Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just an update on Celticheart37 versus Barclaycard.   On the claim for my late Husband's PPI, Barclaycard have responded saying they have been unable to locate a PPI Policy . They say he held his card since 1979 ( not the late 1980's as I had believed) which means that PPI did not exist and that is fair enough. I accept that PPI did not exist in 1979 so couldn't have been included. So that is the end of that one.They could have told me that at the beginning rather than let me search for proof that would not exist , but never mind.   On my own Barclaycard claim for which they have offered me a refund  "based on averages", I have sent a SAR requesting my statements back to 1993 when the account opened,so hello 12345 I will post an update when I get a response and let you know how far back  they were able to go !   Celticheart37
    • ok looks like that's what you need to do. but keep it bare bones for now as post 5  
    • stuff and all if there no signed agreement in the return   dx  
    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and 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.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. 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 crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
  • Our picks

tommy456

DWP do not consider Extended Period of Sickness applicable for clients claiming JSA after DWP deems them ‘fit for work’

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1002 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

This is questionable,

Some work coaches are saying the above whilst others claim they can use their own discretion ,

really that isn't what the DWP's official guidance says about EPS

 

As someone who is very sceptical of the establishment & DWP

 

Sounds like someone was in la la land or stoned maybe,

or is there something more sinister at foot ,

 

 

why do this , to cause confusion for fun ?

or are they testing the waters, to see how much opposition they meet, before they scrap eps , ?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470857/v4am47.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds, fundamentally, like the advisers don't know how to apply the guidance. That does happen - I remember having a few heated debates with colleagues when I wanted to award a Job Grant (back when such a thing existed) to an ESA claimant who was in the Assessment Phase pending appeal and there were folk claiming that that status didn't count towards the 26 week requirement for the JG. I was right and the people I was arguing with were wrong - my persistence got a few people their Job Grants. The point is that bad information can spread like wildfire everywhere, especially when the guidance is unclear.

 

EPS has had unintended consequences - it was intended to discourage people from claiming ESA, but it seems that now it's being used mainly by folks who've failed their ESA WCA and have to claim JSA while waiting for Mandatory Reconsideration. Dunno how this will pan out.


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

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It sounds, fundamentally, like the advisers don't know how to apply the guidance. That does happen - I remember having a few heated debates with colleagues when I wanted to award a Job Grant (back when such a thing existed) to an ESA claimant who was in the Assessment Phase pending appeal and there were folk claiming that that status didn't count towards the 26 week requirement for the JG. I was right and the people I was arguing with were wrong - my persistence got a few people their Job Grants. The point is that bad information can spread like wildfire everywhere, especially when the guidance is unclear.

 

EPS has had unintended consequences - it was intended to discourage people from claiming ESA, but it seems that now it's being used mainly by folks who've failed their ESA WCA and have to claim JSA while waiting for Mandatory Reconsideration. Dunno how this will pan out.

 

Well i don't think they can realistically expect those who have failed the Not fit for purpose & unfair WCA to do anything other than claim EPS when there is no time limits on the pointless MR being processed to be fair ,

 

When the MR was first introduced there was a good percentage of claimants who had failed the WCA then went on to have that decision revised@ MR and placed into one of the 2 esa groups, the most recent stats suggest that percentage is now under 10% so more cases are going to tribunal

And this, in turn, doesn't help the DWP deal with MR's faster , in some areas the speed that they send out ESA50's is adding to that backlog, my current and past esa claim they have sent the esa50 within the first 4-5 weeks , all to keep to the target of 12-13 weeks ,

 

I can recall the time when they used to pay i think upto 4 weeks JSA and housing benefit if you had been ue for a long time and found a job, this was great if you had to work a month in hand , they also used to do grants for work clothing such as saftey boots gloves and hi vis ect that was when they did help you into work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...