Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card   An HM Armed Forces Veteran Card is a way to prove that you served in the UK armed forces. The card can make it quicker and easier to apply for support as a veteran. It’s free to apply. You can currently only apply for a Veteran Card if you have a UK address. Veterans who do not have a UK address will be able to apply later this year. READ MORE HERE: Apply for an HM Armed Forces Veteran Card - GOV.UK WWW.GOV.UK Apply for an armed forces veteran card to prove that you served in the UK armed forces.
    • The Private Parking Code of Parking has been postponed as the poor dears are frightened that thew will all go out of business once it becomes Law. We all wish but nothing could be further from the truth so doubtless most of them will have to change their ways if they don't want to be removed as approved parking companies. Thank you for still retaining and producing the original PCN which, no surprise, fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. [It even states the vehicle "breeched" the terms  when it was the driver that allegedly breached the terms}. It fails to specify the Parking Period and whilst it does show the arrival and departure ANPR times on the photographs [that I cannot read] they do not include how long you actually parked nor was it specified on the Notice  [photos don't count]. So that means that you spent even less time parked though it would help had you not blocked out the dates and times, so good if you could please include them on your next  post. Pofa  asks the driver to pay the charge S( [2][b] which your PCN doesn't though they do ask the keeper to pay.and they have missed out theses words in parentheses S9[2][f] ii)  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; All of those errors mean that the cannot transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now responsible . What a rubbish Claim Form -doesn't even give the date of the event which it should.  
    • it doesn't matter what you are being charged or if you missed the discount period. you ain't paying anyway..... if this ever gets before a judge. then the ins and out of POFA2012 or any IPC/BPA guidelines might come into play. until then i go get on with your life. you are spending far too much time on a speculative invoice scan scheme  its almost as if you believe these are fines and enforceable in a criminal court and you could have bailiffs at your door any minute.    
    • Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space) guidance - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) but dont get scammed into a DMP. simply tell whomever you call to simply apply for the BS for you.  
    • totally immaterial. time to now start reading up. Programmable Search Engine (google.com) Clickme^^^ do not miss your defence filing date no matter what dx  
  • 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

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

I agree Tam. I also agree that with passage of time coupled by our natural habit of NOT questioning our betters these companies have become blaise about their behaviour.

 

It only because there is beginning a sea change in attitudes brought about by citizens being pushed around by the jobsworths who want to 'fine' them at every opportunity & being seen by local authorites & government as a cash cow That we are beginning to inform ourselves to the extent that we are now able to fight back with confidence & in the knowledge that we probably know more than our apponents.

 

Also we can't rely on the so called reglutory

agencies as they are a joke so we have to take matters into our own hands

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

Thanks for the compliment.S85 has taken a lot of reaserch from not only me but tamadus and the rest of the guys.We are in constant communication amongst us and when the time is right we will unleash it.If we can help just one person it will be an acheivement.

 

I'll add to those thanks, this really has kept me awake at night but as Terminator says if it helps one person then I'll be happy. believ it when we say the best is yet to come and when the time is right we will let it loose liek the tornado it is.

 

As a sidenote I'll also be happy to not have to read that darn CCA again lol.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of what constitutes a copy agreement has been discussed in the past but I can't seem to find it. I remember there was a lot said about a copy doesn't have to show certain information such as signatures but that if anyone is challenging the validity of the agreement then we should ask for the signed one.

 

I am trying to find out what is an accepted copy for other parts of the Act such as S63 and S85 ie what did they have to send us at the time. Per the Act a copy is one defined by Section 180 but all that says is that regulations may be issued stipulating what a copy may or may not include. Can anyone remember where those regulations are?

 

Basically it falls down to SI 1983/1557 which allows certain things ot be omitted, signature boxes is an example. But the full copy would have to be produced anyway in a court to enforce it. so it's a pointless exercise to conceal them. SI1983/1557 applies to all sections of the act.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same feelings when I realised the implications in sec 85 Lizzy. It just seems to keep running through your head. NO WAY have I got this right and How can they be so stupid and blase.

 

Sad to say I now firmly believe we have got it right and they are in for some big shocks

 

Tamadus - it was funny when this stuff started sinking into my head - I really thought I'd lost the plot - I PM'd Rhia about some stuff and I mentioned it in passing and the more I thought about it - the more I thought I was having a "moment" ha ha - then my PC threw a wobbly and I was offline for a couple of weeks and then others had got the same trail of thoughts when I got back online!!

 

So glad you guys were looking too!! Cause it's sure nice to know I wasn't losing the plot :grin: certainly looks like big storms brewing in some companies when this stuff hits the fans?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tamadus - it was funny when this stuff started sinking into my head - I really thought I'd lost the plot - I PM'd Rhia about some stuff and I mentioned it in passing and the more I thought about it - the more I thought I was having a "moment" ha ha - then my PC threw a wobbly and I was offline for a couple of weeks and then others had got the same trail of thoughts when I got back online!!

 

So glad you guys were looking too!! Cause it's sure nice to know I wasn't losing the plot :grin: certainly looks like big storms brewing in some companies when this stuff hits the fans?

 

We have been looking at this for almost 6 months, and the application form saga :)

 

I cant say how many times I have read the CCA and every time I find something new in it, The amount of Statutory instruments is crazy but almost everyone of them makes sense and they all slot into the bigger picture.

 

If the banks etc follow the CCA then there are no problems. But this was specifically devised to reduce or eliminate the back street loan sharks and drive them out of business. If the high street financial institutions do not follow it then they face the same treatemtn.

 

I recall in the 70's it was hailed as a flagship of consumer legislation. I am now old enough and wise enough to realise thats exactly what it is.

  • Haha 1

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and on that note I am heading to bed. See and speak to you all tomorrow :)

 

Oh Jonchris can you pm or email me a landline phonenumber I can call you on please :D

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have been looking at this for almost 6 months, and the application form saga :)

 

I cant say how many times I have read the CCA and every time I find something new in it, The amount of Statutory instruments is crazy but almost everyone of them makes sense and they all slot into the bigger picture.

 

If the banks etc follow the CCA then there are no problems. But this was specifically devised to reduce or eliminate the back street loan sharks and drive them out of business. If the high street financial institutions do not follow it then they face the same treatemtn.

 

I recall in the 70's it was hailed as a flagship of consumer legislation. I am now old enough and wise enough to realise thats exactly what it is.

 

Tamadus - I quite agree - this legislation was there to be followed and therefore could have eliminated the problems we are all seeing now - it's because companies didn't follow this stuff that they now have this trouble brewing - it's like they are sat on a potential "timebomb" !!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment Jon its just an idea in progress, as I research it more. Your right its section 32 I am looking into,

 

if they have deliberately concealed the fact that no agreement exists then the Act in theory doesnt bar a claim going back that far. Any comments from you are greatly appreciated.

 

I'm in 2 minds as to even claim penalty charges back from them as no agreement means no interest oir charges since its inception.

 

s32(1)© Limitation Act Gives relief for the consequencies of a mistake.

If Barclaycard haven't concealed that no agreement exists, then they have enforced the agreement in the mistaken belief that an agreement exists.

Has i only found out the mistake after making a CCA request the clock should start ticking from this point.

 

Paul.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

s32(1)© Limitation Act Gives relief for the consequencies of a mistake.

If Barclaycard haven't concealed that no agreement exists, then they have enforced the agreement in the mistaken belief that an agreement exists.

Has i only found out the mistake after making a CCA request the clock should start ticking from this point.

 

Paul.

Paul

Is this a defence? I have problems with the concept that Barclaycard, say, concealed that no agreement existed. What does that mean?

 

On the other hand, you could argue that they were duty bound before they apply charges and interest to your account to ensure that they are operating on a lawful basis which starts with ensuring that they do have a true copy of the agreement signed by all parties, otherwise (a) they are acting unlawfully (b) they are aware and therefore have concealed that fact and © have not sought remedy to this discovery by asking you to sign the agreement.

 

I don't think they have much of an argument...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

Is this a defence? I have problems with the concept that Barclaycard, say, concealed that no agreement existed. What does that mean?

 

On the other hand, you could argue that they were duty bound before they apply charges and interest to your account to ensure that they are operating on a lawful basis which starts with ensuring that they do have a true copy of the agreement signed by all parties, otherwise (a) they are acting unlawfully (b) they are aware and therefore have concealed that fact and © have not sought remedy to this discovery by asking you to sign the agreement.

 

I don't think they have much of an argument...

 

I too have problems with the concept that Barclaycard have concealed thats why i think the mistake argument would stand up better.

 

In our case Barclaycard have charged interest to our accounts in the mistaken belief that an agreement has been in force.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is interesting, but what is going to be done about it? That report only really tells us what we already knew, and, in my opinion would only scare people off from claiming their charges back!!

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

If this was the States, we'd all start a class action - set a precedent and then all and sundry would automatically get a pay out (or so my John Grisham fuelled understanding of the legal process in the US would dictate).

 

We're never going to be able to beat the banks completely without combining forces and making them accountable. Until we can say 'don't do that or 1 million customers will leave your bank' or 'don't do that or we'll boycott'. Only then will the power be completely returned to the consumer (disappears in thoughts of grandure about a socialist society where everyone is equal and nobody 'sleeps in beds with sheets').....

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're never going to be able to beat the banks completely without combining forces and making them accountable. Until we can say 'don't do that or 1 million customers will leave your bank' or 'don't do that or we'll boycott'.

 

Easier said than done mate! So, you'll organise that then eh? ;)

 

(disappears in thoughts of grandure about a socialist society where everyone is equal and nobody 'sleeps in beds with sheets').....

 

 

Have you ever read Animal Farm?! ;)

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

Tamadus - I quite agree - this legislation was there to be followed and therefore could have eliminated the problems we are all seeing now - it's because companies didn't follow this stuff that they now have this trouble brewing - it's like they are sat on a potential "timebomb" !!!!

 

It's strange sometimes how this world works. This timebomb has been ticking away to itself for years and it's goit lit because they got greedy over charges and that made us all start looking a lot closer.

 

What comes around goes around :)

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What comes around goes around :)

 

Indeed!

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

just thought you would like to know that Lloyds TSB have finally replied to SOME of my letters. They are about to get another one :)

 

They have also offered the difference between the OFT's farsical £12 and my claim lmao, 'if this is not acceptable I will arrange for our final response letter to be sent'

 

Hmmm they want to wash their hands of my claim while ignoring their default and criminal offences.

 

I feel a very long and strong letter coming

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and I am sharpening the axe as we speak :D

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent Student Loans a S.77 CCA request, their 12 days is up on Friday.

I've spotted a get out for them as the Act states that Section 77 doesnt apply to non-commercial loans.

 

Do student loans (with interest set at the Retail Price Index inflation rate) count as "commercial" loans?

 

Cant really see it myself. Doh!

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...