Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm trying to work through this step-by-step as I read the story again. There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy. You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – you are the owners of the house. This was in 1999. We talking about 30 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the store you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 30 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property. You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event. So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I would supply this to their solicitor that if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me that we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions    
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I agree with dx, hiring a lawyer is unlikely to help as most of them don't understand fare matters, so you end up paying for their learning curve.   Your idea about involving your GP is a good one, it sounds as if you need their input with how you're feeling. And if they would write a supporting letter that could help too. Hopefully your medical information will be through in time.   HB
    • In the very first claim thread it mentions contacting the claimant is encouraged by the court etc. I was thinking about contacting them and asking about a Tomlin order to put an end to all this, at least I'd be able to stop worrying and maybe get some sleep (currently 4.52am) 😴
    • Hi I'm looking for a bit of help to deal with a claim form from Hoist/ Cohen referencing an old Capital One account please. I have filled out the details below as requested and submitted an acknowledgement of service intending to defend.   In 2007 I sent a SAR and requested a copy of the original CCA from Cap One on this account.    In 2014 Lowells sent a claim form for the same account. I have a copy of a notice of allocation to the small claims track hearing and a copy of the front sheet of ack of service with intent to defend but I have no recollection of its outcome and there are no CCJs on my credit file.    Name of the Claimant Hoist Finance UK Holdings 2 Ltd   Date of issue – 5/11/2019   Date of issue 05/11/19 + 19 days = 24/11/2019 + 14 days to submit defence = 7/12/2019 (33 days in total)   Particulars of Claim This claim is for the sum of £294 arising from the Defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no XXXXX. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a default notice issued pursuant to ss. 87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX CAPITAL ONE). Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1. The sum of 294  2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £369   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC I received a letter of claim & income / exp forms.   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? yes   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Not sure claim is for Credit card   When did you enter into the original agreement 2003   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement not sure   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files yes, as closed   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor. Assigned   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment?  from HPH2 to HFUKH2L, I don't have anything from Cap One.   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes (2007) Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears” or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not sure, I’ve had letters from Robinson Way.   Why did you cease payments? illness and inability to deal with my debts, I had no money no job and my mental health was in a terrible state.   date of your last payment? 07/2014 paid to Robinson Way   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No (PPI and bank charges refunded)   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes   Do I send a CPR 31.14 next asking for the agreement, notice of assignment and the Default notice?   Thanks.
    • It states the charge as: 'did enter a compulsory ticket area without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17 (1) of the Transport for London Railway Bylaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.'   Then a brief statement of facts that the pass did not belong to me, and that I had stated it was due to financial reasons. It then contains information about making my plea and then the statement of the revenue officer.   I am of course planning on pleading guilty before the cut off point and attending court (I'm hoping to be well enough to attend anyway). I'm just concerned about the consequences and if there is any point in trying to still reason with TfL now that court application costs are at least involved.   I have debated getting a solicitor solely because of what I've read on the internet and what it says about ruined job prospects, I know it's probably scare tactics to get me to hire someone but it is the driving fear behind everything at the moment. 
  • Our picks

AfterMidnight

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 967 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

angry cat - at work so cannot comment fully but just a note to say that I have just checked my statements and the successful illness claim was actually paid into the account direct as a DDR - the amount totally agrees ...........how does that affect your opinion ?

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, we are all still waiting for theses FOS ombudsmen/women to come to their decisions. But will these long labored over opinions just simply be based on those of the individual FOS adjudicators; FOS adjudicators who did not/do not comprehend?!

 

 

Latest response from my adjudicator:

 

MBNA only sent limited information about the fee they wanted to refund. However I have their breakdown of the offer and so I independently checked whether I felt what they were saying was correct. I included a section in my view, please see attached, addressing this. I said that I thought another two fees should be repaid. However as a claim hadn’t been deducted from the offer, and this outweighed the fee amounts, I said that nothing further should be paid.

 

The ombudsman will have all this information and they will include this all in their decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
angry cat - at work so cannot comment fully but just a note to say that I have just checked my statements and the successful illness claim was actually paid into the account direct as a DDR - the amount totally agrees ...........how does that affect your opinion ?

GS

 

I had exactly the same with MBNA. My valid PPI claim was successful, after a big struggle and;

my claim was also paid directly into my CC account monthy (often late though, resulting in 22 late and over limit penalty charges: 22!)

However, MBNA continued to debit the PPI, piled on the ever accruing interest and then they changed my PPI insurer without telling me.

This matter has never been fully resolved, as the calculations are so complicated.

My claim still remains, but now it is against Lloyds: St Andrews...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning - am absolutely steaming ! but firstly

 

However, if any of these fees were late payment fees,
only reclaimed the over limit fees

 

It seems very odd that the payout from a successful claim for illness under the PPI policy has not been deducted from the final offer amount - which is indeed the usual procedure It was deducted from the final payout amount initially; this is what happened in my husband's claim too

 

Had the PPI policy payout from the successful illness claim been credited directly to the MBNA account at the time that it was made, then the balance would have been reduced, and the monthly account interest would also have been reduced.It was paid direct to MBNA at the time and PPI & interest continued to be charged

 

and now to why I am steaming ...........

 

Please see attached - copy of initial complaint & calculations; copies of final decision; copy of calculations; copy of letter sent in reply to FOS email reply from adjudicator; my reply to him (by letter). This will probably identify me to the FOS but by now I don't really care as I am very unhappy about the reply received. I feel that I am getting fobbed off.......

 

I approached an accountant as I just couldn't make sense of the figures received (I also work as an accountant but am not qualified) but he couldn't make any of the figures add up so he suggested I write again for a more detailed analysis..........well you see the reply I got.

 

I would now appreciate your thoughts on this - feel as if I am just going around in circles

 

 

 

Thanks

GS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put them all in one multipage document

Then PDF that!!


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had exactly the same with MBNA. My valid PPI claim was successful, after a big struggle and;

my claim was also paid directly into my CC account monthy (often late though, resulting in 22 late and over limit penalty charges: 22!)

However, MBNA continued to debit the PPI, piled on the ever accruing interest and then they changed my PPI insurer without telling me.

This matter has never been fully resolved, as the calculations are so complicated.

My claim still remains, but now it is against Lloyds: St Andrews...

 

 

I made claims with 4 banks but only had any payment from MBNA, even though two of my other claims were also with L&E.

Payment for the MBNA claim was paid into my CC account but in one lump sum, 8 months after my successful claim. In the intervening months I was still paying £70+ PPI premiums and being hammered with penalty charges. I only ever had one payout from the policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was promised a final decision in one to two weeks, a week ago..my argument in post 971 was my last roll of the dice!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was promised a final decision in one to two weeks, a week ago..my argument in post 971 was my last roll of the dice!

 

 

 

And guess what still no final response.......from the email of my adjudicator yesterday.

 

 

I’m sorry you haven’t received your final decision in the past few weeks as hoped. I’ve been told the final decision should be finished and sent in the next few days though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I finally got a final decision....

...but I didn't because at the last hurdle the FOS removed me from the matter.

 

 

In my email I got this.......

The final decision and accompanying letter and acceptance/rejection forms were actually sent to the Official Receiver instead of you.

This is because it’s the Official Receiver’s decision to either accept it or reject the decision.

But please see attached a copy of the final decision.

If you’d like me to send a postal copy, please let me know and I’ll send a copy to you.

 

I have attached the decision as it's most amusing and the Ombudsman missed the point completely!!

 

Moral of story

don't bother wasting your time,

 

 

at the end of the day I was never going to get any compensation.

That's not what galls me,

 

 

its the FOS attitude to rollover and accept what ever the banking institute says.

The final email I received from Adjudicator which I have copied and pasted above has now made it a toothless argument as I can't even reject the decision.

 

On the plus side I do now know that Christopher Reeve isn't superman..

..he's Batman's arch enemy,

the five letter one starts with J ends in a R.

Final Decision.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I finally got a final decision....

...but I didn't because at the last hurdle the FOS removed me from the matter.

 

 

In my email I got this.......

The final decision and accompanying letter and acceptance/rejection forms were actually sent to the Official Receiver instead of you.

This is because it’s the Official Receiver’s decision to either accept it or reject the decision.

But please see attached a copy of the final decision.

If you’d like me to send a postal copy, please let me know and I’ll send a copy to you.

 

I have attached the decision as it's most amusing and the Ombudsman missed the point completely!!

 

Moral of story

don't bother wasting your time,

 

 

at the end of the day I was never going to get any compensation.

That's not what galls me,

 

 

its the FOS attitude to rollover and accept what ever the banking institute says.

The final email I received from Adjudicator which I have copied and pasted above has now made it a toothless argument as I can't even reject the decision.

 

On the plus side I do now know that Christopher Reeve isn't superman..

..he's Batman's arch enemy,

the five letter one starts with J ends in a R.

 

 

Miaspa,

FWIW - our summarised thoughts are that:

1. Miaspa has lost out on his claim for 8% Simple Interest on the Recon. Balance after the account was sold, and I agree with the FOS that the 8% interest on this should have gone to the buyer of the account (presumably the OR);

2. The various M&F payments argued about represent a very small portion of the total claim quantum, and IMHO are equivalent to re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic;

3. I don't think the FOS fully understand how and why the Recon. Balance is calculated or how it should be used, and I believe that this is demonstrated by the ombudsman here;

4. The Associated (account) Interest may have been wrongly calculated, but this appears to have been given little attention - although it could well be worth more than the M&F arguments;

5. There appears to have been a large number of fees & charges made ranging from £12 to £25, and these may well have been worth a large amount (with Associated Interest) - but the ombudsman appears to have dismissed these because he has misunderstood how to use the Recon, Balance to determine if these were attributable to the PPI.

 

In short, we believe that Miaspa has concentrated too heavily on items 1 and 2, which IMO are not reclaimable (in the case of item 1) or worth relatively small amounts (in the case of item 2) - when items 3, 4 & 5 should probably have been concentrated on. The FOS managed to avoid dealing with items 3, 4 & 5 either by accident or by design, I reckon. This is probably the final stage in the FOS process, so guess that Miaspa now has to consider taking this to the Small Claims court in order to get it settled - although referring it to the Independent Assessor meanwhile might be worth considering, simply as a part of the 'pre-action protocol.' But I doubt if Miaspa is getting the advice he needs to either understand this, or to action it - as CAG do not seem to have anyone who understands it any better than the FOS do - and even the expert Jonquil Lowe admits that she considers it to be an unfathomable mess. The blind are leading the blind here, I believe - and MBNA are happily looking on as they all plunge over the cliff.

 

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another From:x:-x The Fob Off Service

 

Exactly.

Rest assured that the this is totally unacceptable...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Received my preliminary decision fro an ombudsman.

Much the same as Miaspa's

 

 

Not what I was hoping for...

 

ERR. what about the Money Laundering Regulations, required by HMRC Re; the keeping of 'Account Records'?

 

And, are the FOS really going to ignore legislation that was laid down, prior to FCA PS10/12 rules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember this from 2014?

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27679311

 

 

Especially this comment from Barclays:

 

 

Barclays acknowledged that its previous system, which assessed month-by-month whether a PPI premium had triggered a fee, did not fully capture the cumulative effect of fees and charges, as regulators require.

 

 

So what has changed since then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received my final decision. No change from the preliminary decision. I don't think that anything anyone says is going to change their mindset. the last line of the letter adds "if you don't agree with the decision you can still take your complaint to court." This is despite the fact that the last comment in my final email advised that I had already been to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please be aware that many are still waiting to hear back about their cases from the FOS!

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...