Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • @Andyorch   I didn't know that. Thank you.
    • Are you saying the 6/3 year rules does apply to me, even if I only realised it was mis-sold in 2019?   The agent is talking as if I knew this was not compulsory in 2003 when I signed for it 😕   
    • Yes, was received.   Sitting on my hands has never been a strong point.    
    • Thanks both,   The only thing I am still not clear on is there were 4 DCA's that were reporting on my credit report and as I complained they have stopped BUT there is no default date on these debts. Can they start reporting these debts again on my credit report if I stop paying.   When I tried to re-mortgage a few years ago I was refused as these 4 were showing as in a DMP. Ofc they are not now as I told them it should have defaulted BUT they werent actually able to add the default date - so in theory could this happen again.   Thanks so much for your help
    • I'm afraid these kinds of stories are all too common with this company. The impression is that they're not too interested in installing and maintaining heating systems – but rather the finance behind it. Did you do this on some kind of finance agreement? Was it secured on your property? You seem to be doing everything on the telephone – and I think it's about time you started establishing a paper trail. You may end up having to arrange your own service with their authorised installer and if that doesn't happen then you may end up having to get in your own repair person. Of course ASG will then say that you are in breach of their warranty et cetera and that they are entitled to recover all their money back. You will have to show that you are a paper trail in them on notice and that they're not responding and then eventually you had to take matters in your own hands and organise your own repair – for which you would be going to them for reimbursement and also you would have to establish that you had no choice and they are fully liable – including the not allowed to dishonour a warranty. I'm afraid the stories we are getting about this company are dreadful and frankly very distressing
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 5225 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

For anyone out there wondering that Clydesdale's defence is going to look like...

1. Admitted the parties are as designed in the instance. Admitted they have a place of business within this Sheriffdom. Admitted the Pursuer is a consumer within the meaning of paragraph 3 to schedule 8 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 as amended. Admitted the Pursuer is domiciled within the Sheriffdom of Fife. Admitted this court accordingly has jurisdiction. To the knowledge of the Defender there are no proceedings pending before any other court involving the present cause of action between the parties hereto. To the knowledge of the Defender there is no agreement between the parties prorogating jurisdiction of the present cause to another court. Quoad ultra denied except insofar as coinciding herewith.

 

2. Admitted the Pursuer has a current account with the Defender under explanation that it is a joint account with Mrs Robertxc. Quoad ultra denied. Explained and averred that at all material times the contractual relationship between the pursuer and Mrs Robertxc ("the Customers") and the Defender was governed by the Defender's standard terms and conditions for current account customers from time to time in force. The terms and conditions have been amended from time to time, however at all material times these terms and conditions provided that:

(1) the Customers must obtain the Defender's agreement before overdrawing on the Account;

 

(2) If the Defender made payments from the Account or paid cheques which were guaranteed by the associated cheque guarantee card when there were insufficient funds available, any overdraft created or any overdraft which exceeded an agreed overdraft limit would be unauthorised;

 

(3) If the Customers drew cheques or authorised or made payments without sufficient money available in the Account, taking account of any overdraft Limit and allowing for uncleared cheques, the Defender might return the payments and make a charge for doing so;

 

(4) charges and interest applicable to the Account were published in the form of tariffs and up-to-date tariffs were available in branches;

 

(5) where appropriate, written details of overdraft charges and debit interest incurred on the Account during the previous charging period (i.e., the previous month) would be sent to the Customers at least 14 days before the charges and interest were deducted from the Account;

 

(6) If the Account had an unauthorised overdraft, additional charges might be levied which would be debited to the Account on the day on which the unauthorized overdraft was created;

 

(7) If the Defender increased a charge for a basic account service, the Defender would give the Customers at least 30 days' notice. At all material times the Defender's tariffs of charges for current account customers set out the charges from time to time applicable pursuant to its standard terms and conditions in respect of:
(1 ) unauthorised overdraft daily fees;

 

(2) unauthorised overdraft monthly fees;

 

(3) unpaid cheque or direct debit charges;

 

(4) card abuse fees (payable where a cheque or debit card is used to guarantee a transaction and payment would have been refused but for the guarantee).

3. Denied.

 

4. Denied. Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. Ltd (1904) 12 SLT 498 is referred to for its terms, beyond which no admission is made. Quoad ultra denied except insofar as coinciding herewith.

 

5. Denied that the Defender's charges represent an unfair penalty charge in terms of theUnfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999, 5.1. 1999 No 2083 ("the UTCC"). Explained and averred Paragraph 1 (e) of the Schedule 2 of the UTCC provides that "a term requiring any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation may be regarded as unfair." The Charges are not compensation, but rather a fee for the service provided by the Defender in extending facilities to the Customers, all as envisaged by the agreement in place between the Defender and the Customers. Further and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing:

(1 ) the terms and conditions were fair having regard to the following matters:
(a) the cost to the Defender of maintaining administrative systems relating to unauthorised overdrafts, unpaid cheques and direct debits and abuse of cheque and debit cards for the purpose of keeping the level of overdrawing under review and controlled as far as possible;

 

(b) the increased risk of Loss to the Defender arising from such unauthorised transactions and the associated cost of enforcement and recovery systems;

 

© the need to operate standard procedures and to set standard charges in order to avoid the substantial costs of individual assessment in relation to each particular case;

(2) the terms and conditions complied with all relevant requirements of the Banking Code as the Banking Code was in force from time to time. Quoad ultra denied except insofar as coinciding herewith.

6. Denied.

 

7. Denied.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks mate

Yorkshire Bank Plc £3553.77 Prelim letter sent 14/9/06 LBA sent 22/9/06, MCOL Sent 10/10/06 MCOL Notice of Issue Rcvd 12/10/06, MCOL Acknowledged 17/10/06, £929.00 Offer Rcvd, 03/11/06 - Rejected, 09/11/06 YB Defended, 10/11/06 Transferred to Local Court, AQ Returned;) 30/11/06 Copy of Banks AQ Received, 1 month extra asked for by Clydesdale, 09/01/07 £2140.00 Offer Rcvd, 09/01/07 - Rejected, 11/11/07 Allocation To Small Claims Track, Court Date Set - 05/03/07, 15/01/07 £2590.00 Offer Rcvd, 15/11/07 - Rejected, 07/02/07 £3773.77 Offer Rcvd (FULL), 12/02/07 - Accepted, 21/02/07 - Chq Received for FULL AMOUNT. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What will be your arguement against their defence? I have Preliminary Hearing on Monday and am likely to receive the same defence with a full Hearing probably next month and it would be useful to have a consistent approach.

Royal Bank of Scotland - Settled - Full Amount

GE Money - Settled - Full Amount

Tesco Personal Finance - Settled - Full Amount + Interest + Court Costs

Clydesdale Bank - Settled - Full Amount + Interest + Court Costs

Clydesdale Bank - Pre June 2005 Charges - Settled - Full Amount

Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument against this basically comes in two parts. They talk about the charges being a 'fee for the service', but in reality they're applied 'in terrorem', which makes them penalties. They also talk about how the charge includes costs for all sorts of other stuff, including 'administrative systems', and 'the increased risk of Loss to the Defender arising from such unauthorised transactions'. This means that they average out the costs, which is one of the key tests as to whether or not a charge is a penalty, and also, they seem to be saying that if you bounce a cheque or a DD they're going to bill you a proportion of somebody elses default too! The laws on penalty charges are long established, and are a fully settled part of the law. If you bounce a cheque, they are allowed to charge you the actual cost to them of that bounced cheque. No more.

 

We'll be posting more about this defence in time, but suffice it to say that we don't consider it to be particularly strong.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...