Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

RBS 1997 overdraft loanguard PPI claim **WON +£15k!!**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3761 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

Long time since I posted anything, but searching out information brings up a few results on here,

so thought I'd add this thread, might help someone in the future if it all goes to plan.

 

Approximately 7 weeks ago I received a letter from the RBS PPI team (Hardman Boulevard M/cr address)

regarding PPI on my current account with them, I'll be honest and say I'd completely forgotten about it

and the variable monthly charges show up as a charge on the account.

 

Obviously I was shocked that

a) I'd forgotten all about it and

b)I'd already inquired about any PPI with the RBS previously.

 

Having the majority of paperwork regarding to this I sent in the FOS questionnaire,

I upped my overdraft in 2004 and was told it was compulsory to have the PPI in place on a facility of this size,

similarly when it was originally taken out in 1997,

that coupled with my self employed status were the basis for the miss selling complaint.

To say I was kicking myself for being so stupid to get to this point was an understatement.

 

As stated I have statements dating back to 1997

so I'll know what has actually been paid

(so far I've only sat down and done 6 years and that's showing PPI paid as approx £1300,

months vary considerably but I'd say average is £18-£20 per month).

 

So, decision date is approx 1 week off,

I'll update this thread if and when anything happens,

seemingly several have posted success stories up,

 

so if you've had PPI on your overdraft

 

or even if you're not sure it's worth investigating

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Brief update on this.

 

8 week period was due up on Tuesday, so I thought I'd ring and enquire as to if a decision had been made on Monday, no was the answer but 'we're expecting it to be on our systems tomorrow,' give us a ring in the morning', fair enough comment so quick call Tuesday morning, 'no decision as yet as we've got till the close of business today' again fair enough.

 

Approx an hour later I received a call to inform that no decision was going to be made as we're still waiting on information, on asking what they actually needed I was told that they didn't actually know and I 'could possibly' get a decision in ten working days, then on the other hand I might not.

 

I'll be honest and say I've no idea what they're waiting on, my only guess (and it is purely that) is because it dates back a good distance that getting information from pre 2000 etc could be the problem, I really don't know how good the RBS are at records.

 

I have all of this stuff from a SAR in 2006 re bank charges (won and paid out). So do I give them time or is it a case of get the ball rolling with the FOS as they've overrun their designated time limits etc?

 

The only other one that I've no had a decision on within the time frame was Cardif Pinnacle and to be honest they were pretty good at keeping me informed as to what was going on and why. (That was quite a convoluted reclaim as they were the underwriters to First National who didn't want to know as they loan was arranged through the defunct Freedom Finance, that in the end was a pretty easy win.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Update, the 10 working days after the 8 week period was up on the 23/12, so again I contacted the Hardman Boulevard team by phone to check on progress, I was advised to phone again in the morning, which I duly did, still no answer and no idea of when it was likely to be resolved as they still couldn't tell me what they were waiting on.

 

By this stage I was somewhat fed up with being told one thing and then nothing happening,so I thought I'd go straight to the top, and fired in a complaint to the chieh executives office by email, to their credit the response and help from that end was superb, I had an email back on Christmas Eve to say it would be looked into by close of business on Fri, this was done and a gentleman phoned me at quarter to five, exceptionally apologetic that he couldn't raise the PPI complaints team by either phone or email, but that he would chase it up by Monday (today). Half an hour ago I had a phone call to tell me that a final decision letter had been mailed to me on the 27th, but should I not receive it in the next couple of days to contact him again at the Chief Execs office, superb service, did what he said when he said, nice to see!

 

Put the phone down and the mail arrived........

 

Well we have a winner, very pleased

 

PPI premiums paid £3554,88

8% to eavh PPI payment from date of each payment £11655.38

Statutory Interest £616.08

Less Tax -£123.22

Total Offer £15703.12

 

Off to the post office to post back, might go to the pub after! I'll make a donation in the next few days, whilst I've not needed individual help, the sheer fact of this site being here has helped beyond belief, ta very much to all involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i was watching well done

fantastic win!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you just check the letter

- in post 3

- the second line of your calculation states 8% interest on each payment from the date of payment.

 

 

The interest on each payment should be at the interest rate you were charged for your overdraft

(or because RBS don't have a full rate history - I believe they use 18% as an average).

 

 

The figures certainly seem to suggest it was around 18%

but it would be worth querying with RBS if it does in fact state the rate was 8%

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent news.. what a fantastic Christmas/New Year pressie :)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...