Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • once a debt is sb'd nothing not even a judge can unbar it no harm in talking to BC at all. they are nothing to do with the claim they sold the debt in .........see NOA letter    
    • Here are the Particulars of Claim   Name of the Claimant ? Hoist Finance UK Holdings Limited   date of claim - 30th January 2020   Date  to acknowledge) = 17/02/2020   date to submit defence = 02/03/2020    Particulars of Claim   1. The claim is for the sum of £7939.36 arising from the defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no xxxx926xxxxxx03   2. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3.The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd(Ex Barclaycard) Written notice of the assignment has been given.   4.The Claimant claims 1. The sum of £7939.36 2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £8449.00   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes dated 02092019   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Not sure   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address?Not sure Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card.   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ?  After April 2007 actually August 2007   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Can't recall   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ?No idea   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Claim issued by Hoist, so assigned.   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Howard Cohen solicitors says yes. I say no   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not to my knowledge   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No   Why did you cease payments? Costly divorce and failed small business   What was the date of your last payment? Over 6 yeras ago I believe   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Spoke to them many years ago   Will get on with CCA and CPR tomorrow.   Is there a danger that if he attempts to call BC he could take it out of staute barred?  I will have to contact him Spain so need to advise him what not to say.
    • DX ,thanks for spacing post BankFodder,  sorry, point taken,   FS
    • defence due by 4pm Monday 2nd   has he...   .  get a CCA Request running to the claimant https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/  leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed . .  get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] . . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . . type your name ONLY no need to sign anything . you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]   get him to ring BC ask last payment date tomorrow.    
  • Our picks

Recommended Posts

Refusing to extend the extension means absolutely nothing at the moment.  He has the complete power to reverse this closer to the time by passing another law,which will simply be rubber stamped by his huge majority, closer to the time.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art. 345 TFEU states “The Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States (MS) governing the system of property ownership.”

 

Art. 106 TFEU simply regulates how they can behave in relation to other enterprises.

In essence, enterprises with a dominant position in the market due to state action cannot use that position to behave unreasonably.

 

 

So it seems to me that what corbyn seemed to be trying to avoid is art 106 preventing the use of any nationalised, taxpayer supported industries to damage non nationalised industries/businesses in an unfair way causing other businesses to artificially fail/fall into nationalisation.

- effectively weaponising the nationalised industry.

 

Possible overly simplified examples might perhaps be:

* refusing to allow others to use the required infrastructure without good cause (eg safety)

* using taxpayer money to artificially deflate prices in certain ways to the detriment of other businesses which are working at cost plus.

 

generally that the service/industry is not blatantly anti-competitive, although that is open to wide interpretation.

 

 

How might art 106 be used - apart from VERY rarely in extreme circumstances:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:61990CJ0041

Edited by tobyjugg2
  • Like 1

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and an informed and detailed estimate of the NI customs issue

 

Imports from the rest of the world into the ports of Northern Ireland are well documented. About 75% of them are classified by the United Nations as intermediate goods and hence face EU tariffs, while of the remaining 25%, a little over a quarter are likely to face EU tariffs. Thus about 82% of Northern Ireland’s imports from the rest of the world are subject to EU tariffs, accounting for about 10% of the region’s total imports. to conclude that about 40% of this trade flow is of intermediate goods and that of the remaining 60% about 40% would face EU tariffs. Thus about 64% of imports from Great Britain would face EU tariffs and, recalling that the GB→NI flow accounts for about 63% of Northern Ireland’s total imports, this implies that 40% of total imports face EU tariffs through this route.

Summing the contributions to Northern Ireland’s imports from the EU, the rest of the world and Great Britain suggests that around 75% of all Northern Irish imports will pay the EU tariff on entering the province.

Following this conclusion, I also document the fact that imports of all goods subject to EU trade defence instruments have to pay those duties on entry to Northern Ireland and my view that over time the share of the EU in Northern Ireland’s imports is likely to increase. Finally, I note that while goods that are proved to have been sold to final buyers in Northern Ireland can have any EU tariff they have paid rebated, claiming those rebates is likely to be difficult for the private sector and hence rebates are unlikely to refund much tariff revenue.

The calculations described in this evidence are based on very approximate data and a series of, generally, untested assumptions.  However, the assumptions have been made explicit and I believe that they are perfectly reasonable. I cannot put formal confidence intervals around my estimates, but at an informal level it would be surprising on the basis of this work if the true proportion of Northern Irish imports that paid the EU tariff fell outside the range 65%-85%.

 

 

 

Background (case is moot as Johnson can probable change the law however he likes)

https://goodlawproject.org/claim-establish-withdrawal-agreement-will-continue/

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/proposed-withdrawal-agreement/

 

Edited by tobyjugg2
  • Like 1

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, London1971 said:

Refusing to extend the extension means absolutely nothing at the moment.  He has the complete power to reverse this closer to the time by passing another law,which will simply be rubber stamped by his huge majority, closer to the time.

 

An EU commissioner said that the extension would have had to have been requested by the UK government in the first instance in any event, so quite why Boris needs a law to bind himself from doing something he doesn't want to is anyone's guess. Oh, I know! It's populism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine it's more for the EU's benefit, so that we go back to where we were - in forcing 'no deal' back on to the table and basically telling the EU to give us what we want.  Which of course won't happen, whatever we do get at the end of year will be championed as a success but any negatives can be put down to the EU not playing ball, and not willing to negotiate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These Europeans just don't seem to get that we're superior and that they should be doing what we tell, them, do they?


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

These Europeans just don't seem to get that we're superior and that they should be doing what we tell, them, do they?

If they had done what we told them in the first place we would be running the show and not these pesky continentals 😂😂😂

And don’t forget they need us more than we need them ! 

  • Haha 2

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few of the former MPs, almost all from opposition parties, say they will miss the opportunity to see Boris Johnson and his new majority government gloating from the green benches


Life is so much better and happier as an Optimist than a boring depressed Pessimist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently Corbyn has been put forward for a peerage due to a firm belief that an asset like him should be maintained

.. He's apparently already pencilled in on the Tories list and if he holds out as leader until the next election, they'll make him a Baron.


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wizard wheeze of making and extension to the transition period illegal hasn't made the City happy. The £ is down about 3 cents against the € since the day after the election and against the dollar.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's good, it makes UK goods cheaper 

Edited by Maharg1

Life is so much better and happier as an Optimist than a boring depressed Pessimist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and imported goods including food more expensive.


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, honeybee13 said:

... and imported goods including food more expensive.

….and given that we import significantly more than we export (around £47b per anum more) any reduction in the value of sterling represents a net loss to the UK.

 

But try telling that to a populist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and as we already know from the last 3 years, a fall in the pound did NOT increase exports except for a brief period when existing stock was used,

... Then the UK businesses had to buy replenishment stock at the inflating prices - driving up their costs and reducing their competitiveness.

 

Just a 1% fall in the pound  increases costs to the UK consumer imports (food etc) and international trade by half a billion pounds per year or more

(far more given much international trade and the British debt mountain is traded in dollars - which Johnson plans to increase)

 

So the 20% fall in the GBP in relation to other currencies actual cost the UK consumer and businesses 10 billion pounds PLUS a year. With Brexit overall costing the UK economy around 880 million pounds a week on average every week.

 

 

So STILL waiting for you to come up with some real benefit, and some real significant trade deals that are at least as good as what we have @maharg1

or anything other than Johnson Jingoistic jingle balls.

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2
need to check one figure so removed it.

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All ready for a Christmas singalong

 

 

Jingo balls jingo balls
Jingo all the way
Johnson sack holds nowt but crap
on his Brexit jingo sleigh

 

Oh
jingo bells Corbyn smells
Wish he'd go away
or at least stop giving a boost
to Johnsons jingo sleigh

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the corbynistas are continuing their hard work blaming anyone but themselves

 

 

A former Labour MP and close ally of Jeremy Corbyn has suggested that Tony Blair was to blame for Labour’s crushing electoral defeat.

 

Laura Pidcock, who was tipped as a successor to Mr Corbyn before losing her seat at the election, said the former prime minister’s legacy “hangs around this party like a millstone”.

 

She missed out 2 words after legacy there ... 'of winning'

 

 

Ms Pidcock was defending a majority of 8,792 in the North East Durham constituency, which had held by Labour since 1950, but lost out after a major swing to the Conservatives. 

The lowest majority held by a Labour MP in the constituency during Mr Blair’s time as leader was 13,443.

 

 

Looks like Johnsons expectation of being in power throughout the 2020's is looking more and more likely by the day,

I don't think anyone other than the corbyn crew could have enabled that ...

 

 

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-election-defeat-result-corbyn-tony-blair-pidcock-a9256971.html

 

 


I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem for Socialists is that there are not enough voters who would vote for a Socialist manifesto.  Labour/momentum increased Labour membership by several hundred thousand and those recruited very passionately believed in a Socialist way forward for the UK. 

 

To win a general election a party has to win approx 14 million votes and take seats across Britain.  Labour became concentrated in big inner city seats, where it was probably easier to organise those recruited to campaign for votes. Outside of the inner city seats, it is far more difficult to engage with voters and Labour probably did not apply the resources to persuade people that they were making a mistake to vote Tory because of Brexit.

 

Labour under Corbyns leadership lost touch with the previously loyal Labour voters, who live outside of the major inner city constituencies.  Corbyn was a Socialist campaigner and not a leader.  


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other issue UB is that Corbyn was left of Socialism, being a Marxist, and there are tensions within Socialists, McDonnell is a Trotskyist, and the two don't gell too well, think Stalin v Trotsky, and an icepick. 


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

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

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Other issue UB is that Corbyn was left of Socialism, being a Marxist, and there are tensions within Socialists, McDonnell is a Trotskyist, and the two don't gell too well, think Stalin v Trotsky, and an icepick. 

Can you explain to use the difference between socialism , Marxism, trotsky etc . Stalin was non of the above, nor was he a communist, well not by the end. When you talk about socialism do you mean democratic socialism ?

  • Thanks 1

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not meaning to be flippant but Stalin was a Stalinist, wasn't he?

  • Like 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differences?

Depends what day it is and who's asking.

 

 

 

I see Corbynista crew have brought in the original loser to address their losing ... albeit surrounded b y Corbynites

They must want to get back to the heady heights of simply losing elections rather than being entirely unelectable.

 

 

 

problems

1. Corbyn. Soap box kid. Slumped looking sideways at interviewers and avoiding answers despite claiming he had, indeed was all the answers.

Just like a poor liar. - looked and acted like gollum on a good day.

 

2. Wholesale trot policies rather than step at a time. If he'd sold just water, trains and power renationalisation and made a success of it - he would have been made.

 

3. Corbyns sycophants - We are right - everyone else just doesn't understand and is wrong so shut up.

 

4. Brexit - the market was crowded with brexiters and he wasn't even a good one.

 

5. Why is no-one mentioning it? Open door immigration, benefits straight away  policy probably lost a million votes all on its own. Its what drove the referendum result and Corbyn slapped it back on the table on steroids.

 

6. Claimed to be able to bring people together but couldn't even bring his party together other than by back door attempts at deselecetion

 

 

Theres just 6 of the many issues that make Corbiites entirely unelectable.

If they spout anything different - everyone will think they are just lying as they have sold it as their foundations.

 

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2

I express my honestly held opinions - they are nothing more or less than that.

... Its just doing some due diligence that makes them seem unusual ...

 

Please don't assume what you see here is what I wrote - At least some of my posts HAVE been edited without my knowledge or agreement - or anything showing people they have been amended

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, many of them ended up being totalitarian and diverged from the evolution discussed by Marx. The closest to Marx may well have been Trotsky while Lenin was pragmatic. Stalin decided he would have one nation communism. 
 

As by it’s definition, capitalism must at some point fail, you can not keep increasing profits for ever the question is, are we in late capitalism as many think. 
 

Ny the way Toby, can you tell me where (apart from in the right wing press) Corbin ever offered open door immigration and full benefits (not that they are worth much) as soon as you arrive? 


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...