Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Barclaycard PPI redress


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2809 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

After nearly 2 years with the FOS - Barclaycard have now finally suggested the following redress:-

 

Total PPI payments = £534.00

Associated Fees = £808.00

Associated Interest = £1038.00

Statutory interest = £1351.76

 

My redress covers the following periods :-

 

Nov 1989 - Dec 1998 ( No statements - so account is reconstructed)

Jan 1999 - March 2007 ( Full statements provided - PPI cancelled March 2007)

 

I can upload the Barclaycard calculation schedule however in the meantime i cannot

understand why the associated interest is lower than the 8 % statutory interest.

 

Is this another Barclays PPI underpayment ? Would appreciate initial observations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Poss because. The a/c entered a credit balance early on when it was reconstructed minus the PPI to the month

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

if an account entered a credit balance

then under fOS rules

you are entitled to 8% stat int on that sum to the present day

 

if the account with in debit, contractual interest is charged at their rate.

 

the only way to be sure is to use the FOSRUNNING sheet

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?330996-Latest-Spreadsheets-PPI-Claims-and-Charges-Claims-Dec-2011

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

you'll need to pop them all in a word doc first

then PDF that please

 

 

follow the upload

 

 

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

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

No i have not done the FOS running sheet and checked it. I am asking for help from experts on this website.

 

The help from the experts is to do the FOS running sheet.

 

 

You are the one who can do this

- you have all the required information.

Once you have done this, the experts will be able to give feedback.

 

At the moment it is like me asking you if the piece of string in my hand is long enough.

 

Do the FOS sheet and then come back.

REMEMBER! Hunger is the enemy - NOT the hungry!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
After nearly 2 years with the FOS - Barclaycard have now finally suggested the following redress:-

 

Total PPI payments = £534.00

Associated Fees = £808.00

Associated Interest = £1038.00

Statutory interest = £1351.76

 

My redress covers the following periods :-

 

Nov 1989 - Dec 1998 ( No statements - so account is reconstructed)

Jan 1999 - March 2007 ( Full statements provided - PPI cancelled March 2007)

 

I can upload the Barclaycard calculation schedule however in the meantime i cannot

understand why the associated interest is lower than the 8 % statutory interest.

 

Is this another Barclays PPI underpayment ? Would appreciate initial observations.

 

UPDATE

 

FOS Adjudicator has rejected my claim.

 

Despite asking Barclaycard 5 times and the FOS 8 times i still await an answer to the following questions :-

 

How has Barclaycard calculated the 'associated interest'' of £1038.00

As my PPI premiums attracted 'compound interest' at what rate was the associated interest refund calculated.?

 

Herewith are examples of the Barclaycard redress :-

 

1.3.94 PPI premium paid £2.00 - Barclaycard associated interest refund = £0.78 - Barclaycard purchase interest rate in March 1994 was 18.10% - I calculate compound interest refund should be £71.91

25.5.99 PPI Premium paid £3.52 - Barclaycard associated interest refund - £5.89 - Barclaycard purchase rate in May 1999 was 18.6% - i calculate compound interest refund should be £48.15

 

Should i take this to the Ombudsman or have i been 'barking up the wrong tree' in respect of compound interest refunds and putting me back into the same position as if Barclaycard had not charged me PPI ?

What exactly is your take on 'Associated interest'?

As Barclaycard have stated their charges for PPI attracted compound inetrest at the card purchase rate the PPI refunds should also be compounded ?

 

Your views would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

How has Barclaycard calculated the 'associated interest'' of £1038.00

 

 

FOS Adjudicator has finally put in writing answes to the above :-

 

Quote '''You told me that Barclaycard haven't refunded you the compound interest you're owed

You sent me a compound interest calculator to show hom much you feel Barclaycard's

refund should be on each premium. you've highlighted 3 examples of instances where this

hasn't been done on Barclaycards schedule. Dec 94, Dec 20, and Mar 04. You have also

included the Barclaycard purchase rate for each premium paid.

 

I've looked at the compound interest calculator you sent and i can see that you have taken

the amount charged for PPI on a specific month and looked at how many months have passed

since then and applied the interest of 21%(average) to work out the compound interest due to

you on that PPI charge.

 

I'd like to clarify that when refunding the associated interest due we'd expect a business to

only refund the extra interest you've paid because of the PPI. I've taken March 2004 as an

example. The known PPI payment you made that month was £3.95. In you email you sent

you feel that on this month you should be refunded £44.86 in associated interest.The total

interest you were charged on the credit card that month was £9.08. So we would expect

Barclaycard to calculate the proportion of that £9.08 you paid because of the PPI.

The amount Barclaycard have worked this out to be £3.98 '' Unquote''

 

So after 2 years of asking i have now received an explanation from the FOS to my

question of how do you calculate associated interest in respect of credit card PPI refunds.

or have I ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but as that PPI was then charged int again on it on all following months.

it adds up. to the total [=compounded]

 

int on a monthly ppi charge is not ONLY limited/charged in that one month

that PPI balance exists in subsequent months till the OC stopped their int

or the PPI was cancelled

 

what planet are the FOS on?

 

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

And on another PPI credit card claim i have received another explanation from a different FOS Adjudicator as follows :

 

Quote '' I can see you have sent though a calculation for the interest charged due to the PPI.

 

 

As I have explained the additional interest added to your card because of the PPI will not be charged on a daily rate.

 

Your calculations show the interest rate charged in each month as a result of the PPI.

Therefore the interest should be worked out on the amount of the PPI in the balance for each particular month.

 

As an example in March 2000 the balance of your account was £1,188.02.

The interest charged on your balance was £17.95.

Your PPI charge was £7.91

we would expect the refund od associated interest to be proportional to the amount that was caused by the £7.91 PPI charge '' Unquote

Link to post
Share on other sites

What can i present to the FOS to contradict their interpretations of associated interest (compound interest)

 

One thing i do know is that my credit card PPI refunds

do not put me back in the same position as if PPI had not been charged

(as should be the case quoted by FOS on their website)

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but as that PPI was then charged int again on it on all following months.

it adds up. to the total [=compounded]

 

 

int on a monthly ppi charge is not ONLY limited/charged in that one month

that PPI balance exists in subsequent months till the OC stopped their int

or the PPI was cancelled

 

 

what planet are the FOS on?

 

 

dx

 

Your suggestion on how best i should tackle the FOS would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the cisheet shows the total compounded interest charged month on month

from the date that ppi sum was levied.

 

the explanation by the fos is relevant only to the month the ppi was first levied

what about every other month after that when that PPI balance had more interest added

 

think you've got a newbie adjudicator there

 

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

Many thanks for your reply.

 

 

The problem I have is I have two PPI credit card claims with the FOS :-

 

M&S - dating back to 1991

Barclaycard - dating back to 1989

 

Both adjudicators are 'singing from the same sheet'

and because of the way they calculate the 'associated interest'

the FOS are reducing my claims by thousands of pounds.

Please see my earliers posts for the explanations from the two adjudicators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but as that PPI was then charged int again on it on all following months.

it adds up. to the total [=compounded]

 

int on a monthly ppi charge is not ONLY limited/charged in that one month

that PPI balance exists in subsequent months till the OC stopped their int

or the PPI was cancelled

 

what planet are the FOS on?

 

dx

 

ok put forward your argument about the compound interest /associated interest and received following replies from the 2 FOS adjudicators :-

 

a) as you do not accept my original findings

i have now passed your claim to the Ombudsman

this refers to the Barclaycard claim..

 

b) will look into this further and come back to you.

this refers to M&S claim.

 

will let you know how this develops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

ok

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

  • 5 months later...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?443589-Monument-PBP-refund-**WON-£16k!!**&p=4935529#post4935529

for a card of that age the compound int will be impressive.

 

if you are wanting to check it correct

either send them a request for a complete breakdown

 

or send them an sar to get all the statements.

 

TBH: monument rarely cough up

but when they do they get it right.

 

I notice you refer to compound interest when settlement on PPI redress is expected.

 

Can you explain therefore that the

FOS do not expect Companies to pay 'associated interest '' compounded ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not associated interest

 

this credit was a credit card.

 

each month the outstanding bal has a set amount of interest added

 

that outstanding balance contains PPI.

 

so its compounded int.

 

 

unlike a loan, whereby the PPI is front loaded.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...