Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for your help, when am I likely  to receive the questionnaire?
    • Okay. By and large they are saying that the computer was a prohibited item and therefore it was carried at your own risk. Despite this they agree that they sold you insurance on it. They also say that it was damaged and could not be delivered – but they don't say that it was destroyed and they don't produce any evidence to say that it was damaged or why the damage was so much that they couldn't deliver it. Clearly wasn't sufficiently damaged that your address details et cetera were lost because they apparently know exactly which parcel you are talking about and they know exactly which parcel it was that they were meant to be delivering. They are completely aware of which parcel it was which was damaged and they are completely aware of the extent of the damage which allows them (they say) to say that they were unable to deliver it – or to return it to sender. Of course it's all nonsense. They haven't produced any evidence of damage and they haven't explained why they couldn't then deliver it or return it. It's only a laptop for goodness sakes. It's not an elephant. It's not perishable goods that started to decay in their wrapping and losing out or making smells and attracting flies et cetera. It was only a laptop. They also made a stupid mistake because they say that you didn't insure for £245 – but they have mistaken the figure that you are claiming because £25 of that is your claim fee. They now seem to be suggesting that you should also ensure of your claim fee!! These people are really stupid.   They don't say in what way the fact that it may have been a prohibited item somehow affected the risk of it being damaged. They don't explain why they knew it was a period item and yet they agreed to carry it and also they agreed to sell you insurance. At some point you will get an allocation questionnaire. Let us know when you get it. It will ask you which court you want to have it heard in – and she will indicate that it is your local court because you are a consumer and they are a trader. You will have to pay a fee if you are prepared to go on. Hermes will have indicated that they want to go to mediation – and you should agree. Read around the sub- forums about mediation and how it normally goes and how you will come under pressure from the mediator to reduce the value of your claim. Read what we have to say about that and our advice to you about standing up to the mediator. Let us know when you receive the next stage  
    • Congratulations and well done for standing up for yourself!  You did the right thing and I'm sure your dad would be proud of you.  I think the comment that your defendant was "bored of this" is quite telling - he was stringing you along to see if you would give up, and you wouldn't.   Well done.     If you are still keen to get it fixed properly - try asking at a "good" independent jewellers locally.  If they can't do it themselves they may be able to recommend somebody who can.  And if it's rare or valuable, try searching for a website of a trade guild or something.  There's one below.  (Hope you didn't find the other guy there!)   https://bwcmg.org/   And always ask for a quote beforehand and a realistic appraisal as to whether they can actually fix it.  (Try to get a proper repalcement strap like the original too!)    
    • Thanks for reply. AT time loan issued he was in debt for around £1.5k. CRA's around time loan issued show that only 4 credit cards (2 went to default in jun 19) a Paypal Credit account and a ShopDirect - all within 20% of credit limit on each. (and Car Insurance paid mthly) Since loan issued he took out a Everyday loan which has another 20mths to go, but has been paid on time without any missed or negative marker. No defaults were ever recorded on his closed accounts.  
    • Phoned the court this morning...they said pay £255 if you want to apply to adjourn and it might not work as late...the last few lines are just the date and signature of the solicitor which is why I missed them out...   GODF Comprerssed .pdf
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2311 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

8.1 certainly appears to provide for its application of charges...last by interpretation and common sense :-)

 

I understand the FCA are reviewing MBNA's redress calcs but its not exactly public knowledge as yet beyond the small volume 'pressure' groups on here and other sites who have been pressing the FCA and FOS to intervene since early this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

8.1 certainly appears to provide for its application of charges...last by interpretation and common sense :-) Yes that's what I thought, so I have written this down as additional evidence that they were applied to the account by 'mistake' I will post up what I intend to say in court this week when I have finished typing it.

 

I understand the FCA are reviewing MBNA's redress calcs but its not exactly public knowledge as yet beyond the small volume 'pressure' groups on here and other sites who have been pressing the FCA and FOS to intervene since early this year. So I assume, as it is not common knowledge and I can't refer to it anywhere, it wont be worth mentioning for additional ammo :-(

 

Also, do I need to prepare an opening statement or something of the like?

 

Thanks

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites
8.1 certainly appears to provide for its application of charges...last by interpretation and common sense :-)

 

I understand the FCA are reviewing MBNA's redress calcs but its not exactly public knowledge as yet beyond the small volume 'pressure' groups on here and other sites who have been pressing the FCA and FOS to intervene since early this year.

 

I am in correspondence with the FOS/FCA on this and their last letter they have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations,

 

And they will up date me & Others at a later date after investigations completed. that was middle of last May 2014, BUT a DJ would simply ignore any comment unless you have evidence to the contrary about PPI redress at this stage as I found out.

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in correspondence with the FOS on this and their last letter they have asked MBNA for more information about its calculations,

 

And they will up date me & Others at a later date after investigations completed. that was middle of last May 2014, BVUT a DJ would simply ignore any comment unless you have evidence to the contrary about PPI redress at this stage as I found out.

 

Suspected as much :-(:sad::sad:

 

Oh well, if by some miracle something I can take to Court develops by Friday, please let me know :-) - That would be soooo sweet

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any info would probably be treated as hearsay, really not sure the court would entertain any additional witness evidence this late in the day and I can't imagine the FCA showing its cards by supplying anyone with the merest hint as to its investigation process. From what I have seen of its correspondence to date it just seems to be at the stage of collating complaints data for testing calculations and reconciling with DISP.

 

Having said that, if the other side is using its t&c as a shield along with its public statement regarding Ind reviews etc it should really be pressed to allow inspection of any documents its relying on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, very true, thanks Mike.

 

The attachment is what I am planning on going by if asked to speak about why I think s.32 would cover my case.

 

Please let me know where I've gone wrong, if I've totally misunderstood stuff or if I need to add or omit anything as I don't want to look stupid in front of the judge. :madgrin:

 

Many thanks guys for your time in helping me with this

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you understand the argument, press releases prob won't hold much water but using its terms; point of charge, future allocation of payments may.

 

Use your attachment as a prompt and be prepared for any/all possible counter intuitive rebuttals from the other side. You need to think about what novel arguments it may use to retain its position and how you can show the court it lacks candour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Use your attachment as a prompt and be prepared for any/all possible counter intuitive rebuttals from the other side. You need to think about what novel arguments it may use to retain its position and how you can show the court it lacks candour.

 

Yes indeed Mike,

 

Pity I can't get a sneak of the Jackanory book they'll be reading from.

 

Up2

 

 

letter to-day fron FOS states still not completed investigation into MBNA PPI redress as reported in the press, but will update again soon.

 

Well no news is good news in the respect of the greater good, but it would have been great to pull that out of my sleeve on Friday

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a long shot, but on 14 Dec 2010 The Shadow blogged a report about MBNA debt collection restrictions imposed by the OFT I have tried to find the report, but can only find press stories.

 

Harassment is also forming part of my case and MBNA have basically said in their witness statement that I'm lying, despite providing evidence in my witness statement. I am sure this will get mentioned in Court due to the severity of it and if I could get my hands on this report would help my case as what they have had their wrists slapped over is exactly what forms my complaint.

 

If any of the site team have this archived anywhere I would be very grateful for a copy (I have tried the OFT archives, but could only go back to 2011)

 

Many thanks everyone

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is a long shot, but on 14 Dec 2010.....a report about MBNA debt collection restrictions imposed by the OFT I have tried to find the report, but can only find press stories..........

 

 

Up2

 

 

this one?

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2010/136-10

 

archive

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402142426/http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/;jsessionid=EC1604087E112B7FFD4F086D24BB424F?s=2010

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening guys,

 

I am getting my stuff ready for court and just after any advice of stuff I need to take that I may have forgotten.

 

I have:

Particulars of claim

My witness statement and exhibit (including originals where possible)

Their Defence

Their witness statement and exhibit

Details of the hearing

Other letters not used in my exhibit - for example Links default notice

My 'prompt'

A list of OFT guidelines that MBNA breached

OFT report on the restrictions imposed on MBNA

DISP 3.9.2

Printed pages from whocallsme exampling the type of calls received by MBNA and Link

 

Is there anything else I should be taking?

 

Thank you :madgrin:

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites
:kiss::hug: Thank you Ford, I have been looking ages for that

 

 

yr welcome :)

 

if poss, a case summary on top cld be good.

 

mike though will hopefully advise.

 

ps, if required have you filed yr bundle?

IMO

:-):rant:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all,

 

I know t is very late but I checked my email at about 9pm and found an email from MBNA timed 18:19 and attached was a skeleton argument, I assume it has been filed with the court about the same time?

 

Slick has suggested I can ask the court to ignore it as it was submitted out of time in accordance with the courts directions and deadline. If you could let me have your thoughts please. The hearing is tomorrow afternoon.

 

I have attached it for any advice - again sorry its late

 

Many thanks everyone. (and thanks Slick)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon guys,

 

Well not a good day in court for me, although it wasn't all bad, as my hearing proves that section 32 does work in relation to charges claims because of mis-sold PPI.

 

My claim was disallowed primarily because I have an outstanding balance, and couldn't show that I had made any payments toward the charges. My argument of them not being the owner of the claim and so not allowing them to set-off did not persuade the judge, and I see that as fair enough.

 

The judge allowed the skeleton to be used, but I don't think he agreed with many of the points it raised that the charges were statute barred, as he said that although he is not prepared to award me any of my claim, if they tried to issue any court action in relation to my outstanding balance, the charges would form a good defence. And when he summarised, the judge said that he agrees that I didn't become diligently aware of being able to claim the charges until I received the breakdown of PPI (Last year) showing that the charges had been applied by mistake.

 

The twelve year old counsel who I think had just won his first case judging by his excitement, sent the little lady he had with him out of the court room as the judge was finishing off his talk (most prob to spread the good news). And then pointed out the judge to the without prejudice letter I accidentally submitted with my exhibit to show that MBNA refused to provide a breakdown of its costs in relation to the charges (I totally misunderstood the meaning of WP) and he requested I pay costs for his time in court and travelling time for him and his companion, he was prepared to waive his costs preparing the skeleton (probably because it took him all of a minute at the 11th hour)

 

He was excited that the Judge had 'The big white book' and directed him to some section about a motor company I think. The Judge explained what the counsel was doing, and why he was asking for costs - unfortunately, this bit I didn't really hear as I felt like I watching from a distance and it was a bit surreal.

 

Anyway, The Judge told Counsel that he believed I had genuinely misunderstood what I was claiming for and that I believed I had a serious chance of winning, and that my claim wasn't made under something beginning with P I think it was (sorry been up most of the night, have a killer headache and totally forgotten) and so awarded no costs whatsoever to the other side.

 

So although I didn't win my claim, I didn't get hit with costs, it proves that s.32 is a valid argument and that if they do try to sue for the balance, I have a very good chance of defending it because of the unlawful charges.

 

I would just like to thank everyone who took the time in helping me with this. Especially Mike Hawk and Slick, who provided a lot for me. I'm sorry your time was wasted :sad:

 

Anyway thanks again and if you are going after default charges good luck - and in particular if your going after MBNA, give them a kick from me :madgrin:

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites

hey you gave it your best shot

well done.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You gave it a go and whilst the result is disappointing, its good to see the DJ agreeing with the PPI reconstruction date moving the bar.

 

I think he had a fair point in proving the loss, your original particulars pressed for what was in effect a setting off... with the other side having no balance post PPI redress and you (inherently) having no documentary evidence of payments to it post 2012 he couldn't really find in your favour. As far as I can gather from your post, he appeared to view each charge as a new event post PPI, ergo without payment toward each there was no evidence of loss. Definitely a lesson learned for everyone who benefits from reading your thread in the future. I can't imagine every DJ in every case will interpret the facts as yours did today but its certainly going to be a useful to many.

 

Anyway, onwards and upwards.... this may seem nonsensical at the moment but please do file a complaint with the fos regarding its calcs for PPI redress.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hey you gave it your best shot

well done.

 

dx

 

Thanks DX, Although disappointing because I was hoping it would be some compensation for the way they terrorised me when I was ill, I am looking at the positive, in that other caggers may benefit from my case - That's the thing that kept my head held high yesterday when I had to walk past MBNAs smug counsel.

 

 

You gave it a go and whilst the result is disappointing, its good to see the DJ agreeing with the PPI reconstruction date moving the bar.

 

I think he had a fair point in proving the loss, your original particulars pressed for what was in effect a setting off... with the other side having no balance post PPI redress and you (inherently) having no documentary evidence of payments to it post 2012 he couldn't really find in your favour. As far as I can gather from your post, he appeared to view each charge as a new event post PPI, ergo without payment toward each there was no evidence of loss. Definitely a lesson learned for everyone who benefits from reading your thread in the future. I can't imagine every DJ in every case will interpret the facts as yours did today but its certainly going to be a useful to many.

 

Anyway, onwards and upwards.... this may seem nonsensical at the moment but please do file a complaint with the fos regarding its calcs for PPI redress.

 

Yes Mike, I will defo file a complaint with the FoS, despite my result, MBNA do need to be knocked off their high horse.

 

Again thanks for all your time with this. You and the others gave me the confidence to stand up and do this, where as a couple of years ago I wouldn't have had the courage

 

Up2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Up2 and I'm sorry to hear how this ended.

 

You should be very proud of how you have seen this through to the end and represented yourself in court. Also, it's good that costs weren't made against you.

 

As Mike says, onwards and upwards ...............

 

:-)

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...