Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • wont go near it with a barge pole as its ex gov't debt.  
    • Thanks, I've had my fill of this lot. What makes me so mad is that I had to take out student loan to get any DHSS help. And then when I tried to help myself and family they presented obstacles. Might be worth passing story to RIP off Britain?
    • there is NO exposure if you simple remove your name address/ref numbers etc from docs, over 10'000 pdf uploads are here. which then harvests IP addresses off of the people that then do so..which is why we do not allow hosting sites. read our rules and upload carefully thats exactly why we say capture as JPG, redact, then convert/merge to one mass PDF. then online sites to achieve that we list do not leave watermarks.  every once in a while we have a user like you that thinks they know better...we've been doing it since 2006 with not one security issue. thank you.
    • was at the time you ticked it  but now they've still not complied . if you read up, here , you'll see thats what everyone does,  
    • no they never allow the age related get out, erudio are masters at faking supposed 'arrears' fees which were levied before said date and thus null its write off. 1000's of threads here on them!! scammers untied that lot. i can almost guarantee they'll state it's not SB'd too re above, but just ignore them once sent. dx    
  • 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

SLH542000 v LloydsTSB


slh542000
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5315 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

Sure thats good news.

 

But as I disputed the balance back in 06, regardless of the outcome of the supreme court decision, they still have acted against rules and guidlines by placing a default on my credit file, without notification, and over an amount which is totally made up of charges, which are in dispute!

 

Can i claim compensation for their actions? - Having a default on my credit file is causing me problems.

 

!!!:mad:

Lloyds

19-10-06- S.A.R Letter

Prelim 20-11-06 £10,492

LBA - 2/12/06

Cap 1

19-10-06 - S.A.R Letter

Prelim 20-11-06 £1,467

LBA 2/12/06

WON-Settled in Full

AMEX

19-10-06 -S.A.R Letter.

Prelim - 20-11-06 £697

LBA - 2/12/06

Morgan Stanley

19-10-06 - S.A.R Letter

Prelm 20-11-06 £1580

23-11-06. £1076 offered.

4-12-06 - LBA

Won-£1580 14-12-06

MBNA

19-10-06 - S.A.R Letter

20-11-06 Prelim

WON-£4010

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

so what now - what does that mean for all the claims? Are they all lost because of the supreme court ruling?

 

I knew this would happen.... just becasue the banks have lost loads of money recently (which was entirely their own fault)...

Lloyds

19-10-06- S.A.R Letter

Prelim 20-11-06 £10,492

LBA - 2/12/06

Cap 1

19-10-06 - S.A.R Letter

Prelim 20-11-06 £1,467

LBA 2/12/06

WON-Settled in Full

AMEX

19-10-06 -S.A.R Letter.

Prelim - 20-11-06 £697

LBA - 2/12/06

Morgan Stanley

19-10-06 - S.A.R Letter

Prelm 20-11-06 £1580

23-11-06. £1076 offered.

4-12-06 - LBA

Won-£1580 14-12-06

MBNA

19-10-06 - S.A.R Letter

20-11-06 Prelim

WON-£4010

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its far from over SLH, have a scan around the site, if your claim is focused on section 5 (as the CAg letters and guides are) afaik i have read so far your sorted and the fight can go on.

Bank of Scotland student account:

June 23 Data Protection Act sent

July 23 statements recieved

Aug 1 Prelim sent for 3660

Aug 3 comedy letter recieved

Aug 30 laughable £260 final settlement offer and LBA sent

Oct 07 Settled £1800

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for default Lloyds may have broken Banking Code as it wa sin dispute however that isnt law and you may need to go down route of complaint to Information Cmmr however Lloyds are applying to have al cases with stays dismissed regards Gaz

 

It is true that Lloyds have announced they are seeking a dismissal of ALL stayed cases by writing to the Courts on the basis of the Supreme Court judgement. If these claims were brought on the basis of regulation 6, rather than 5, of the UTICCR 1999 then they are correct.

 

IF HOWEVER, the claim cites Regulation 5 as the basis then surely it is appropriate to contest an automatic dismissal of a claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismissal can be contested no probs but can WE ALSO REGURGITATE THE PENALTY ARGUMENT as this still hasnt been tested in court even though defence would use Justice Smiths words if he was wrong in test case ruling as overturned by Supreme Court couldnt he also be worng saying the arent penalties ?

Comments on a postcard to Gaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dismissal can be contested no probs but can WE ALSO REGURGITATE THE PENALTY ARGUMENT as this still hasnt been tested in court even though defence would use Justice Smiths words if he was wrong in test case ruling as overturned by Supreme Court couldnt he also be worng saying the arent penalties ?

Comments on a postcard to Gaz

 

The problem is that the OFT didn't appeal the position on penalties and the High Court judgment therefore sets the precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...