Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

PPI battle begins


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4144 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

Hi all

 

A few years ago I had some relative success with unfair charges and managed to pay off my debts

 

I've started again this time with PPI and would like to pick your collective brain in the near future should the need arise

 

I've put in 4 claims so far with Barclaycard, HFC, Barclay Loans and CitiVisa. I'm yet to pursue Egg and RBS

 

My case is:

 

HFC:

 

Was gainfully employed when taking out the 6K loan.With sick pay and redundancy pay off guaranteed depending on time served.

PPI and interest bumped it up to 9k (beggers). PPI was compulsory I was told, for the completion of the application.

Was made redundant 6 months later but I had a job to go to so left with a hefty cheque of 6 months salary and started new job 2 weeks later.No lapse in payments in that time

Paid a chunk of loan off and other debts and brought the balance to a manageable repayment amount with redundancy pay off.

2 years later I was made redundant again but no cheque this time to see me through and pay off my debts.

Couldnt pay and tried to claim on PPI and they said eh.....NO

Went into dmp and paid off debt over the next 4 years but.. Wrote to them asking them to cancel the PPI.. No response

Anyhoo, dmp paid off the debt (and what was left of it at the time was PPI and interest only by my guess) in 2008 and HFC sent me a letter to acknowledge satisfaction of the debt (took a few hundred off when I was near the finish line)

 

Case or not? (Claim in already, had account and old SAR statement but no agreement. Will look again for that)

 

Barclaycard:

 

Filled in the mailshot through door and got approved chop chop. Wasn't asked at all about PPI and got a PPI certificate soon after saying "my application had been approved" Hmm

Kept it and tried to cancel when the wheels came off the wagon having tried to claim and they said NO.So felt well why pay if it don't to what it do???

 

Case or not? (No agreement but account details and PPI certificate with policy number available)

 

CitiVisa:

 

Mailshot again (fool) and sent non advised situ. This time I recall that form had "opt out" option only

Had letter from 2004 acknowledging and confirming my cancellation of PPI after I tried to claim and again they said no (there's a theme here right? It's all true)

 

Case or not? (letter confirming request for PPI cancellation in 2004. SAR statements but available from that time)

 

Barclay Loans:

 

Paid off loan early and the sneakies sent me a letter and cheque for £145, 12 months letter to say they had noticed that they had charged me PPI for the full term of the loan and were paying back the £145 as it was paid off earlier.

I wrote back saying " can I have the rest if you please"?

i'm yet to hear from them

 

Case or not? ( letter acknowledging I'd over paid PPI with copy of the cheque. Account details etc available but no statements)

HFC:S.A.R - 17/10/06. Debt collectors threat 24/10/06 Statements recieved. fee waived 02/11/06 Prelim letter sent 20/11/06 Nothing here in 2008 but I'ma hit wita PPI claim too:cool: 2008

RBSMINT:S.A.R - 17/10/06 Acknowledge FOB 23/10/06 Re-sent cheque with letter 28/10/06:Statements rcvd 18/11/06.Prem letter sent 20/11/06 Settled 2006:D

Barclays Bank:S.A.R - 17/10/06.Acknowledge S.A.R - 28/10/06 No statements yet.. found statements in folders. No response since 2006 till now 2008 :-x

Barclaycard:S.A.R -17/10/06:Statemenst rcvd 28/10/06. Prem request sent for £380 31/10/06: Offer to credit £128 to clsd A/C: Offer rejected and claim continued 07/11/06:x Settled Nov 2006 :D

CitiVisa:S.A.R -17/10/06.Rqst for ID rcvd. 23/10/06 ID sent with cheque 31/10/06:Statments Rcvd 20/11/06. Prem letter sent 20/11/06 Settled Nov 2006:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I would say yes there is a case on all of them given that your employment at the time of taking the accounts provided more than adequate benefits in case of sickness etc.

 

You also have the other things in your favour i.e. compulsory on one of them, had to opt out on another (frowned upon because people should have been given the opportunity to opt in), Barclaycard popped it on to the account without your knowledge.

 

I say go for it :-)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HFC:

 

So I had a rummage and came across my last failed attempt to get the PPI back of HFC in 2008. HFC rejected it on the basis that though i rejected cover for death, I accepted cover for accident, sickness or unemployment. They say that they explained this to me during the application and I signed up. Well, I remember this conversation as the chap who sold me the loan and PPI was an arrogant little hmm and he said no accepty no loany.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40156[/ATTACH]

 

I had a lot on my plate then and I felt defeated by HFC and left it a that.:-:sad:

 

Here's the crux: The form is clearly pre-filled as the tick in the box generated by a computer/typewiter ( see attached documents)

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40157[/ATTACH]

 

I have also found my original contract of employment which states that I was covered for sickness and would receive statutory redundancy pay depending on time served

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40158[/ATTACH]

 

I also have a copy of the letter I sent in 2005 asking them to cancel my PPI. (attached).

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40159[/ATTACH]

 

HFC never responded and the debt was handed over to a DCA who then agreed to go into a DMP though which the FULL amount of the loan, including the PPI was paid.:mad2:

 

I have already filed a fresh complaint about my PPI but as my six months (and some) is up to approach the ombudsman, should I go directly to the ombudsman or await HFCs response?

HFC:S.A.R - 17/10/06. Debt collectors threat 24/10/06 Statements recieved. fee waived 02/11/06 Prelim letter sent 20/11/06 Nothing here in 2008 but I'ma hit wita PPI claim too:cool: 2008

RBSMINT:S.A.R - 17/10/06 Acknowledge FOB 23/10/06 Re-sent cheque with letter 28/10/06:Statements rcvd 18/11/06.Prem letter sent 20/11/06 Settled 2006:D

Barclays Bank:S.A.R - 17/10/06.Acknowledge S.A.R - 28/10/06 No statements yet.. found statements in folders. No response since 2006 till now 2008 :-x

Barclaycard:S.A.R -17/10/06:Statemenst rcvd 28/10/06. Prem request sent for £380 31/10/06: Offer to credit £128 to clsd A/C: Offer rejected and claim continued 07/11/06:x Settled Nov 2006 :D

CitiVisa:S.A.R -17/10/06.Rqst for ID rcvd. 23/10/06 ID sent with cheque 31/10/06:Statments Rcvd 20/11/06. Prem letter sent 20/11/06 Settled Nov 2006:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...