Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Spoke to my SIL a short while ago Andy and he had the following to say.....     No, he had left their employment by this time, in fact he left January of this year.     August 2013 up until January 2020     Yes, in fact he had a staff MORE card.     He laughed and said "Hell Yes" This even extended to the pubs deputy manageress whom he described as the worst offender and knew that my SIL was doing it as well as other staff members.   There is a story here....   He told me that after he had left, the company fraud guys came in to do an audit with her unofficially being the main target. He has an idea that she may well have been caught with her hand in the till and so she sang like a canary to save her own arse.
    • this is what shell have just sent me in email, confirming mistakes were made it the final response / deadlock letter, they are only telling me this now, 6 months after the deadlock letter was sent to me and long after court action started   please is the actual deadlock letter binding, or can they just noll and void it like this?   Thank you for taking the time to speak with me this evening regarding your account. As agreed, I am emailing you with the details of what was discussed during our phone call so you have a copy in writing. I advised that you previously had an account with Shell Energy (formerly First Utility) for property  and this has an outstanding debit balance of £187.24. However, due to the age of the account and when the invoice was produced on this account, this balance is being cleared. This balance will be cleared within 10 working days and the account will be closed at a zero balance. In regards to account  I advised that back billing credit of £630.45 that was applied in April 2020 was applied in error and was later withdrawn. I explained that the reason it was applied in error is because the back billing period this amount was calculated for, is the same period that the back billing was previously calculated for and a credit applied to the account in February 2017, with the amount of £1192.32 being applied to the energy account. I advised that at the time the deadlock letter was written, the information within this letter was accurate based on the account at that point. After receiving the deadlock letter, you then escalated your case to the Ombudsman. It was at this point, an agent investigated your case and realised that the back billing credit of £630.45 was applied in error. This was addressed within the Ombudsman's findings in writing and they confirmed that the £630.45 was an error and it is correct in being removed, leaving the account balance at £644.48 which is valid and liable to be paid. I appreciate that you have advised the Ombudsman case is null and void as you did not accept their decision and you are right in saying that the actual final decision that they issued was non-binding upon Shell Energy. However, this does not change the outcome of their findings or the fact that the back billing credit of £630.45 was not due to the account. You queried if our call was recorded as you would need it for a judge, to which I confirmed it was recorded. If you want me to raise a SAR for a copy of this call recording, please do not hesitate to reply directly to this email and let me know and I can arrange this for you. I advised that as your case has now been escalated to Shakespeare, legal fees have now been incurred. I advised of the breakdown of these fees: Legal representative cost £70 , Court fee £60 and interest £146.06. I also confirmed that these legal fees were on top of the account debit balance, resulting in an overall balance of £920.54. As discussed, due to the case now being with Shakespeare, I am unable to offer any settlement figure internally. However, I can arrange for Shakespeare to call you directly to discuss your account and options available. You queried if they would be able offer/discuss a settlement figure/payment plan, to which I confirmed that I could not comment on this as I do not know their process, however they will be able to discuss the options in more detail with you directly. As agreed, I will arrange for Shakespeare to call you tomorrow; Friday 27th November 2020. If they are unable to get hold of you, they should be able to leave a voicemail for you. During our call, you also queried who would appear in court to represent Shell, whether it would be a member of staff directly from Shell or whether it would be a representative from Shakespeare on our behalf. I have gone away and spoken to our legal team who have confirmed that it would be Shakespeare who would lead with a representative on behalf of Shell. I hope the information in this email clarifies our position. As advised within our phone call, I am genuinely sorry for the shortfalls you have experienced and I fully appreciate the frustration this has caused. As above, if you would like to request a copy of our call recoding from today, please not hesitate to let me know and I can raise a SAR for this. You can reply directly to this email or you can call on 0330 094 9158. Our lines are open Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 6:00pm. Please note that my working days are Wednesday to Friday each week. Yours sincerely,  
    • Every year the chancellor doles out billions of pounds of taxpayer money, but where does it go? View the full article
    • Amigo has posted a statutory loss before tax of £62.6m, for the six-month period ending 30 September, after reporting a profit of £42.3m for the previous half-year View the full article
  • Our picks

lloyds unable to attend in september


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5151 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

Hi guys, I recieved my copy of Lloyds AQ yesterday (SCM solicitors) and they ticked the box to say they want an extra month and also that they can't attend in court september. As september is almost over i am not unduly worried that there will be any significant delays from now on.

 

Should i just sit tight and wait now? I notice that quite a few people have called the solicitors to engage in an informal discussion. is this the best approach?

 

Louise:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I have received the same form back today. The AQ form from Lloyds Solicitors, they have also asked the court for a 30 day extension and say they cannot attend in October. Can you let me know how you get on as I don't know what to do next, its so dragging on. I don't know whether to just sit tight and wait for their solicitors to phone or to call them. Many thanks.

Will

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received my AQ back from them with the same earlier this week, asking for extra month, and there not available in Oct.

 

I sent them a letter with my AQ I sent three weeks ago, asking them if the were prepared to enter dialogue, haven't had anything indicating the wish to do so.

 

I decided to call SCM to clarify there position and the extra months request, I was told that they were awaiting instructions from there client, but would not discuss if they were ready to discuss the matter!

 

So if I were you I would do the same, if they have no intruction from Lloyds to try to settle this, them they are just using it as a delaying tactic.

 

I've given them 7 days to clarify it.

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like this has become their standard now. The box was ticked for the extra month and they have also indicated that no-one is available for October. Seems like they are using this as a delaying tactic. Makes my blood boil!! :-x

9/8/2006 Moneyclaim Submitted £490

15/8/06 Reply from court, Lloyds have acknowledged with intention to defend

11/9/06 28 days to the day defence submitted by Lloyds

13/9/06 AQ received reqd to return by 30/9/06 to Rugby CC

29/9/06 AQ completed and returned to court

 

 

I'd like to see things from the banks point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my a**.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a copy of Lloyd's AQ a week or so ago, and they had also ticked the box to request a stay for a month.

 

When I phoned SC&M, the lady I spoke to said that it was standard for them to tick that box. When I asked her if that was so Lloyds could have an extra month for them to negotiate or settle, she said, "No, it's just standard that we tick the box".

 

She then went on to say that "...Lloyds always like to settle these cases before they get to court"

 

Straight from the horses mouth, as it were.

 

 

;)

17th July 2006 - Small Claims Court action filed

20th July 2006 - Claim deemed to have been served

24th July 2006 - Defendent filed an Acknowledgment of Service

17th August 2006 - Defendant's solicitors filed a defence (Sechiari Clark & Mitchell).

24th August 2006 - Defence & AQ received.

13th October 2006 - Court orders a stay until 11th Nov to reach settlement - yeah, right. http://cag-images.co.uk/forum/images/buttons/edit.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, did you record that conversation by any chance Peter? I'm sure the district judge would be VERY interested to hear that :D

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm, did you record that conversation by any chance Peter? I'm sure the district judge would be VERY interested to hear that :D

 

Unfortunately not .... I was calling on my mobile in the car. Not driving, of course.

;)

17th July 2006 - Small Claims Court action filed

20th July 2006 - Claim deemed to have been served

24th July 2006 - Defendent filed an Acknowledgment of Service

17th August 2006 - Defendant's solicitors filed a defence (Sechiari Clark & Mitchell).

24th August 2006 - Defence & AQ received.

13th October 2006 - Court orders a stay until 11th Nov to reach settlement - yeah, right. http://cag-images.co.uk/forum/images/buttons/edit.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, ah well. Still, at least it confirms what we already suspected ;)

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hi guys,

 

I have recieved a letter from my county court on Friday. The date in the box in the top right hand corner is 12 October 2006.

 

It is an N24 General form of judgement or order.

 

It states the following:

 

 

 

Before DISTRICT JUDGE PXXXXXsitting at my local county court

 

Upon the Courts own motion. The Court has made this order of its own initiative without a hearing. If you object to the order, you must make an application to have it set aside, varied or stayed within 7 days of recieving it

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

The Defendant must file an Allocation Questionnaire by 19 October 2006

and in default their defence and counterclaim, if any, will be struck out and the Claimant will be at liberty to request judgement forthwith.

 

Dated 26 September 2006

 

 

Does anyone know what this means?

 

I purchased the Small claims procedure practical guide and i have had a read through it but i am still not sure what the N24 means.

 

I am thinking of calling the court tomorrow to see if they can explain it in apples and pears. As far as i know my county court has recieved SCMs AQ as i had a letter from Northampton county court (Notice to transfer proceedings) informing me that a defence had been filed with a copy of SCMs AQ attached. I also revieved a copy of the AQ from SCM themselves.

 

Any ideas:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone,

 

I called my county court this morning and they were very helpful. Basically SCM and myself had until sept 11th to file our AQs at my local court. I did this but SCM didn't, so know they have until oct 19th to do so. The person i spoke suggested i call back on friday morning for an update.

 

Louise:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rang law courts this morning.

 

Lloyds submitted their AQ on 17th october, so i just have to wait for a court date now. The person i spoke to was very helpful and said i should hear in the next few weeks.

 

I wish this didn't take so long:|

 

Louise

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...