Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 05.05.24 Ever so sorry if I have entered this in the wrong part of this website.   My grandfather is in his 70's and retired.  He asked me to help him find a work pension that he was paying into when he was working. From 1967 - 1982 he worked for a Fabric Dying Company, Celanese, Spondon Derby UK. I have already used the GOV.uk Trace Pension Scheme. It listed a few pension companies : Akzo Nobel (CPS) Pension Scheme formerly Courtaulds Pension Scheme.  I do not fully understand how this works but I think this scheme is administer by a company called Willis Tower Watson. We have called this company, got through to the pension department submitted all my grandfather's details (D.O.B. , N.I. no. etc.) but that agent tells that they have no record of my grandfather and ask what is the name of the pension scheme. Here is the problem, his home was burgalled in 2005 and a briefcase which contained his legal documents was stolen. So he does not know who was the Pension Scheme company. I have a this phone number 01332 681 210 for Celanese but it just rings and never gets answered. So I am asking for help if anyone can tell us where we can try next. I am also hoping for a massive long shot that one of them members on this website, worked for or knows someone who worked for British Celanese Spondon Derby and could tell us of any pension company. Thanks for any help.
    • Well I sent them the letter of claim, the only responses so far was a few emails reopening the claims on the parcels where they asked for information such as proof of value (which I get) but other things like photos of the parcels, which I haven't got as I never took photos of them. It's been well over the 14 days since I sent the letter now anyway, so what do you think I should do now?
    • Know it has already been answered, but? Does not explain why JCI has registered a different default date when they get the information from the original creditor, Virgin
    • Since you were stopped at the time there is no requirement for the police give you anything there and then or to send you anything before they have decided how to deal with the offence.  They have three choices: Offer you a course Offer you a fixed penalty (£100 and three points) Prosecute you in court  The only option that has a formal time limit is (3). They must begin court proceedings within six months of the date of the alleged offence. Options (1) and (2) have no time limit but since the only alternative the police have if you decline those offers is (3) they will not usually offer a course beyond three months from the date of the offence and will not usually offer a fixed penalty beyond four months from that date. This is so as to allow time for the driver to accept and comply with their offer and to give them the time to go to option (3) if he declines or ignores it.  Unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, the action they take will usually be in accordance with the National Police Chiefs' Council's guidance on speeding enforcement. In a 40mph limit this is as follows Up to 45mph - no action. Between 46mph and 53mph - offer a course Between 54mph and 65mph - offer a fixed penalty Over 65mph - prosecution in court So you can see that 54mph should see you offered a fixed penalty. Three weeks is not overly long for a fixed penalty offer to arrive. As well as that, there has been Easter in that period which will have slowed things down a bit. However, I would suggest that if it gets to about two months from the offence date and you have still heard nohing, I would contact the ticket office for the area where you were stopped to see if anything has been sent to you. Of course this raises the danger that you might be "stirring the hornets' nest". But in all honesty, if the police have decided to take no action, you jogging their memory should not really influence them. The bigger danger, IMHO, is that your fixed penalty offer may have been sent but lost and if you do not respond it will lapse. This will see the police revert to option (3) above. Whilst there is a mechanism in these circumstances  to persuade the court to sentence you at the fixed penalty level (rather than in accordance with the normal guidelines which will see a harsher penalty), it relies on them believing you when you say you did not received an offer. In any case it is aggravation you could well do without so for the sake of a phone call, I'd enquire if it was me.  I think I've answered all your questions but if I can help further just let me know. Just a tip - if you are offered a fixed penalty be sure to submit your driving licence details as instructed. I've seen lots of instances where a driver has not done this. There will be no reminder and no second chance; your £100 will be refunded and the police will prosecute you through the courts.
  • 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3534 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

Bear in mind how the 8% is calculated....

 

1. The account will be reconstructed with the PPI and associated interest removed. If that reconstruction shows that the account would have been in credit for any period then 8% simple is awarded on that credit balance for that period.

 

2. If the account has been closed and paid off there will be a difference between the reconstructed balance and the balance actually paid. 8% simple is awarded on that difference running from the date the account was paid off up to the date of the settlement of the claim.

 

From this you can see that you only get 8% on money you have actually parted with, i.e. where the other side have had use of your money for a period of time.

 

If you wish to develop the spreadsheets further then please feel free....we would happily look at any revisions.

 

Yes, I agree with you totally. That is why Capital One who offered me £958.23 of 8% interest which means a credit amount of £11977 cannot be right in offering me only £6000. The correct amount is the £11977 plus the £958.23

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The really important point here is that they use compound interest to calculated the revised balance (so as to make HMRC happy) yet do not seem to include this in their redress.

 

There can be no excuse for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have so many voice recordings from Mastercard where they tell me about the Star Chamber and how my calculations are nearly complete. I now know that this was all a lie and this has been confirmed in subsequent phone conversations. Having reps clearly having a laugh at my expense is very galling and has really annoyed me. Maybe I should just post it all on YouTube !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The really important point here is that they use compound interest to calculated the revised balance (so as to make HMRC happy) yet do not seem to include this in their redress.

 

There can be no excuse for this.

 

The compound interest is the contractual interest they charged on the PPI premiums so that would be part of the redress.

 

As said before, redress = Premiums Paid + Contractual Interest + 8% Where Applicable.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that you have said this before and you are totally correct.

 

The FOS guidelines however seem to express it in a different way in that the account will be reconstructed as if the PPI was never in place.

 

 

Where there is a positive balance then the company should pay 8% simple interest on that balance.

 

 

I have reconstructed the balance and 8% of the positive balance works out at around £1000.

 

 

This means that the positive balance is around £12,000.

 

 

The FOS guidelines indicate that this amount should be returned along with the 8%.

 

The fact is that if you work out 8% interest and the compound interest and add the premiums paid then you come to exactly the same figure as the reconstruction award.

 

I am saying that Capital Once reconstructed the account, got the balance figure and correctly awarded the 8%.

Then they did something magical and awarded the premiums paid (£3000) and compound interest of £2000.

This comes to £6000. What they should have offered is the £1000 (8%) and then the £12000 (reconstructed balance).

 

I maintain that they are correctly calculating the 8% to keep HMRC and then doing some magic with the remainder.

 

I have pointed this out to them but they are saying that it is time barred and hence FOS cannot help with a adjudication.

 

 

I am suggesting that if you get a figure for the 8% then you should multiply this by 12.5 and add it to the 8% and that MUST be the minimum that you should be receiving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you actually paid this account off and closed it?

 

If so then you should get 8% on the amount paid off vs the reconstructed balance.

 

The difference in the reconstructed balance to the amount paid off is the PPI premiums and associated contractual interest so you won't get that balance difference bacg twice...it has already been included in the first part of the redress i.e. Premiums Paid + Associated Interest.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...