Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • HI DX Yes check it every month , after I reinstated the second DD I was checking every week. Also checked my bank statements and each payment has cleared. When responding to the court claim does it need to be in spefic terms ? Or laid out in a certain format? Or is it just a case of putting down in writing how I have expained it on CAG?
    • Come and engage with homelessness   Museum of Homelessness MUSEUMOFHOMELESSNESS.ORG The award-winning Museum of Homelessness (MoH) was founded in 2015 and is run by people with direct experience of homelessness. A very different approach. If you're in London you should go and see them
    • You have of course checked the car is now taxed and the £68 is stated against  the same reg?  If the tax for the same car did over lap, then I can't see you having an issue pleading not guilty Dx
    • The boundary wiill not be the yellow line.  Dx  
    • Afternoon all Looking for advice before I defend claim for car tax payment that the DVLA claim I owe £68 from an idemity claimback from my bank and unpaid tax  brief outline. Purchased car Jan 30th ,garage paid the tax for me after I gave them my card details  first payment £68 out in Feb 24  followed by payment of £31 from March due to end Jan 24 Checked one of my vehicle apps and about 7-10 days later car showing as untaxed? No reason why but it looks like DVLA cancelled it , this could be because I did not have the V5 and the gargae paid on my behalf but not sure did not receive a letter to say car was untaxed.  Fair enough I set up the tax again staight away in Feb 24  and first payment out Mar 31st , and each payment since has come out each month for £31 , this will end Feb/Mar 2025, slightly longer than the original tax set up, all good. I then claimed the £68 back from my bank as an indemity refund as obviously I had paid but DVLA had cancelled therefore it was a payment for nothing?  Last week recieved a SJP form dated 29th May stating that DVLA were claiming for unpaid tax and a false indemity claimback which of course is the £68. It also stated that I had received two previous letters offering me the oppotunity to pay that £68 but as I had not responded it was now a court claim that I must admit guilt for or defend. My post is held for weeks at a time from Royal Mail ( keepsafe) due to me receiving hospital tretament at weeks at a time that said I did not receive any previous letters from DVLA. I am happy to defend this and go to court but wondering what CAG members think? In summary I paid an initial amount of £68 and then a DD of £31 , tax cancelled  I set up a new DD at £31 a month all in the month of Feb 2024, I claimed the £68 back from my bank. DD has been coming out each month without issue and I have paperwork to show the breakdown for both DD setup's plus bank statements showing the payments coming out . The second DD set up has extended payments up to Feb/Mar 2025. DVLA claiming the £68 was ilegally claimed back despite the fact they cancelled the original DD for reasons unknown. Is this defendable ? I will post up documents including the original DD conformations 
  • 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

jonni2bad v Halifax - Got the money but no default removal


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6199 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

Very interesting point M how indeed ?

If you have been briefed by the latest Citi saga you will have seen that they want to bring their Financial director into the frame to speak with the Judge.

They obviously think that the appearance of the people that are able to understand the whole business might swing things.

In Johns case one wonders who would be the equivelant.......The guys from Equifax Experian and Mycol ?:rolleyes:

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have little doubt that your research will have been far more in depth than the Halifax legal bods, so go get 'em Jonni. If the CRA's are meant to be based on fact, then the facts are that the charges were a major contributory factor to you being overdrawn, possibly even the only factor. If the charges were removed from the records, the records are likely to reflect a completely different version of the "facts".

 

I still am not clear why they are so reluctant to remove defaults though. They are going to a lot of time and effort to fight them.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still am not clear why they are so reluctant to remove defaults though. They are going to a lot of time and effort to fight them.

 

Its the primary means for them to punish those who dont play by their rules imho.

 

Im not even sure it has anything to do with loss of money due to bad debtors either. With the way the banks lend money they should expect to loose a percentage, mind you i think i saw Abbeys PBT up by 30% or so somewhere on line, cant be that big an issue for them can it.

 

I have a claim against 1st National aka GE Money, who imposed a series of charges on my account which meant when the DD finished there was an outstanding balance from 2003 which they never wrote to me about.

 

I have late payment markers on my file as a result of this up until 3 months ago, they refuse to remove them, I cannot see why they want to argue about what to them is such a trifling matter.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I still am not clear why they are so reluctant to remove defaults though. They are going to a lot of time and effort to fight them.

 

It's just a guess, but there is always the matter of defamation of character.

 

I won't comment here as to my own circumstances, but this has potentially enormous implications for all banks.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

True.

 

I have looked around and there is very little in the way of information about this from settled cases.

I guess with the implications you speak of (and I am fairly sure I know what you mean here )

 

That signing a conf would almost certainly be an expectation.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also presumably they are aware that in processing your data adversly or otherwise after your account was closed without your consent was a blatant breach of the data protection act......

 

Not to pick holes at all guys, but I trust you are aware of the ICO's stance on DPA consent.....

 

S.10 is not an absolute right to stop processing, a data controller does not have to comply with a S.10 request only to respond to it. The Data Protection Act does not give individuals the right to have their personal details deleted on demand. Whilst an individual can withdraw their consent to the processing, this does not automatically mean that the processing must cease. Consent is only one of the six conditions specified under schedule 2 of the DPA. Where another condition can satisfies consent is not required.

 

As posted here recently.

 

Also,

 

It is our view that the condition for processing below (Schedule 2 part 6) covers the sharing of account data with the credit reference agencies for the duration of a contract and six years beyond.

 

"The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

 

We take a wide view of the legitimate interests and we consider that it is in the interests of other creditors to make informed lending decisions. It is important to note here that the fact that the processing may be seen by some to prejudice a particular individual (for example, someone with an adverse entry on his credit reference file may not be able to obtain credit facilities) does not necessarily render the whole processing operation prejudicial to all individuals

 

as posted here.

 

I know this isn't the main cut and thrust (so to speak) of your case as the default is considered to have been caused solely by the unlawfull charges.

 

However, be carefull of being dragged down the "you don't have my consent" angle in light of the above.

 

This post is in no way meant to sound patronising, I have HUGE respect for the work you all do and knowledge you have. If you've already considered this and are choosing to fight the ICO's interpretation I know of many threads that would love to see a victory on this!!

 

Aardvark

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I've never approached this particular default with that angle in mind and have done so solely on the basis that they have breached the DPA by making reference to a default which was caused by unlawfulness.

 

Although I too sent a s.10 notice, I was aware that the best I could hope for would be no response, or possibly just a late one.

 

Thanks for the info though - I certainly appreciate you passing that on.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

....I guess with the implications you speak of (and I am fairly sure I know what you mean here )

 

That signing a conf would almost certainly be an expectation.

 

I would think they would certainly try! A very large settlement in itself would have to be offered to achieve it though - certainly in the region of £5k or more.

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow,

What a saga, I have been completely enthralled by this thread (having just found it). I hope it all goes well and that the banks might even learn that we are not worms to be trod upon, and if they try we sometimes bite back. I find the legal aspect fascinating, as I myself had not been that interested in legal arguments until coming on this site and now find myself fascinated by normal peoples interpretations of some quite complex legal issues.

Well done all of us and go for it Jonni

19/09/2006 Halifax Prelim Letter Sent

10/11/2006 Paid into my Account £1086.84

19/02/2007 Settled remaining Contractual Interest £243.72

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:rather surprised this is still ongoing, I must say you have a lovely bundle there hehe:lol:

 

 

good luck xx

 

Barclaycard Student credit card £400 partial refund received, S.A.R -

Open & Direct Finance- extortionate, cca to Rockwell debt collection they ran away, now with Bryan Carter, no cca 17/03/08 sent back to Open

Pugsley v Littlwoods, have not received the signed credit agreement only quoting reg of 1983

Pugsley v Fashion World JD williams, 17/03 2008 Debt Managers returning file to JD williams as they could not supply the credit agreement

Capital one MCOL Settled in full

Smile lba settled in full

advice is given informally and without liability and without prejudice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made a note of your court date on my calendar Jonni, so I don't forget to pester you to update the second you get back from court.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, if I win this I'm spending the afternoon and evening glued to a bar stool with a constant supply of black russian on ice........

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say, if I win this I'm spending the afternoon and evening glued to a bar stool with a constant supply of black russian on ice........

In that case I will accept your absence as a sign of winning and give you permission to leave it a short while, but your public will be awaiting with baited breath. It would be just too cruel to leave us all on tenterhooks for too long.

  • Confused 1
The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the good luck messages all...

 

... hope u get it b4 court but hey it wont matter cos u will win anyway

 

The money is safe (along with my bus fare home) - I'm going after the default speedboat :eek:

 

bullseye.jpg

..

.

 

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice, you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Luck Jonni

 

Will def be keeping eye on how you get on, although you are so well prepared luck doesnt come into it!!!

Marilyn:p

 

--------------------------

HALIFAX A/C - SETTLED 4 AUG

HALIFAX CC - Data Protection Act SENT 2 AUG

15/09/06 - rec'd all statements - Eventually!! -521.81GBP

21/09/06 - Prelim sent

08/10/06 - LBA sent

11/10/06 - Offer £278.10, no thanks

01/11/06 - MCOL £862.56

03/11/06 - offer £521.81 - not sure yet

03/11/06 - MCOL letter

 

 

 

 

_____________________________________-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:lol: don't be like the banks - give a little back:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

DONATE SO THEY CAN CARRY ON HELPING PEOPLE LIKE US!

 

There was a time before CAG but now CAG is here we are the empowered!

 

Advice & opinions given by marilyn are personal. If in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Best Wishes for Friday Jonni, hope all goes well!;-)

Woolwich won in court/default removed Barclaycard Settled Halifax settled

Capital 1Settled GE Money Settled

Egg Settled-court action re.default 4th hearing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

good luck for 10th Jonni, we will be with you in thought:)

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the best J2B!

 

Go get 'em!

 

:cool:

omnia praesumuntur legitime facta donec probetur in contrarium

 

 

Please note: I am not a member of the legal profession, all advice given is purely my opinion, if in doubt consult a professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6199 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...