Px CLAIMANT
 ERUDIO STUDENT LOANS LIMITED – AND – DEFENDANT XXXX WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXX I, xxxx of xxxx, being the Defendant in this case will state as follows;   1. The Witness – xxxx states in point 3 that:   “It is noted that the Defendant does not dispute entering into a credit agreement with the Claimant.”   This in not true. I have never entered nor admitted to entering into an agreement with the claimant.   2. The default notice mentioned in point 6 was issued on 26/04/2017 and served 4 years, 3 months and 27 days after the last written acknowledgment of the debt on 30/12/2012 by myself. Thus, the cause of action delayed by 4 years 3 months and 27 days and the Limitations period prolonged to 10 years, 11 months, 16 days. This, in effect, allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.   3. In point 5 xxxx states I was issued with A Notice of Assignment on 22/11/2013. In point 6 he states that a Default Notice was sent to me on 04/03/2014. In point 7 he states I was sent a Termination Notice on 26/04/2017. In point 8 the legal proceedings and transference to Drydens solicitors took place without my knowledge.   I received none of these notices or assignment. It has now come to light that they were all sent to an address I had not resided at since 2001. The Student Loan Company was aware of my current address at the time that the alleged documents were sent.   I have always kept the Student Loan Company informed of my current address.   4. In point 18 the Claimant claims the Termination Notice issued on the 26/04/2017 was the cause of action, this is patently untrue - the termination notice does not determine the Statute of Limitations date.   Pursuing a debt after a 6 years is clear breach of OFT guidelines and CPUT.   5. Addressing points 21,22 and 23 - the claimant contends its unfair to allow a set aside 16 months after a default judgement, yet failed to issue a default notice within the 6 year limitation period therefore breaching the rules of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 87/88.   6. I the defendant, contend that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and
is STATUTE BARRED pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the Limitation Act 1980. 
If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.   7. The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £2489.03 or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied. 
   8. The defendant’s costs in dealing with the claimants default judgement and their set aside application to be paid by the claimant within 28 days.   (a separate costs sheet is attached).   Statement of Truth   I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   Signed: xxxx Dated: 17/05/2022   Costs Sheet Cost of N244 application form: £255.00      
    • Hi   I hope you are keeping as well as came be expected during this. and even if you want to rant here about this If A2 are still ignoring your letters/emails then that the Housing Ombudsman is now looking into this matter and have requested your evidence so far of their failure in Customer Cara and more importantly their own Complaints Procedure by failure to acknowledge letters/emails.   As you have already spoke to the Ombudsman I would contact them again and just explain to date A2 are still completely ignoring you with your complaint and you take this as a Breach of their own Complaints Procedure.   You look after yourself and even if you just want to have a rant about this to get this out your system you know where we are.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Basic Account Debit Card


bottomburp
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4200 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 have a basic account with a debit card at Nationwide. The other day I tried to use the card to buy a train ticket. I put the card in the terminal, entered the PIN etc but the transaction was refused. I had enough in the account to cover the cost of the ticket.

 

Now, and here's my question-- according to the Nationwide they authorised the payment but, also according to Nationwide, the train company's bank refused to accept the payment... I have looked at the receipt, it has no authorisation code on it (whereas all other transactions that have gone through OK have authorisation codes).

 

The Nationwide is saying it's not their fault. The train company is saying it's not their fault. Meanwhile my money (the cost of the ticket) was "blocked" for several days because Nationwide had earmarked it for the payment even though the train company's bank had declined to accept it...

 

I know it sounds bizarre but there's nought stranger than the truth!

 

I have complained to both sides - and both have told me it's not their fault!

 

Anyone heard of this before?

My posts are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. You should seek the advice of a qualified insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

But when I telephoned Nationwide and asked them to release the funds - I had the receipt which clearly stated "authoriser declined" and "authorisation declined" - the Nationwide told me there was nothing they could do except wait for HSBC (the train company's bank) to drop the payment request.

 

Nationwide say they authorised the payment and that it's HSBC that's fault as they declined to accept the offered payment... the train company say they would not refuse to accept a payment...

 

If HSBC refused to accept the payment how are they able to get the money put to one side?

 

If the Nationwide agreed to make the payment why do I have a receipt that (a) says "authoriser declined" / "authorisation declined" and (b) has no authorisation code?

My posts are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. You should seek the advice of a qualified insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...