Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
    • when did they (who) inform you there was a 'police case' and when was this attained? i will guess the debt is now SB'd as it's UAE 15yrs. have you informed the bsnk ever by email/letter of your correct and current address? you can always ignore anyone else accept the bank,  Block and bounce back all emails. Block any text messages  Ignore any letters unless it's: - a Statutory Demand - a Letter Of Claim - a Court Claimform via Northants bulk.  
    • I left Dubai 8 years ago and intended to return. However a job prospect fell through. I’d been there for 15 years. I decided to pay my credit card and the bank had frozen my account. There is no means to pay the CC so completely unable to pay when I wanted to other than the bank advising me to ask a friend in the UAE to pay it on my behalf!  fast forward bank informs there is a police case against me for non payment. Years later IDR chased me and after months/ years they stopped. Now Judge & Priestley are trying their luck. Now I have received an email in English and Arabic from JP saying the bank has authorised them to collect debts. Is this the same as IDR although I didn’t receive anything like this from them. Just says they are authorised?
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3641 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

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have an issue with my bank but what worries me is even if i were to win in small claims court could the banks appeal? If they did would the costs get rather large?

No. If it starts as a small claim then even if it is appealed, it stays on the small claims track

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

I need some advice on the following,

can you carry on making pro-rata payments after you have put an account into dispute ?

 

I want to put my husbands cc account into dispute but I do not want it to look as though he trying to avoid paying what he owes.

 

It had PPI on it and it is the one that is still with the FOS

 

I need time to work out what he actually owes as he now has his SAR info I can fill in the blanks created by missing statements.

 

Thankyou.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brig,

the debt is on a card taken out when the current account was opened June 1999 to allow his wages to be paid in locally,the card was never used.

 

2005 he's working away and uses the card account shortly after he notices the extra payments going out (PPI) but makes the mistake of thinking he is paying for protection against card fraud.

 

2010 he's out of work but carries on the payments until it was realized what he was actually paying and he put in a claim to the bank,rejected.Complaint sent to FOS.

He carries on paying until finally in March this year he can't,defaulted in April I believe.

 

Managed after several months to get HSBC to accept pro-rata payments,

bank tells him they are passing account to Metro,

payments still being made to HSBC.

 

SAR material shows that HSBC did not fill in FOS form sent to them early 2011.

 

Have not got through all the documents yet so do not know if they ever did.

 

Documents show that the HSBC are inferring that the cc account was opened May 2004

and that my husband was still in the job that he had in 1999 when he opened his account,

he had not worked there for 2 years and apart from 1 DD had not used the current account or the cc.

 

As he still waiting for a decision from the FOS and the delay appears to have been caused by the bank

 

I feel it would be unfair to allow them to pass the debt to Metro or for him to be taken to court on this if he has a valid claim,

 

so I wondered if he could carry on with his pro-rata payments and dispute the debt at the same time.

 

I would like to calculate how much he would owe if the PPI was out of the equation.

 

He is not disputing that he owes them money only not the amount they say.

 

I hope you can make sense of this :???:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ro, yes continue the minimum payments it's a wise move.

 

The data is wrong obviously if your hysband took the CC in 1999 that is what must show on the data.

Does the CRA file an inception date?

 

There is enough erroneous information there for a complaint to the banks Data Controller, check the rest of the data you have received see if the FOS form has been completed then I'll put something together for you if you wish.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Brig,

CRA shows the inception date as May 2004

 

HSBC supplied a signed DD statement by way of saying he knowingly took PPI on that date

 

we have found a letter the bank sent to the FOS saying it was a postal sale and he signed for it

 

the only dealings he had with the bank in 2004 was to pay money in for a DD.

 

I can't say they were lying but I don't think they were telling the truth.

 

I'll spend the weekend sifting through it all,

 

many many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh this is not a fun weekend,

 

HSBC sent the FOS sometime after 15th May this year a letter stating that "I can confirm this was a postal sale which is confirmed by the pre-approved CC agreement that was sent to Mr Blah to sign and return if he wished to take out the card."

 

Below is a historic snapshot showing the PPI being debited from his card.There are 3 examples of these.

 

Problem for me the number listed next to Gold CC ending 6165 on one sheet shows opened 16-04-2012 document sent to FOS has it being in use Jan 2011.

I have four numbers listed as Gold CC, two I can track transactions on, two I cannot,my husband thinks they may be the PPI numbers would they be listed as credit cards ?

 

 

:frusty:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually this may all be irrelevant,

 

PPI payments started being applied 2005 after my husband became self employed

which the bank was aware of and there are documents relating to this in the SAR

 

although we believe the PPI was attached to the card taken in 1999 when he opened his account

he never used the card until 2005 .

 

So not bad as he also had PPI on the loan taken out in 2005.

 

To sign for one PPI is unfortunate to sign for two could be seen as carelessness........sorry Oscar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brig,

I have not found anything else that appears relevant the salient point

 

seems to be HSBC say the account +card with PPI was opened and signed for May 2004

we know this is not the case.

 

However as the whole thing stems from a PPI complaint it is obvious now that both the CC PPI and the loan PPI were added 2005

first reference on statement history is March 2005.

 

A more pressing matter has now arisen as my husband has received a letter from Metropolitan saying cough up or else

and I am going to put the account into dispute whilst maintaining the pro-rata repayments agreed with HSBC ,

 

a reply to the CCA request should arrive in the next couple of days and the fog in my brain may have cleared by then . :pray:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ro,( ooh that sounds Chinese ). You are taking the right course of action.

gather all the proof of the original account dates that you have, then I'll put together

somthing to challenge this.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brig,

this is all I could extract-it's not much.

 

1.Document showing customer since 07-06-1999 commencement of current account 08-06-1999. 3 updates of account shown 1st one date unknown other 2 dated-22-07-2002.

 

2.Document dated 25-05-2004 shows previous address and card number ending 802.employment details wrong as husband had not worked at this job for some 2 years. Data input by number ending 417.

 

3.Document same as above but dated 24-05-2004 but no previous address or card number shown.Data input by number ending 658.

 

4.Document same as 3.Data input by number ending 658.

 

5.Document showing CC end numbers 802 opened **25-5-2004.**** 1 update on 22-07-2002.**

 

6.Document showing CC end numbers** 173 opened 02-11-2009**.1 update on**

 

Statement history earliest date for CC 802 is 08-03-05.

 

Nothing in the SAR material goes back to May 2004

 

I don't think there is much that can be done with this do you ?

 

regards

Ro

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ro,

 

Something is not right, account opened 1999 was a current account according to the bank?

Your belief is that this was in fact a credit card account?

Coould the 2004 card be a new card perhaps an upgrade of a previous one?

 

5 Shows card ending in 802 opened 25 05 2004 one update on 22.07 *2002* updated before it was issued.

 

If I'm thinking right here there a probably 3 cards, 1 original 2 up dates/ replacements.

Makes me think the records have been doctored!!!

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...