Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

Smile 'Reviewing' its Charging Policy


phil1101
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6565 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

After submitting my DPA claim using the template from the library, I received the standard 'sorry you feel the need to complain etc' letter two weeks ago.

 

Yesterday, I received a letter stating that "smile are now reviewing there charging policy" and "as soon as our executive body has made a decision......"

 

Could this be an interesting developement?

 

And has anyone else had a similar letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but smile also claim to be an ethical bank. ethical banks dont break the law. they could be doing it on those grounds alone... it gives them a perfect marketing angle of being ethical against everyone else. if one bank alone gets rid of charges that stands it in a very good position against its competitors and if the bank already publicises its ethical approach this strengthens it further. smile could be doing a very smart thing in terms of business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I wouldn't hold your breath.....

 

After suddenly receiving a refund of all my bank charges two weeks ago from Smile, before starting legal action but 8 weeks after sending the 'nasty letter' from this website I recieved an email saying that Smile were updating their terms and conditions. Following the provided link to a list of charges this is the most interesting part of the update;

 

"smile Current Account Tariff

 

All smile online banking services are free.

 

Charges are only made for the following services:

 

............

 

'bounced' cheques, direct debits, standing orders or where you use a cheque guarantee facility or Visa debit card to create or increase an existing overdraft (due to lack of funds) £25 "

 

 

so it is now a "service" for "creating or increasing an existing overdraft"

 

 

I would be surprised if they have had a sudden change of heart within the last week.......

Smile £315 Paid In Full March 2006 (no court action)

MBNA £2600 Paid In Full May 2006 (no court action)

HBOS £5800 Paid in Full August 2006 (action raised but not defended)

Morgan Stanley £585 Paid In Full August 2006 (no court action)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Someone there has wise up and realised that a service isn't a penalty - clevery boy!!

 

Not that it matters much - we have that angle covered too! ;-)

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Someone there has wise up and realised that a service isn't a penalty - clevery oy!!

Do Smile subscribe to the Banking Code? If so, they should bear in mind the wording (although this is likely to be changed soon - see other threads regarding the code):

5.4 states: We will tell you the charge for any other service or product before we provide that service or product, and at any time you ask."

 

5.5 states "Before we take interest or charges for standard account services from your current or savings account, we will give you at least 14 days notice of how much we will take."

Effectively, if a bank makes an automatic charge without letting you know in advance, then it is breaking 5.4. However, they usually adhere to 5.5, as statements tend to state that charges will be levied on [due] date, and in this a service IS implied.

 

In a nutshell, I expect the banks will either not process the 'offending' items, or they will ask for our instructions on how to proceed...(is this at all likely?)

Alecto, Magaera et Tisiphone: Nemesis on Earth is come.

 

All advice and opinions given by Spiceskull are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. 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

With regards to the letter recieved from smile. Could this be a delaying tactic?

 

I am considering sending another letter, saying something along the lines of 'thanks for your letter ........ but i would also like to point out that i intend to comply with my legal rights regarding recieving the details within 40 days etc.......irrespective of wether the executive body has made a decision or not.

 

Would that be considered agressive or not?

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted my reply on the 10th April stating that i understand the content etc. but basically the 40 day clock is still ticking.

 

I have today recieved a further letter ....."I'm sorry we've still not replied to your complaint. This is just to say that we'll be looking into this and a member of our Complaints Team will get back to you with a full response. This will be by phone, secure message or return letter"

 

Has anyone else experienced this delay or response to the DPA request?

 

Good luck all

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Secure message recieved two days ago.

Just over £200 refunded (with apologies) into my account!

A small amount by comparison to others, but it all helps1

 

I only got as far as posting the DPA!

 

I am now awaiting the outcome of two other claims to First Direct and Mint.

 

Looks like the book fund will be recieving a donation when these are completed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you complete the survey? (if you haven't already).

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/survey.php

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

All smile online banking services are free.

Charges are only made for the following services:

............

'bounced' cheques, direct debits, standing orders or where you use a cheque guarantee facility or Visa debit card to create or increase an existing overdraft (due to lack of funds) £25 "

Calling it a "Service" or a "Charge for Services" does not change the basic nature of it as a punitive charge... in fact and in law this is substantially identical in character to the former situation.

 

A service is something you ask for, agree a price on, pay for, and then receive... In the case of punitive charges, an event occurs which the bank then levy a charge for. The ONLY WAY for banks to meet the OFT's statement is to reduce their charges for breaches of contract to a reasonable level.

 

edit: in my opinion

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/07/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6565 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...