Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
    • when did they (who) inform you there was a 'police case' and when was this attained? i will guess the debt is now SB'd as it's UAE 15yrs. have you informed the bsnk ever by email/letter of your correct and current address? you can always ignore anyone else accept the bank,  Block and bounce back all emails. Block any text messages  Ignore any letters unless it's: - a Statutory Demand - a Letter Of Claim - a Court Claimform via Northants bulk.  
    • I left Dubai 8 years ago and intended to return. However a job prospect fell through. I’d been there for 15 years. I decided to pay my credit card and the bank had frozen my account. There is no means to pay the CC so completely unable to pay when I wanted to other than the bank advising me to ask a friend in the UAE to pay it on my behalf!  fast forward bank informs there is a police case against me for non payment. Years later IDR chased me and after months/ years they stopped. Now Judge & Priestley are trying their luck. Now I have received an email in English and Arabic from JP saying the bank has authorised them to collect debts. Is this the same as IDR although I didn’t receive anything like this from them. Just says they are authorised?
    • The neighbour's house is built right on the boundary so the side of their house is effectively the 'wall' in our garden separating the two properties. It's a three storey house and so the mortar poses a potential danger to us. Because of the danger, we have put up an interior fence in our garden to ensure we don't risk mortar dropping on us. That reduces the garden by 25% which is not only an inconvenience, but it's the part of the garden where we had lined up contractors to install a patio and gazebo which we will use for our wedding reception in less than 2 months. We have spoken to the neighbour's caretaker who is on the case, has spoken with a roofer and possibly a scaffolding company, but there are several issues. They don't seem to understand the urgency. As long as there is a risk of falling mortar, we can't carry out any work in the garden, and unless they hurry up, we're looking at cancelling our wedding as it's not viable to book a venue because we can't use our own garden! Also, they want to put the scaffolding up in our garden which would be ok with us if it was a matter of a few days and they hurried up, but there is a tree (most likely protected by the conservation area), so most likely they can only reach part of the roof with the scaffolding if they put it up in our garden. We suggested a roofer with a cherry picker but they seem to want to use a company they've used before. Any and all comments, suggestions, advice is more than welcome.  PS. does it make any difference that the neighbour is a business (ltd) and not a private dwelling?
  • 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

Skyrocket's brother v Lloyds


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4260 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 did have a thread about this ages ago but I can't seem to find it!

 

Am helping my brother with this claim they have offered a figure finally! :smile:

 

BUT they are disputing the interest and say:

 

We have reconstructed what the balance of your credit card would ahve been if PPI had not been without PPI, by removing any PPI premiums and interest or charges in respect of those premiums.

 

Then goes on about 8% simple interest.

 

As shown above interest at the rate of 8% simple is only applied when your credit card balance moves to a credit position once the PPI etc was removed.

 

Now this is a big claim and the interest charged on this account was massive.

Are they correct in what they are saying?

I don't understand what the balance of the account has to do with anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so what you would get back under a regulatory award is as follows:

 

1 -> All of the premiums

 

2 -> The contractual interest charged as a result of those premiums.

 

3 -> The account would be reconstructed with the PPI and associated interest removed. If for any period (usually one month) the reconstructed account shows a credit balance, you would be awarded 8% simple on that credit balance for that period.

 

4 -> If the account has been closed and paid off, there will be a difference between the reconstructed balance and the balance actually paid. You would get 8% simple on that difference running from the date of settlement of the account right up to the date of settlement of the PPI claim.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well they never offered the contractual interest (24.9%) only the simple.

 

Figures were approx £8k in ppi

Interest was calculated to be £31k!! The card is still running and in debt.

 

They have said:

We have calculated the difference between the actual current balance (around £9k) and the revised balance totalling £24k

If that produces a credit balance for any period, we then include credit interest on that balance for the relevant period at the rate 8% simple interest per year totalling £1500

The proposed offer would be £26k.

 

I'm not going to pretend I understand what they mean, I just had the figure at around £40k!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally an offer letter is set out something like....

 

 

Premiums paid (charged) £x

Interest £y

8% Statutory interest £z

 

Maybe post yours up minus all personal information of course.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They never mention contractual it just simply says:

 

The calculation is as follows:

 

Difference between the actual and revised balance £24k

Interest calculated at 8% £1500

Total £25,500

 

(amounts are approx obviously)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is another way of saying it as the difference between actual and revised should be the premiums and the contractual interest.

 

If it were me I would be demanding their detailed breakdown i.e. premium by premium so that you at least have a chance of checking whether their offer is correct.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...