Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

Lloyds claim - **WON _ Amazing win based on UTCCR's**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3473 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

Have just today seen that Lloyds have changed the date the default was applied to my credit report.

 

From December 2010 to September 2009,

 

they've not written to me to confirm this at all they've just done it, this is following the ICO complaint outcome.

 

Should I still submit amended POC's?

 

I assume the damage had already occurred as I have evidence of the first and now evidence of the change.

 

I guess I remove the s14 DPA request for an order to put it right and just claim for inaccurate information?

 

 

What if any impact does this have on your claim?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 295
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I was focussing on the fact that they had added inaccurate information to my Credit File which adds to unfairness.

Here is what I was going to put in, this is in addition to what you've seen.......

 

Description of Unfairness

5. The defendant's treatment of the claimant was unfair, not least because:-

a. The claimant has held an account with the defendant for 7 years

b. The charges and interest levied from the account added substantially to a period of financial difficulty

c. The charges levied from the account total £748 and were levied throughout a short period of time during which the Claimant faced financial difficulty.

6. The Defendant marked the Claimants credit file in default on 24 December 2010 despite the Defendant alleging that a breach occurred a significant amount of time before, making the default marker inaccurate and unfair due to the added amount of time it will be present on the Claimants credit file.

7. The claimant submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner, who on the 10 October 2013 wrote to the claimant confirming that it is unlikely the Defendant complied with requirements under the Data Protection Act in relation to the First principle, by placing a “default” on the account in December 2010 this placed the Claimant in a worse position than if no attempt to pay had been made. The Banking Conduct of Business Regulations (BCOB) 2009 which requires inter alia that firms treat their customers fairly (R.5.1.1) and further the Data Protection Act 1998 requires that an individual’s data is processed fairly in accordance with the act.

8. The Claimant therefore contends that the default is inaccurate.

9. The Claimant contends the Defendant has no legal right under statute to store process information with Credit Reference Agencies for six years nor does the Defendant have any legal right under statute to process any data with Credit Reference Agencies.

10. Failure of a Default to be accurate not only invalidates the Default (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain & Co NLD 14 July 1998) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give the Claimant a claim for damages. (Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119).

11. On 20 July 2008 the Claimant submitted that the Defendant stop processing information which the Claimant deemed to cause damage and distress. The Defendant failed to comply.

12. On 19 August 2013 the claimant filed a notice in accordance with s10 Data Protection Act 1998, the Defendant failed to comply or respond to the request.

13. The Claimant contests that the Defendants continued processing of his data is an unwarranted act and that the Defendant has failed to comply with a Statutory Notice pursuant to s.10 and s.12 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

14. The Claimants written permission allowing the Defendant to continue processing, or disclosing, personal subject data, does not exist. The Claimant also disputes the Defendants “Defaulting” of the accounts, which is visible on his Credit Reference files, for the reasons outlined above. The Claimant, therefore, considers any Default appearing on any Credit Reference Files in relation to these alleged agreements to be wholly unwarranted and unlawful.

15. The Claimant is afforded principled rights under the Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part 1 (“The Principles”) in relation to the manner in which data is collated, stored and processed. Of particular note, Principles 3, 4 and 5;

3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed.

4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.

5. Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.

15. In this case, the Defendant is processing data, which is unlikely to comply with the Data Protection Act to Credit Reference Agencies – that information being “publicly available.

16. The Defendant has continued to process data despite a comprehensive s10 request being served.

17. The Defendant is aware of the Information Commissioner Technical Guidance which describes the way in which “default” markers should be processed, further the Claimant explained this clearly to the Defendant on numerous occasions dating back to April 2013.

18. The Claimant further understands that on or around 10 October 2013 the Information Commissioner served upon the Defendant its position in the matter, the Claimant has not received any correspondence from the Defendant in relation to the matter.

19. The Claimant claims that the recording of “Default” information by the Defendant, against a credit file, in any manner, which would be unfair or inaccurate, would breach the Data Protection Act 1998.

20. The Claimant requests damages in accordance with s13 of the Data Protection Act 1998 for damages caused by the aforementioned breach.

21. The Claimant further requests an order from the Court in accordance with s14 of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

22. By virtue of the above unfairness the claimant has suffered losses.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would retain that level of detail for a Witness Statement were you can expand further once you have received their defence.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

While I'm waiting to hear back about my application to change POC's

 

I looked up SCM Solicitors.

 

They don't seem to be registered with the SRA...

 

..Ian Harding is

 

but can a firm only have one registered solicitor and have loads of different case workers?!

 

All letters say "On behalf of Ian Harding, Solicitor" on the bottom.

 

This is all you can find

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/find-a-solicitor/?view=solicitordetails&sdid=120594&orgid=64072&SURNAME=harding&FORENAMES=ian&FIRMNAME=&POSTCODE=&searchType=S for their number with the SRA 120594.

 

I'm not sure what this means but does it mean they are a bit dodgy?

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone?

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We couldn't possibly comment...as I'm sure you understand.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

there was an 'scm solicitors' but apparently they 'closed' in june '11. wonder now then if that was the loyds one (seems like it), and if so would there have been a need for notice of change of solicitor/representation?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to muddy the waters at all but

 

regarding penalty charges and the supreme court ruling,

 

I seem to recall that the court did not rule that the charges were fair

but that the Office of Fair Trading were not entitled to challenge them.

 

A subtle difference that the banks don't seem to understand!

 

Interestingly,

 

during evidence LTSB gave to the Court,

 

the penalty charge did not relate to the costs incurred but were a revenue stream.

 

A bit different from what they are still telling their customers

- but hey, you can't expect them to lie to a Supreme Court can you?

 

Interesting to see how they regard a County Court.

 

The transcripts should still be on record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I haven't taking the time to fully understand the judgement.

 

In relation to my case, the judge has agreed to my order and I've served the amended POCs to Lloyds/SCM. The hearing date is at the end of Feb.

 

Is what you're saying true? In which case why aren't people still claiming on the same basis?

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there was an 'scm solicitors' but apparently they 'closed' in june '11. wonder now then if that was the loyds one (seems like it), and if so would there have been a need for notice of change of solicitor/representation?

 

What are the requirements? I must contact the SRA to query it.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure if relevant tbh. were they using scm in yr case? was just wondering, if they have been using 'scm' but their scm no longer exist? eg CPR 42 and associated PD re changes of representation.

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reference the Supreme Court ruling.

 

The OFT lost the case because the court ruled that they were not entitled to prosecute the banks.

 

The Judges comments did include remarks that there were other avenues to follow but the OFT bottled out and wouldn't try again.

 

Lloyds and others then proclaimed to all and sundry that this proved their charges were fair

- which of course was not the ruling.

 

They got off on a technicality.

 

Unfortunately there followed a series of lost cases because, I suspect, the propaganda machine of the BBA convinced the county courts

who find on balance of probability rather than solely on evidence that these nasty debtors should pay up to the nice bankers.

But then I may be biased.

 

 

Is it true

- well the trial records say that the evidence given to the trial differed to what Lloyds was, and is, telling their customers.

Unfortunately you aren't the only one who hasn't looked at the detail.

 

And look at what has happened since - their fines are even bigger than my utility bills. Remember it when you see details of the new, clean TSB!

 

Remember I am an interested amateur. Not a legal professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi everyone

So Lloyds have failed to reply to the Court order in line with the Judges requirements, they had 14 days from 6th Jan to respond to the order and haven't, the order states failure to comply results in their defence being struck out without further order.

 

I called the Court and was told that basically it would happen automatically but I've been looking and it seems I should make an application in accordance with Practice Direction 3A to have their defence struck out.

 

Is this the case? If so what form do I need? Or do I just write to the court manager?

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

N244 orfoster

 

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

N244 orfoster

 

 

Andy

 

Thanks Andy,

In the draft order do I basically say the defendants claim is struck out, costs are awarded and judgement is entered?

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andy,

In the draft order do I basically say the defendants claim be struck out pursuant to the DJ xxxxxxx Directions dated xxxxxxxx in that the claimant failed to comply etc etc pursuant to CPR 3, costs in this application and claim are awarded and judgement is entered?

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Application posted through the Court pursuant to CPR 3.4 and 3.5. When I called they told me there would be no need for payment because the order said non compliance would mean defence would be struck out but I'm not so sure, I think there wouldn't be a cost if the court was striking out on it's own initiative but I'm doing it by application.

 

So I'm gonna call them tomorrow and pay the fee anyway just to be sure.

 

Apparently (so I found online) judges don't routinely strike out cases but I'm making the application anyway...

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

orfoster

am inclined to agree with the court there. if the order said will be auto strike if non compliance, and there was no compliance re ct filing, then the court will strike it out of their own accord, automatically. your next step then would be to apply for/request judgment?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ford and others,

Ok so I've got home today and had the amended defence. It was signed for and dated yesterday.

 

So now a technical question, the Amended POC was served on 6 Jan @ 06:55 so obviously 14 days was yesterday, they dated their defence and letter yesterday and it arrived today. So 14 days was yesterday, so does that make them non-compliant? I've provided with my application of judgement a copy of the signed for Royal Mail to prove.

 

My request to the court was for strike out and judgement.

 

I called the Court (before I had the amended defence) and they said the same as you but they said my application would be ok because it asked for judgement.

 

Surely the judge can't go against his own order??!

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry by signed for yesterday I mean they physically signed it and dated it yesterday not that it arrived with me yesterday.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also just to clarify the order reads.....

 

"The defendant shall within 14 days thereafter file and serve upon the Claimant and to the court a) the amended defence.

If the defendant fails to comply with this Order, the defence will be struck out without further order".

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

did the court say that they were striking it out? has loyds filed a copy with the court?

looking back at your order #124, would think the 14 days starts the day after receipt (6th)? so, unfortunately, they may be in time then?

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't checked with the court since receiving it, when I called at 11:30 the court didn't have anything on their system but they may just not have allocated it.

 

Yesterday when I spoke to them they were clear that the defence would be struck out.

 

Is it the word 'thereafter' that gives you thought that 14 days starts day after receipt.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh damn it. Lol it was signed for before the business day started....does that make any odds?

 

Well I guess all I can do is call the court tomorrow and see when in their view the defence should have been sent in. But I've called them twice now and they were clear it was out of time.

George Loveless - “We raise the watchword, liberty. We will, we will, we will be free!"

 

My advice is only my opinion, I am not a legal expert.

 

IF YOU LIKE THE ADVICE I'M GIVING AND ARE HAPPY WITH IT, CLICK THE SCALES ON THE BOTTOM LEFT OF THIS POST AND TELL ME.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...