Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • hi   Thank you for your reply.   nice link . thank you very much.   I know I will get my refund. it has been offered. I have been told I am right about the situation. It does seem like this is in debate but this was clarified a long time ago.   Do you think I would be wasting my time to try and stop it happening to others?   I just would not want this happing to anyone else.   Thank you again                
    • Just ask for the refund you appear to be entitled to.  They'll either pay it or they'll explain to you why they won't.  Forget everything else.   Or you could try here:  https://www.railforums.co.uk/forums/disputes-prosecutions.152/
    • you stated :   "I would expect revenue officers are quite aware of the time of day they are manning barriers. i'd also go as far as to say they don't bother to do this in off peak times... as there would be little point, no loss of revenue to protect".     They were there when I should have had an off peak option, they did not give it me!! I asked for the lower fare. they refused!! And threatened a fine!! ( i did not know the jargon , that is true)  but "lower fare option "  should be o.k for them to understand.   When I say, to the effect, that there was a lower fare option listed on your computer before I left the station  Please can I have that as this higher fare seems far too much. Is there another option?   No.   I had full fare or a hefty fine options only.   you stated:   "your intended return was off-peak, but you didn't tell them.."   I asked for the lower fare, they refused. repeatedly. They had the option to charge the low fare but absolutely refused and threaten a fine.   I do not have to know any jargon.  I just said it was too much and there was a lower option before i departed and  why can't I have that? They said no and that I had to pay the high fare.   Which is untrue. They should have said that was o.k and gave any restrictions on the ticket!   you stated "this thread is getting boring and repetitive. "   You could help me and the many others  who may read this) who would like advice and offer suggestions of things to ask or mention with the complaint.   What would you say? How can I stop this from happening to others?   I have been told I was right by the staff at the station. So I know I am in the right.   Please can you be a bit more friendly and helpful?  Come on, lets try and do some good here.   I was hoping people might suggest some ideas.   Perhaps we can move onto the questions I should ask or things I should state regards my complaint. with time running out?  If not for me,  for other travellers, who will be going through this same ordeal if we do not help them.   kind regards.          
    • yes because 1000's of people believe a DCA is a bailiff and they are not and that penalty charges are lawful, they are not, so blindly cough up...   worth a few letters / free emails to try it on pays for the staff drinks down the pub that night with free money.   dx  
    • they have already 'outsourced' it ..........to a dca [crs - well that's harlands anyway] watchout for Zinc next.. but don't look at the bottom of the letter as you'll see its the same address again...}   forget about it go enjoy your life.    
  • Our picks

Bev250264

Robinson Way lifting a stay on a County Court claim made in July 2009 - Happy Christmas!!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2341 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

On the word doc on post 345 and 348


Living in the wild windy west of Ireland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another thing I have noticed is that the loan had a PPI attached to it. If OH was self employed, then a PPI policy would have been pretty useless.. Are you going to attempt to reclaim that.. this will be made direct to HSBC as they were the seller of that product.

 

 

 

We're not sure on this one CitizenB. OH was a director of the company at the time we took out the loan so not sure whether we could have claimed or not. At the time, we were in such a mess that we completely forgot we even had PPI let alone whether or not we should put in a claim.

 

This has thrown up another question unrelated to this though:

 

We have PPI on several CCs. We are paying a reduced payment at the moment on them. At the time we took them out, I was long-term sick and OH was self-employed. Does that mean we should look into reclaiming PPI on them even though we're on a reduced payment plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We're not sure on this one CitizenB. OH was a director of the company at the time we took out the loan so not sure whether we could have claimed or not. At the time, we were in such a mess that we completely forgot we even had PPI let alone whether or not we should put in a claim.

 

This has thrown up another question unrelated to this though:

 

We have PPI on several CCs. We are paying a reduced payment at the moment on them. At the time we took them out, I was long-term sick and OH was self-employed. Does that mean we should look into reclaiming PPI on them even though we're on a reduced payment plan?

 

I will have one of the PPI gurus look in on you - however, I would say yes.. start the reclaim process on all the credit cards.

 

There is some information in the following link with spread sheets.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?330996-Latest-Spreadsheets-PPI-Claims-and-Charges-Claims-Dec-2011

 

Do you have all your statements for these accounts? If not, you will have to send SAR to the original creditors. There is a draft SAR template in the CAG library for Credit Cards.

If the accounts were assigned to DCAs then any money refunded should be returned to you.


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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Responding to CitizenB's SOS.

 

CB's comments are bang on.

 

Even though your OH was a director of a company, which is generally regarded s being employed, it doesn't mean to say that the PPI on the loan was sold correctly. You may still have been mis-sold. Have a read here for some other mis-selling criteria, for example if it was s single premium added to the loan, was the true cost explained to you?

 

Have a read of No.1 in my signature about single premium PPI policies.

 

Also get the reclaims going for the credit card PPI

 

ims


If I have helped you please leave me a message by clicking my star

 

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI

Read Here

3. Reclaim Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial

Read Here

5. Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

6. Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

7. Thinking of a Full & Final Settlement?

Read Here

 

How To Upload Documents To Cag

Instructions

 

I DON'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM BUT IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

 

 

 

Private message facilities are offered for users to communicate issues that are perhaps inappropriate for posting on the main forum. Site rules explain this in more detail.

 

If you receive a private message which you consider abusive, derogatory or otherwise inappropriate, whether it be about yourself or other members, please report it using the "report" icon

 

If you are approached (or have been approached) by private message with an offer of help "Off Forum" or with a view to asking you to visit another website, please inform the site team via the report icon, especially if this results in a request for a fee. Remember, this is for your own protection

my views are my own and are given in good faith to try and help people. Please seek professional advice on your case if necessary

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ims I'll have a look through my paperwork and see what I've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought you'd all like an update on the RW saga.

 

After a couple of adjournments, we finally attended court at the beginning of June.

 

During this time and due to my ill health and the other debts we have, OH and I decided to look into entering into an IVA.

 

Just before the hearing, their sol asked to see us and said that although RW, or more specifically their new solicitors DWF,

had received the IVA paperwork, as the debt was listed as belonging to HSBC and not them specifically,

they would not be voting and would be pushing for the judge to award them the Summary Judgment "and nothing less".

 

We went in front of the Judge and after much toing and froing, he decided in the end that he couldn't make a judgment as RW had still not supplied sufficient evidence.

 

When their sol said that she couldn't see what would be gained by setting another adjournment the Judge said

"you're quite right I'll refuse it then!" Her face was a picture!

 

the upshot is that a trial date was set for October but in the meantime we have tried to get an IVa in place for our other debts.

We had to include RW although it is down as being in dispute.

 

Trouble is, their (alleged) debt totals more than 75% and they've rejected our proposal.

 

They've also refused to send our IP proof of debt as they said they've already sent it to us - which they haven't.

 

Our creditors meeting was this morning and it has been adjourned for another two weeks and our IP has written to them again requesting proof of debt.

 

I was thinking maybe I should send them another SAR.

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, a subject access request should resolve the problem for you - however, they have 40 calendar days to comply and if you only have an adjournment for 2 weeks that could be a problem.

 

As this is still subject to a claim then it might be worth you sending a CPR18 which they would have to respond to. within whatever time you give them.. ..

 

But how to word it so you get the information. That is the question ?

 

This is what a CPR18 looks like.. you can only ask for information.

 

Your Name

Your Address

IN THE XXXXXXXXX county court

CLAIM NO:

BETWEEN:

XXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

and

XXXXXXXXXXX

Defendant

PART 18 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

To: XXXXXXXXXX (claimant)

 

Please answer the following questions:

1. Upon what date was the last payment made on the account?

2. What was the source, method and amount of the payment?

3. Was a Default Notice issued pursuant to section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended) and if so:

a] Upon what date, for what amount and what was the date for remedy of the breach?

b] Was the issuance of the Default Notice noted in the communications log?

4. Does the amount claimed include charges, and if so what amount?

 

 

TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO ANSWER THE ABOVE REQUEST

WITHIN 14 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THE SAME UPON YOU

 

I will send out an S.O.S for you, see if anyone else has any ideas.


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

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, I resized it by mistake. This should be ok.

 

What on earth do they mean " the defendant is put to strict proof"

 

It is your defence, they have to prove the other way! It is not for you to prove.

 

Idiots! ( them that is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just thought you'd all like an update on the RW saga.

 

After a couple of adjournments, we finally attended court at the beginning of June.

 

During this time and due to my ill health and the other debts we have, OH and I decided to look into entering into an IVA.

 

Just before the hearing, their sol asked to see us and said that although RW, or more specifically their new solicitors DWF,

had received the IVA paperwork, as the debt was listed as belonging to HSBC and not them specifically,

they would not be voting and would be pushing for the judge to award them the Summary Judgment "and nothing less".

 

We went in front of the Judge and after much toing and froing, he decided in the end that he couldn't make a judgment as RW had still not supplied sufficient evidence.

 

When their sol said that she couldn't see what would be gained by setting another adjournment the Judge said

"you're quite right I'll refuse it then!" Her face was a picture!

 

the upshot is that a trial date was set for October but in the meantime we have tried to get an IVa in place for our other debts.

We had to include RW although it is down as being in dispute.

 

Trouble is, their (alleged) debt totals more than 75% and they've rejected our proposal.

 

They've also refused to send our IP proof of debt as they said they've already sent it to us - which they haven't.

 

Our creditors meeting was this morning and it has been adjourned for another two weeks and our IP has written to them again requesting proof of debt.

 

I was thinking maybe I should send them another SAR.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Your IP should be dealing with that, if you have included this debt in the IVA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your IP should be dealing with that, if you have included this debt in the IVA.

 

They are. Just was after a second opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't think so. The Judge just said that he couldn't award a summary judgment based on the evidence they had put forward (it's all here as attachments somewhere).

 

This is the wording of the order:

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. The application for summary judgment is refused

2. The case is allocated to the Fast Track

3. Standard disclosure by list by 7 August 2012

4. Inspection by 14 August 2012

5. Exchange of statementsof witneses of fact by 19 September 2012

6. Pre-trial checklists to be filed by 17 October 2012

 

It came with a Pre-trial checklist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your witness statement will be crucial.

 

Have they fully complied with any s 78 request?

 

Was this an application form?

 

Was the DN complient?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they haven't complied to any s78

There was never a default notice and no letter of assignment, although they provided a copy in their bundle which we'd never seen before. Their sol tried to say to the Judge that by virtue of the fact that there was a copy of it in their bundle, it should be "deemed as having been delivered". The Judge looked at her as though she was mad and told her not to be so ridiculous!! :lol:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of points that may help your WS, if you have pleaded them:

 

In any event I can show the Court that on balance the documents relied upon by the Claimant do not satisfy the requirements of s78 and I will refer the Court to the case of Carey vs HSBC [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) and also the Court of Appeal ruling in Devendra Kotecha vs Phoenix Recoveries [2011] EWCA Civ 105 which show that the documents the Claimant provided do not comply with s78 (1) and accordingly the Claimant is not entitled to judgment.

 

There are a number of reasons why the documents produced by the

Claimant do not appear to comply with section 78(1). It is established law that the Claimant need not produce the actual signed agreement to comply with section 78, however the Claimant must provide a complete copy of the original agreement (Para 7 Kotecha) including any terms and conditions incorporated into the document.

 

In reply to the Defendants section 78(1) request dated xxxxxxxxx the Claimant failed to respond in full. This response from the claimant, consisted of a one page application, devoid of any prescribed terms. The Claimant failed to produce a true copy of the original terms and conditions, a true copy of existing terms, or a true statement of account at this time, which he is required to do in response to a request made under s78 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Indeed Carey vs HSBC held that the s78 request was for information purposes to tell the debtor the terms of his agreement as it currently stands as well as what the original terms were. Exhibit xxx Includes the documents supplied by the Claimant to my original s78 request

 

I additionally refer to the comments of DDJ Bradley in the case of HFO Capital Limited v Robinson, where it was confirmed that an s78 request must be responded to at one time, not piecemeal.

 

Accordingly, the claimant had failed to comply with s78(1), however proceeded to issue a Money Claim on xxxxxxxx through Northampton BCC.

 

It is submitted the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement. These terms must be contained within the agreement. They cannot be contained within a separate document. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 Para 33.

 

“33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them.”

 

I will additionally show that the terms relied upon were not provided at the time of execution of the agreement. If the Court finds the terms were not present then that would be a matter for the discretion of the court as to what remedy the Claimant and Defendant would be entitled to, therefore that on its own suggests that the matter should be dealt with at trial.

 

Referring back to the Court of Appeal ruling in the Kotecha case where Lloyd LJ stated:

 

In order to comply with the request the creditor must supply a copy of the whole of the agreement, not just part of it. Any terms and conditions

incorporated have to be supplied.

 

I invite the Court to take the view that the documents do not satisfy s78 as it stands and dismiss the Claimants claim with costs in favour of the Defendant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a defined requirement for a valid Default Notice to lawfully terminate an Account whilst in default. Notwithstanding the matters pleaded above, the Claimant must under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 serve a valid Default Notice before they can demand early payment of sums not yet due under a Regulated Credit Agreement.

 

I refer the Court to the recent ruling of HHJ Chambers QC sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Keith Harrison vs Link Financial Limited EWHC 2011 B3 where at paragraph 75 when addressing a default notice he stated………

 

The notice of enforcement

 

75. The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement CANNOT be attempted in dependence upon it. ……………………….

 

Accordingly the Claimant cannot enforce the agreement due to the fact a Default notice has not been served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that vint, that'd really helpful. I will take a look at it

 

B x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest update on IVA and RW: We had our creditors meeting last Tuesday and everyone agreed except - you've guessed it - RW! It turns out that what they have to produce to an IP to prove a debt regarding an IVA is far less than what they must produce to a court. Therefore, our IP had to accept their vote and as they are the majority creditor (based on their figures, not ours) they voted against and so the IVA failed.

 

The IP spoke to their sols today who agreed with her that they are being pig ignorant and that they should accept our offer rather than take it through the court but he had been instructed to refuse it.

 

So, we are back to the court route again. I think they will try to make us bankrupt. Anyway, can someone please explain Standard Disclosure by List to me as I have to do this by 7 August.

 

It's Ssooooo frustrating. We have never denied the debt - just the amount and exactly who it is we owe the money to. They're the ones making this far more difficult than they have to.

 

FOOTNOTE:

 

When we were at the SJ hearing, the judge called RW "spongers" and said they the DCA business was, in his opinion, immoral. They prey on the vulnerable and use the court service too freely. Pity all judges don't think along those lines :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bev

 

Standard dislosure by list - N265 is here http://hmctscourtfinder.justice.gov.uk/HMCTS/GetForm.do?court_forms_id=521

 

Form is fairly self explanatory, the idea is to disclose every document you intend to rely upon, everything relevant should be included but obviously the more damaging to the other side the better.

 

Cb's previous suggestion re; part 18 request is a sensible step... I'd be inclined to ask them questions which would expose the underlying elements of their current denials. May require a little thought in preparation.

 

Part 18 request should be added to your disclosure list, if there's anything the other side are not prepared to respond to [current bare denial aside] you will want to include in your w/s at exchange.

 

Should have pointed out, DN on original loan account [not the combined account they plead], assuming the term has now expired the DN would be immaterial as all sums would now fall due.

 

One question you could pose in your request; they state loan account 'closed' at 10th March 2004, they later state that account was not 'terminated' - ask them which [if any] primary terms and/or conditions post closure of account number xxxxx persisted and whether those terms were effective post amalgamation of accounts?

 

Secondary to the above, your next question would/could be - if the terms and conditions failed to persist post amalgamation what are the primary terms of the amalagamated account and is it your intention to disclose the amalgamated agreement containing those terms?

 

It's a bit of a leading question tbh, DWF have no doubt cottoned on to the error within the earlier w/s and are relying on semantics in retaining their clients position.

Edited by Mike_hawk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest update

 

Our IP spoke to DWF (RW's solicitors) on Friday. RW have point blank refused to enter into any IVA and so it has failed. DWF advised them to settle as it would be in everyone's best interest not to proceed to trial, but they won't (I wonder if RWF think they're on the backfoot?). So, we have to complete the standard disclosure by 7th August. I really don't know how much more of this we can take! OH feels like declaring himself bankrupt and be done with it but then we'd lose our house.

 

So now, I have to get all our other creditors back on side with a payment plan (totals abut 12k) and do this damned Standard Disclosure by List by 7th August. Do I just list all the docs I relied upon for the summary judgment or do I need to go deeper than that?

 

Sorry if I've asked this before but I really am losing the will to live!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't necessarily loose your house, have you got children living there?

 

I am not an expert on bankruptcy but really it would teach Robbers Way a severe lesson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our youngest son will be 16 on Tuesday so only for another year. Apparently once he's 17, he's no longer classed as a child (or so we are led to believe) Our IP advised against that route but to be honest we feel like doing just that - just to bring this whole nightmare to an end.

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...