Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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

Capital one HELP..


mudbutt
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4484 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

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Update... I SENT CAP1 THIS LBA ON THE 24/01/2012 AFTER THEY BASICALLY TOLD ME TO DO ONE..

 

Although you broach a lot of the OFT recommendation in your letter, it would appear that you are selectively picking parts of the OFT report in an attempt to justify £12 as a fair default charge. I would suggest that you read the report in it’s entirety and remind you that what the OFT actually stated is that where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge; Further stating that a default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12 and only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not.

Should this matter proceed to trial I shall be seeking full disclosure of any true actual losses incurred by the bank as a result of these breaches and believe £12 to be grossly unfair and disproportionate to any actual loss incurred by the bank. It is my view that the charges debited to the account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the bank; exceed any alleged actual loss to the bank in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the customer; and are extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the customer.I now understand that the regime of fees which you have been applying to my account in relation to late fees and over limit charges, are unlawful at Common Law, Statute and recent Consumer regulations. I do not believe the charges reflect the true cost to Capital One and are unfair and disproportionate. I am therefore requesting a full refund on the Unfair Terms in Contracts Regulation 1999.

I would draw your attention to the terms of the contract, which you agreed to at the time that I opened my account. It is an implied term of that contract that you would conduct yourselves lawfully and in a manner, which complies with UK law.

 

I am frankly shocked that you have operated my account in this way as I had always reposed confidence in your integrity and expertise as my fiduciary. I therefore ask that you repay me the full amount of £168.00. I have attached a full schedule of the charges with this document. Additionally, you have entered a default notice against my credit record. This default occurred merely in respect of unlawful charges levied by you, or was the result of impecuniosities caused directly by the taking by you of penalty charges, which you had applied unlawfully to my account.

In addition to full payment of the sum mentioned above, I require that you remove the default entry from the register. Please note that mere correction or amendment to the entry will not be acceptable.

I require repayment in full of this money and removal of the default notice. If you do not comply fully within 14 days, I shall begin a claim against you for the full amount plus interest, plus my costs, without further notice.

 

THIS IS THE REPLY TO THIS LETTER.

 

"As a responsible lender cap 1 has an obligation to ensure that the information it reports is accurate and that it will not mislead future lenders. There is a consistent approach for financial institutions to record acc management activity in order to assess a customers credit worthiness. This practise is in accordance with data protection principles, guidelines issued by the information commissioner . As your account has been reported correctly, i cannot agree to remove the default from your credit file as you have requested.Futher to our last letter dated 10/01/12 i have reviewed this case again. Cap1 remains of the view that its default sums were both fair and lawful. however, as a gesture of goodwill and without any admission of liability i am prepared to increase my offer of refund to £156. (NOTE HOW THE AMOUNT IS LESS THAN WHAT I CALCULATED ON MY SPREAD SHEETS TO THEM.(if you would like to accept this offer please sign and return the enclosed settlement form within 14days...

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK MY NEXT MOVE SHOULD BE BECAUSE I REALLY WANT THAT DEFAULT REMOVE THAT IS THE ULTIMATE I AM NOT REALLY BOTHERED ABOUT THE MONEY.. ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi MB,

 

I think that you need to get them to refund the full amount of the default charges. If they make a partial refund as a goodwill gesture, they are not admitting to any wrong doing and you will have a harder job getting the DN removed .

 

I actually think their refusal now gives you the perfect opportunity to file a court claim seeking :-

 

1. A full refund of default charges plus either Statutory Interest at 8%, or compound interest in restitution (as per Sempra Metals).

 

2. The removal of the DN dated xxxx on the basis that it is factually inaccurate due to the inclusion of unlawful default charges in the default sum.

 

I would file Form N1 without further warning or hesitation.

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...