Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My understanding is that they won't provide the name to me whether the investigation is Live or Closed, & I have no legal rep as I didn't have P.I. Cover on my policy, & am intending to claim using OIC.org.uk, but remain completely stuck as they 100% cannot open a claim on the portal without both the Reg. No. & Name of the other driver.  
    • thanks again ftmdave, your words are verey encouraging and i do appreciate them. i have taken about 2 hours to think of a letter to write to the ceo...i will paste it below...also how would i address a ceo? do i just put his name? or put dear sir? do you think its ok?  i would appreciate feedback/input from anybody if anything needs to be added/taken away, removed if incorrect etc. i am writing it on behalf of my friend..she is the named driver  - im the one with the blue badge and owner of the car - just for clarification. thanks in adavance to everyone.       My friend and I are both disabled and have been a victim of disability discrimination on the part of your agents.   I have been incorrectly 'charged' by your agent 'excel parking' for overstaying in your car park, but there was no overstay. The letter I recieved said the duration of stay was 15 minutes but there is a 10 minute grace period and also 5 minutes consideration time, hence there was no duration of stay of 15 minutes.   I would like to take this oppertunity to clarify what happend at your Gravesend store. We are struggling finacially due to the 'cost of living crisis' and not being able to work because we are both disabled, we was attracted to your store for the 10 items for £10 offer. I suffer dyslexia and depression and my friend who I take shopping has a mobility disability. We went to buy some shopping at your Gravesend branch of Iceland on 28th of December 2023, we entered your car park, tried to read and understand the parking signs and realised we had to pay for parking. We then realised we didnt have any change for the parking machine so went back to look for coins in the car and when we couldnt find any we left. As my friend has mobility issues it takes some time for me to help him out of the car, as you probably understand this takes more time than it would a normal able bodied person. As I suffer dyslexia I am sure you'll agree that it took me more time than a normal person to read and understand the large amount of information at the pay & display machine. After this, it took more time than an able bodied person to leave the car park especially as I have to help my friend on his crutches etc get back into the car due to his mobility disability. All this took us 15 minutes.   I was the driver of my friends car and he has a blue badge. He then received a 'notice to keeper' for a 'failure to purchase a parking tariff'. On the letter it asked to name the driver if you wasnt the driver at the time, so as he wasnt the driver he named me. I appealed the charge and told them we are disabled and explained the situation as above. The appeal was denied, and even more so was totally ignored regarding our disabilities and that we take longer than an able bodied person to access the car and read the signs and understand them. As our disabilities were ignored and disregarded for the time taken I believe this is discrimination against us. I cannot afford any unfair charges of this kind as I am severely struggling financially. I cannot work and am a carer for my disabled Son who also has a mental and mobility disability. I obviously do not have any disposable income and am in debt with my bills. So its an absolute impossibility for me to pay this incorrect charge.     After being discriminated by your agent my friend decided to contact 'iceland customer care team' on my behalf and again explained the situation and also sent photos of his disabled blue badge and proof of disability. He asked the care team to cancel the charge as ultimately its Iceland's land/property and you have the power over excel parking to cancel it. Again we was met with no mention or consideration for our disability and no direct response regarding the cancellation, all we was told was to contact excel parking. He has replied over 20 times to try to get the 'care team' to understand and cancel this but its pointless as we are just ignored every time. I believe that Ignoring our disability is discrimination which is why I am now contacting you.     I have noticed on your website that you are 'acting' to ease the 'cost of living crisis' : https://about.iceland.co.uk/2022/04/05/iceland-acts-to-ease-the-cost-of-living-crisis/   If you really are commited to helping people in this time of crisis ..and especially two struggling disabled people, can you please cancel this charge as it will only cause more damage to our mental health if you do not.  
    • I've also been in touch via the online portal to the Police's GDPR team, to request the name of the other Driver. Got this response:   Dear Mr. ---------   Our Ref: ----------   Thank you for your request which has been forwarded to the Data Protection Team for consideration.   The data you are requesting is third party, we would not give this information directly to you.   Your solicitor or legal team acting on our behalf would approach us directly with your signed (wet) consent allowing us to consider the request further.   I note the investigation is showing as ‘live’ at this time, we would not considered sharing data for suggested injury until the investigation has been closed.   If you wish to pursue a claim once the investigation has been closed please signpost your legal team to [email protected]   Kind regards   ----------------- Data Protection Assistant    
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • Hi everyone, Apologies for bringing up the same topic regarding these individuals. I wish I had found this forum earlier, as I've seen very similar cases. However, I need your help in figuring out what to do next because we've involved our partners/resellers. I work as an IT Manager in a company outside of the UK. We acquired a license from a certified reseller (along with a support agreement) and also obtained training sessions from them. The issue arose when we needed to register two people for the training sessions, so we used an external laptop for the second user to keep up with the sessions for only a month. During this period, the laptop was solely used for the training sessions. After two weeks, my boss forwarded an email to me from Ms Vinces, stating that we are using illicit software from SolidWorks. Since this has never happened to me or anyone we know, I went into panic mode and had a meeting with her. During the meeting, we explained that we were using an external laptop solely for the training sessions and that the laptop had not been used within the company since her email. She informed us that for such cases, there are demos and special licenses (though our reseller did not mention these types of licenses when we made our initial purchase). She then mentioned that we had utilized products worth approximately €25k and presented us with two options: either pay the agreed value or acquire SolidWorks products. We expressed that the cost was too high, and our business couldn't support such expenses. I assured her that we would discuss the matter with the company board and get back to her. After the meeting, we contacted the company reseller from whom we purchased the license, explained the situation, and mentioned the use of an external laptop. They said they would speak to Maria and help mediate the situation. We hoped to significantly reduce the cost, perhaps to that of a 1-year professional license. Unfortunately, we were mistaken. The reseller mediated a value €2k less than what Maria had suggested (essentially, we would need to acquire two professional lifetime licenses and two years of support for a total of €23k). This amount is still beyond our means, but they insisted that the price was non-negotiable and wouldn't be reduced any further. The entire situation feels odd because she never provided us with addresses or other evidence (which I should have requested), and she's pressuring us to resolve the matter by the end of the month, with payment to be made through the reseller. This makes me feel as though the reseller is taking advantage of the situation to profit from it. Currently, we're trying to buy some time. We plan to meet with the reseller next week but are uncertain about how to proceed with them or whether we should respond to the mediator.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Cap1 & CCA return


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4954 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

ULTRA SHORT APPLICATION CERTIFICATE.

 

 

 

 

 

this is a consumer credit agreement.

 

Could this be the clanger?.

 

 

NO THIS IS ULTRA !!!!!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/125619-cap-1-valid-agreement.html?highlight=ULTRA+SHORT

 

 

img002.jpg

:cool: sunbathing in juan les pins de temps en temps

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 17.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi FC

 

wow thats twice the size of mine........:)

 

and its got the creditors name and a sig (squigle).......why thats almost massive :) very nearly enforceable...if it had all the prescribed terms on it and a load of other stuff :D

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even thats huge........:)

 

I'm not being sizeist here (if thats a word)..but I'm proud that Ive got a small one....(if you know what I mean)

 

I'm quite happy in ALL other departments thank you :)

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, its not the size, its knowing what to do with it that counts...:D

 

There speaks a man (or woman) that obviously knows what they are talking about......:)

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am delighted to say that I haven't got one at all:eek:.

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there is something fawlty in the logic of charging 20%:D

BANK CHARGES

Nat West Bus Acct £1750 reclaim - WON

 

LTSB Bus Acct £1650 charges w/o against o/s balance - WON

 

Halifax Pers Acct £1650 charges taken from benefits - WON

 

Others

 

GE Money sec loan - £1900 in charges - settlement agreed

GE Money sec loan - ERC of £2.5K valid for 15 years - on standby

FirstPlus - missold PPI of £20K for friends - WON

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

The allocation notice will give 7 days for the order to be queried, but there will have to be a formal application notice submitted with the reasons why.

 

Wasn't there an AQ submitted with a Draft Order for Directions, that agreed to allocation to the small claims track?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hang on a mo........£52k ??? I thought the limit for CCA was £25k

 

WHAT sort of charges have been put on this ???

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend did a CCA request, had a reply from the lender syaing thye didnt have - issued an N1 and now the judge has sent it to multi-track because they asked him to as the balance is 52k.........he is only claiming £980.

 

I can't believe the cheek of it - they have far more to lose if it goed to multi - just showws the scare tactics they are using. This really has to stop.

 

Anyone know if the decision can be appealed?

 

 

Where is this happening? (which court?)

 

Surely this should be small claims track cause it's under £1k

But maybe it's because the costs by the lenders are likely to be hefty and over small claims ceilings?

 

Would be interesting to see the actual claim and the lenders defence reasoning for this claim - there must be something that can be done about this surely.

 

I am watching time and time again these companies usimg "costs" as their axe to grind claimants down - it's high time some of these Judges saw through the tactics of these lenders and began dealing with their antics - seems the cases get passed over because people don't want to make decisions about these ruthless lenders?

 

Maybe I been in CAG too long and just cynical about what goes on with these lenders?

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

AQ's were entered saying small claims track - they put an application saying they wanted it transferred to multi.

 

The hearing was heard and the Judge agreed. He has "stayed" the claim for 56 days so my friend can decide.

 

The balance of 52k is the total balance since it opened. I think the current outstanding is only 9k - but he is only claiming £980!!

 

The bank argued that as he is basically going to benefit and effectively obtain 9k it should be head in multi so that the court can consider the whole circumstances and rule accordingly.

 

The thing with multi is it's proof beyond reasonable doubt isnt it? The only reason theyve asked for this is to scare my friend - the fact is they dont even have an agreement and have admitted this in writing!!!

 

Did your friend attend the application hearing and argue against multi- allocation?

 

Regardless of the claim amount, the court can allocate to any track and (even if it's in small claim) can award any amount in Judgment despite what the claim is for - the Judge must agree with the Bank that the whole agreement needs to be considered, so what is it that he is claiming for? Sounds to me like the creditor is going to try to counterclaim for the balance of the agreement, so continuing would be ill-advised, unless the claim is sound and watertight, IMHO. If they have admitted there's no agreement, they are bound by this by s.172 CCA 1974, however.

 

All Civil cases have an evidential burden of on the balance of probabilites - only Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, as there's a risk of imprisonment.

 

I wouldn't presume to tell you what to do, but I do think this is best off in it's own thread, un1, as it needs some specific advice as to how to move it on - doing this here isn't going to work as it will get lost.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to their website, its something to do with upper case letters being used where lower case is necessary!

 

Eh?

 

 

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law. ( Now don't shoot me I'm only the messenger) there is another company doing this on my thread EDIT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Below are details of the company they use as their regisrered address. ( Assuming it is not them, although I think it is)

 

Accounting Reference Date: 31/07

Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/07/2006 (DORMANT)

Next Accounts Due: 31/05/2008

Last Return Made Up To: 18/07/2007

Next Return Due: 15/08/2008

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reasoning goes something like this:

 

The banks are corporations and work under commercial law. Human beings cannot work under commercial law so, in theory the bank cannot contract with us. Therefore after you have signed the agreement the bank opens up another account in your name BUT in CAPS. This account is opened up as a coporate account (or a trust). wHEN YOU SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT U WERE SIGNING AS A SURETY FOR THAT ACCOUNT (IN cAPS). tHE BANKs CALL IT A TRANASACTION ACCOUNT. (sorry bout caps) So, when the statements come for payment, your name is in capital letters, which is not you as a human being, it is your 'trust' account. So, effectivley you don't owe them the money as,this then is misrepresentation under contract law.

 

Where has this come from and do you have more info on it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, this is what I have found out.

After you have signed the credit agreement, you get a copy. After you have left, the bank stamps the back of this and writes:

Pay £xxx to the order of ( the bank). This is sent to the BofE and held on deposit against the account in CAPS. This changes the credit agreement into a promissory note which can then be treated as cash by the bank.

This makes the agreement unenforceable because they have changed a financial instrument into another one for the sole purpose of benefitting the bank. I understand that this is also fraud.

As the bank then treats this as cash, if you borrowed £5K, the bank use this promissory note as cash and so, using fractional reserve banking, they can then multiply this £5K and 'lend' out £45K to others. ( of course they don't actually lend the money, it's just book keeping entries) So the bank has lent you NOTHING, but demands you repay the capital they never lent you PLUS interest.

As far as I amn aware, the bakn /CC company cannot prove they actually lent you MONEY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4954 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...