Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you very much ericsbrother. I will pass this on to the residents of that Close, hopefully they do not pay that company for the privilege of having those signs.
    • Didn't need to submit an N245.  So long as I'm unemployed this is suspended and as I've said, at my age the chances of me getting work are very, very low.  I looked at the N245 form and it was identical to the N56 form.  I also took advice from the National Debt Helpline.  They were very nice and helpful so if anyone's afraid of calling them, they needn't be.   They also told me that if I did want to submit the N245 I could also submit the form N160 which gives help with fees.  I decided just to submit the N56 as requested, ticking the box unemployed as you suggested.  The Court accepted that.  They have left it open that should I find work then Lowells would be free to reapply to the Court which is what I expected.  However, it is unlikely that scenario will arise so as far as I'm concerned, the matter is over.  If the impossible happens and I do get a job, then I will deal with that as and when it arises.   Had I not been so careless in the first place by forgetting the Hearing date and gone to Court to fight my corner, then this would have been killed stone dead a couple of years ago.  However, what is done is done but as the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a rabbit.   Again, thank you for all your help.  You've been marvellous 😀    
    • Cheers for reply. I kind off thought that after I handed it in but wanted to seek further advice as I still work at the Co. I have been there 2 years
    • I'm having a bit of fun with a former landlord who I'm aiming to serve a Rent Repayment Order on. The problem I'm now having is that I think my Council's selective licensing department is mis interpreting the law. The issue is that according to their own guidelines I should, as a tenant in the property for more than 3 years, have been consulted before a license was issued. The council is now saying that I should not have been consulted at all.   The Council says  "I can confirm that the Council conform to the requirements of Schedule 5 of the Housing Act 2004 which sets out the meaning of “relevant person” for the purposes of consultation. The Act specifically states that any tenant who has an unexpired lease of 3 years or less is excluded from the consultation process prior to awarding a Selective Licence. That is why you were not consulted."   Schedule 5 says, in the only reference to 3 years at all "13(1)In this Part of this Schedule “licence” means a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act. (2)In this Part of this Schedule “relevant person”, in relation to a licence under Part 2 or 3 of this Act, means any person (other than a person excluded by sub-paragraph (3))— (a)who, to the knowledge of the local housing authority concerned, is— (i)a person having an estate or interest in the HMO or Part 3 house in question, or (ii)a person managing or having control of that HMO or Part 3 house (and not falling within sub-paragraph (i)), or (b)on whom any restriction or obligation is or is to be imposed by the licence in accordance with section 67(5) or 90(6). (3)The persons excluded by this sub-paragraph are— (a)the applicant for the licence and (if different) the licence holder, and (b)any tenant under a lease with an unexpired term of 3 years or less."   If correct this means tenants are never consulted.   Is this correct ? And if not, why not ?  
  • Our picks

fireprism

reclaiming bank charges

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2975 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

I have my own success story against santander in court in the UK February 2011. My revised claim under UTCCR regulation 5 has been approved, and the bank has to also answer to my claim under CCA 140. The date has not been set but they now have to provide evidence in the small claims court proving cost of returning direct debits. I have done this with no legal help whatsoever and expect to win outright when the date for the final hearing arrives.:whoo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've emailed you . If you haven't seen it then check your spam filter or junk box


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i cannot find this e-mail, amd i always check spam box before i delete it. please re-send.

Thanks

John Wharton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sent again


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i still cannot find anything in my inbox or spam filter, are you sending it to the correct e-mail address?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still havent received any communication so i dont know what information it contains, please have a look. also i e-mailed admin, can you confirm that they will be sending me some information as well. there has been nothing in my spam filter file either. The sooner i get my paperwork sorted the better as i only have 4 weeks to submit all letters to the court. I havent posted enough times to put my proper e-mail address in as a link.

regards

john.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subscribing with interest - Santander are my nemesis and I've been pondering a revised POC for ages :-/


I hate Alliance + Leicester

BT: No longer a customer :)

HSBC: £1222 refunded 28/5/06; Second claim of £737-24 refunded 9/11/06; PPI + interest on personal loan refunded 27/7/08

MBNA: £100 refunded on first claim of £112; £208 refunded on second claim for £108 24/9/07; PPI £256-28 refunded 8/4/08

NatWest: £1581-71 refunded 16/12/06; personal loan CCA agreement not provided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i will post details of my claim after i have won/lost in june

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks FP. Did you get the info that was sent to you.


 

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

i have received no information whatsoever, just an e-mail asking me to get in touch with admin, which i did twice. I will just have to do all the work myself without any outside help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fireprism,

 

well done on your success so far. I am about to put a new claim in to Barclays based under what can be argued under Regulation 5(1). Can you give me any hints and tips on your claim angle and approach? I have been looking at several forums and reading up so I can go into battle as well prepared as possible.

 

Regards

Stevos

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...