Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, let us know if they honour the agreement to pay.   Thanks for Donation made and anything further you can make - it helps us keep helping !
    • Mark Bauwens from France takes us through his week during the coronavirus pandemic. View the full article
    • Thankyou very much i will be around all day it would be appreciated Below is another attempt :     IN THE COUNTY COURT AT ***************                 CLAIM NO:**********     BETWEEN:   LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD CLAIMANT   and   MRS *********************** DEFENDANT   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   WITNESS STATEMENT OF ******************   ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   I, ******************************************* WILL SAY as follows:   I make this Witness Statement in support of my defence in the claim.     INTRODUCTION   1. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed 10p to 15p in the £1 and to which the original creditors have already written off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. Lowell Portfolio I Ltd issue claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit.   2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debts (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party.   BACKGROUND 3. The Claim relates to an alleged Credit Card Agreement between the defendant and Vanquis Bank   4. Whilst it is accepted that the defendant has in the past had financial dealings with Vanquis, the defendant is unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers, and the defendant has not entered into any contract with the Claimant.   5.The defendant made a formal written request to the Claimant for them to provide me with a copy of my Consumer Credit Agreement as entitled to do so under sections 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the 27th August 2019 along with the standard fee of £1.00 postal order to which the defendant received a reply dated 6th September 2019 putting their account on hold whilst they tried to gather the information.   6.The defendant received a reply dated 24th October 2019 with no CCA attached other than the documents which enclosed a statement, default notice, notice of assignment from Vanquis to Lowell & a reconstituted copy of an agreement which the claimants have already provided in their witness statement dated 3rd August 2020.   7.On 15th January 2020, I received a claim form from the County Court Business Centre, Northampton, for the amount of £******. The claimant contends that the claim is for the sum of £********* in respect of monies owing under an alleged agreement with the account no ******************* pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). Contained within the claimants particulars the claimant states that the account was subject to assignment from Vanquis to Lowell on 24 June 2015 with notice given.   CONCLUSION 8.To date no valid full true copy of the executed credit agreement or the terms and conditions have been disclosed .the claimant has no grounds on which to enforce this alleged debt.   9.The claimant disclosed various screenshots taken from the originators software of the application and also confirms on their covering letter the relative legislation The Electronic Communications Act 2000 with regards to wet signatures and the requirement of a tick box to validate the application. The screenshots are devoid of any tick box or any authenticity of IP address conformation check.   10.Therefore the claimant remains in default of my section 78 request and pursuant to section 78 6a of the CCA1974 the claimant is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement.   11.For the above reasons the claim bought by the claimant is without merit and an abuse of the court process. It would be far more gracious and forthright for the claimant to admit that they do not have possession of the correct valid paperwork and this is an attempt to mislead and convince the court that the claimant can disclose the legal valid documents on which its claim relies on. It is therefore requested that the Claimants Claim is struck out pursuant to the above.   STATEMENT OF TRUTH   I, ************** the defendant, believe the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   Signed: …………………………………………… Print Name: ************* Dated: 4th August 2020
    • Allen Blue, who co-founded professional network LinkedIn, reveals how start-ups can achieve growth. View the full article
    • for want of clarity   this potential £5k is only available in England.    
  • Our picks

    • Curry’s cancelled my order but took the money anyway. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423055-curry%E2%80%99s-cancelled-my-order-but-took-the-money-anyway/
      • 11 replies
    • Father passed away - Ardent Credit Services (Vodafone) now claiming he owes money. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/423040-father-passed-away-ardent-credit-services-vodafone-now-claiming-he-owes-money/
      • 8 replies
    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 6 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 16 replies
AfterMidnight

MBNA PPI Award “Interpretative” Calculations?

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1224 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 don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

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


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

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...

Kyley Hanson.pdf

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...