Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, well so far they have lied to me about responding to a CCA,  are threatening me with a default notice that they don't have, produced a knocked up version of my NOA, sent me 29 pages of spew for an agreement. No wonder they pay 5 p in the pound for that crap.
    • Paragraph 2. I think there should be further down and also you should make the point that the payment to was made unilaterally and without the imposition of any conditions. Paragraph 3 – this is unnecessary because you are not claiming as an entitled third-party. This worries me because it makes me feel that you haven't fully read around because this is a paragraph which you would include where you were suing EVRi as a beneficial third party because you had actually made your contract with Packlink or some other broker. I think you need to revisit and do some more reading. I'm afraid I have a sense that you have simply copied this from somebody else's witness statement without understanding that it wasn't necessary. Please can you post the amended draft. Other than the suggestions above, it looks okay – but let's see it again for a further appraisal. In terms of the evidence, parties bundle, I think it might be an idea to start off with the correspondence with EVRi and then go onto the other evidence. You will have to amend the index page accordingly. You could shorten this bit. Take 19 is pretty well blank and you may as well miss it out also, there seems to be some repetition of emails and the email chain. I think will be worth going through and getting rid of duplicates if you can. 49 pages is a bit long and it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number. I have a feeling that 50 pages as the County Court limit anyway. The judge will be happier with you if the bundle is smaller. Maybe you could reduce the size of some of the images or messages et cetera. You have got several messages which straddle onto a second page so that things like sign off information and standard confidentiality information become orphans. A bit of manipulation and they could be joined to their parents I think. Page 31 as an example. So is page 19. You may only be up to shorten the whole thing by 56 pages – but I think it would be a good idea. 56 pages is, after all, 10%. If you can do more then so much the better
    • Investment by Dutch brewing giant will create 1,000 new jobs and reopen dozens of closed pubsView the full article
    • Qantas agrees to pay millions to settle lawsuit accusing it of selling tickets to cancelled flights.View the full article
  • 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

Libor Mortgages.


pwg6565
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3827 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 am still communicating with Rooftop regarding Libor rates which were very high and caused me extreme hardship when other interest rates were so low. Rooftop are making life as difficult as possible and I have now had to take things back to the beginning again and apply for a SAR for the Mortgage so I have all the facts from the very beginning. I have already successfully claimed the arrears charges on the Mortgage so now I am having another go at Libor which I believe was too high at a time it should not have been.

Anyone else have any new views or updates ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Submitted 1 day 20 hours ago by Reuters.

 

 

LONDON - Barclays and Deutsche Bank failed on Friday to remove allegations of interest rate rigging from two lawsuits, opening the door for more bank clients to claim they were mis-sold products linked to Libor.

 

A British court ruled the role both banks played in a global manipulation of the London interbank offered rate was relevant to individual cases brought against them.

 

The decision, made in the Court of Appeal in London, was seen as a test case, the result of which could prompt more companies to bring action against banks, citing manipulation of Libor, which is used to price over $300 trillion of financial contracts around the world.

 

In previous legal rulings, judges stopped short of saying Libor was relevant to all claims against banks and allowed it to be used only in cases where contracts have been linked specifically to the benchmark.

 

Barclays is being sued for up to 70 million pounds by Guardian Care Homes, a UK residential care home operator, which alleges the bank mis-sold it interest rate hedging products that were based upon Libor.

 

Deutsche Bank is being counter-sued by India’s Unitech after the bank brought legal action against the property firm last year for the repayment of a $150 million loan and a related $11 million interest-rate swap.

 

Unitech said the loan and swap deal were linked to Libor interest rates, which at the time were being manipulated by some banks.

 

Both cases are expected to go to trial next year.

 

The banks wanted the links to Libor to be excluded from the cases, saying Libor rates were not central to the original legal debate that inspired each case and that claimants were attempting to use the scandal to divert attention away from these core issues.

 

But Judge Andrew Longmore told the court on Friday: “The banks did propose the use of Libor and it must be arguable that, at the very least, they were representing that their own participation in the setting of the rate was an

honest one.”

 

“If the day after the contracts had been made, the banks had told their counterparties that they had been manipulating Libor in the past and intended to do so in the future ... the borrower would arguably be sufficiently horrified so as to think he would be entitled to rescind the deal.”

 

Deutsche Bank said it was disappointed by the judge’s decision and would launch an appeal.

 

Barclays said the allegations of mis-selling Libor-linked interest rate hedging products to Guardian Care Homes were without foundation.

 

“With or without the Libor claims, the allegations of mis-selling have no merit,” the British bank said in a statement.

 

The rulings followed a three-day hearing at the Court of Appeal at London’s Royal Court of Justice last month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...