Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OC 's don't do court   dx  
    • you will also need a copy of the CCJ and the particulars of claim on the claimform as... you'll need the particulars of claim as we don't know the judgement sum nor if post judgemental interest was allowed. did you defend it? did you ignore it? did you not get it?  did you know nothing about it?   its very rare on welcome debt either taken to court by welcome (doubtful in 2013) or a DCA (more likely)  i will suggest the debt was already at £18k before the CCJ so nothing bar court charges were added   please advise  i love bashing welcome and DCA but we can't help until we know our actual target and who did what and when.                
    • Janet Yellen confirmed as first female US Treasury secretary in Senate vote View the full article
    • I am sorry not to have responded in time to your thread. I have an awful lot going on.   I am hoping that you still haven't sent off your WS  as I have just seen a copy of Southend Airport  ByeLaws 2020. which will help you no end.     https://d1z15fh6odiy9s.cloudfront.net/files/board-approved-london-southend-airport-byelaws-100220-d14ca659.pdf   If you go to Section 5  the headline reads 5. Prohibited acts on parts of the Airport to which the Road Traffic Enactments do not apply:   In other words the roads on the airport are either governed by the Road Traffic Act or the airport Byelaws- neither of which are classed as relevant land. Therefore PoFA DOES NOT APPLY throughout the airport.   Take a copy for the Court and point out that the VCS WS is somewhat lacking in accuracy. It is inconceivable that VCS have not read the Byelaws since they are operating there.    So looking at their WS it reminds me that a good few years ago it was said about the WSs of  parking companies that they and their lawyers simply do not care about the truth and are content with regularly supplying false information to the courts, happy that they will not produce a witness to defend their porkie pies, and that nothing bad will therefore happen to them.   This practice should stop since were the authors to have to appear in Court and challenged, their perjury would not only be clear to see but it would put a stop to the practice. If they don't turn up in Court they get away with their lies and are able to repeat them ad nauseam. And this WS is full of lies and misdirections -not that you can say in Court they are lies but you can point out where there is contradictions shall we say and let the Judge decide.    The WS says in point 31 that they robustly deny that their sign is prohibitive.    You could point out that  District Justice Glenn  in Parking Control Management (UK) Ltd v Bull & 2 Others (B4GF26K6, 21 April 2016), at the High Wycombe Court said    “If the notice had said no more than if you park on this roadway you agree to pay a charge then it would have been implicit that PCM was saying we will allow you to park on this roadway if you pay £100 and I would agree with Mr Samuels’ first analysis that essentially the £100 was a part of the core consideration for the licence and was not a penalty for breach.   The difficulty is that this notice does not say that at all. This notice is an absolute prohibition against parking at any time, for any period, on the roadway.   It is impossible to construct out of this in any way, either actually or contingently or conditionally, any permission for anyone to park on the roadway.   All this is essentially saying is you must not trespass on the roadway. If you do we are giving ourselves, and we are dressing it up in the form of a contract, the right to charge you a sum of money which really would be damages for trespass, assuming of course that the claimant had any interest in the land in order to proceed in trespass.”   And of course VCS cannot sue for trespass as they are not the landowners.  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3536 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

Trouble is buster there are different reasons for misselling so it depends on individual reasons for saying it was mis-sold. Have you got a thread on your PPI issues?

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi folks, no, no thread as I've not had a PPI reclaim to speak of yet. But we shall see, I may start one to assist a friend in the near future.

 

You're right Caro that the bases for the miss-selling is unique to the case at hand, I think though, a template that covered the majority of reasons would be helpful.

 

Reb, thanks for the link. I'll take a look when more able.

:-)

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Bust

 

Here is an example, you could amend it, but make sure you read it over several times so that it applies to your claim:-

 

http://www.consumerwiki.co.uk/index.php/PPI:_Particulars_of_Claim

 

I don't pretend to be any kind of expert but are all the points entirely relevant?!

 

Isn't it the case - contrary to popular belief - that while the Judicial Review upheld the FSA's principles with regard to the mis-selling of PPI, they're not enshrined in law.

 

That's to say, if you attempt to reclaim your PPI via the FOS then the ombudsman has been given the green light to apply its principles when reaching a decision. If, however, you chose to go to court you can't base your claim on those principles.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred_F

 

Have you had a good look at the ICOB rules? I understand that these are directly actionable in law. The way I see it (and would therefore argue it), the FSA principles and their endorsement within the Judicial Review gives the Principles at least persuasive authority in law. Both ICOB and the Principles have come from the same source (FSA), have similiar purpose and the JR mentions this. There is now an underlying recognition that providers aren't expected to simply fulfill the less strict standard (ICOB) whilst ignoring the Principles.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Fred_F

 

Have you had a good look at the ICOB rules? I understand that these are directly actionable in law. The way I see it (and would therefore argue it), the FSA principles and their endorsement within the Judicial Review gives the Principles at least persuasive authority in law. Both ICOB and the Principles have come from the same source (FSA), have similiar purpose and the JR mentions this. There is now an underlying recognition that providers aren't expected to simply fulfill the less strict standard (ICOB) whilst ignoring the Principles.

 

Haven't, as yet, studied the ICOB rules in any detail - coz I'm not at that stage - but have done plenty of reading around the subject and, as you say, it seems these are what you must rely on if you proceed to court.

 

I'd agree that there is, '… now an underlying recognition that providers aren't expected to simply fulfill the less strict standard (ICOB) whilst ignoring the Principles' but have no idea whether this amounts to what you describe as 'persuasive authority in law'.

 

And therein lies my concern; it seems to me that lots of people think they can proceed to court, claiming compound interest [sempra], on the basis of the FSA's principles and the result of the Judicial Review. While I'm sure both are helpful, it seems to me it's nowhere near that straight-forward.

 

For example, from the Judicial Review judgment:

 

'Ms Sinclair gave illustrations in her Witness Statement of the regulatory gap........there is no specific ICOB rule which prohibits the selling of a PPI policy to someone who can never claim under it, even where the seller knows that to be the case. Such conduct would be covered by Principles 1, 3 and 6.'

 

As ever, interested in what everyone else thinks.

 

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fred

As I see it, the claiming of compound contractual interest (CCI) has little to do with the FSA or FOS per se (though the FOS do comment a bit about restitution). It is a basic legal principle that can be argued when money has been wrongfully extracted, as the Sempra case demonstrates. It is somewhat confusing to link it to the PPI Judicial Review in anyway. The JR concerns itself with the reasons for PPI refunds and the principles that apply etc.

 

It remains open to any claimant to seek to recover CCI on any capital amounts they have had to pay to a lender, as long as they are happy with the case law around doing so and that a higher claim amount (which claiming CCI produces) may spur the lender to fight their claim more assiduously. But Sempra is established precedent so people can and are using it and getting results.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Fred

As I see it, the claiming of compound contractual interest (CCI) has little to do with the FSA or FOS per se (though the FOS do comment a bit about restitution). It is a basic legal principle that can be argued when money has been wrongfully extracted, as the Sempra case demonstrates.

Sorry, I should add that this is only true IF you're not going through the FOS for your claim. If you are, and you wish to be awarded CCI in addition to capital and statutory interest, the FOS adjudicator would need to agree with that.

  • Haha 1

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...