Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In essence I am trying to win a loosing battle i take up the 33 % discount on offer me thinks
    • Whose duty?   you can use civil law to pursue the GDPR issue with the police (though, as I’ve stated: it may not do you any benefit).   The court isn’t bound by any duty under GDPR that the police may (or may not) have. I can only repeat, the duty of the magistrates regarding verdict is “is the offence proven beyond all reasonable doubt?”. They can’t, and won’t, be influenced by the GDPR issues at that stage, and you are misguided if you continue to believe that it will make a difference to their verdict.
    • the duty of the police
    • Hi Andy   The following is my WS2 in reply to their WS2, please do let me know if i need to mention/amend/add anything to it, the attachments are in my previous post #78.   Can i add my costs as this is the second hearing for it?   Also i don't know if this will help but i also have an old Capital One Credit Card which i don't use anymore, so how can i possibly have 2 Capital One Credit Cards as this claim is clearly for the Luma Credit Card....   SECOND SUPPLIMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this second Witness Statement as a supplementary to my first Witness Statement dated 22ndNovember 2019 Page 1-2 and Amended Defence dated 17thDecember 2019 page 3-4 in Exhibit xx1 in response to the claimant’s second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020.    THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT  1. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.     2. The stay was lifted by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 and the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out was dismissed.   3. My amended defence was filed and served 17thDecember 2019.    4. I received the Claimant’s Second Witness statement 21stJanuary 2020.   5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card.    6. The Claimant’s point 23 in their second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020 refers to me providing supporting evidence that my application was for a LUMA Credit Card, and that their position that it is for a Capital One Credit Card. This is for the Claimant to prove it’s a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card, when this matter was heard by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 he also questioned the Claimant’s advocate the same.   7. The Claimant’s point 24 refers to the Reconstituted Capital One Credit Card Agreement in their Exhibit JK1 pages 2-3, that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and that there is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature, then why has an electronic signature and date been applied…regarding the same question by Deputy District Judge Mitchell on the validity of the signature on this Reconstituted agreement to which the claimant’s advocate stated that it may have been an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application.    8. The Claimant’s point 25 states that they would say that the 16 digit account number in the top left hand corner on the Reconstituted Agreement is now not the account number but a ‘document number’ and that the Account number is on Page 9 of their Exhibit JK1, which is a blank page with my name and a 16 digit Account number on it. The Claimant is backtracking and clearly16 digits are Credit Card/Bank Card numbers.    9.  The Claimant’s reconstituted Agreement has failed to be a true reconstituted version and failed to provide any supporting document to confirm that this claim is for a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card.     10. The evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request.  Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.   11. For the reasons set out above I invite this court to strike out the claim and request my costs as litigant in person to be awarded.      Many thanks, Roland 
    • By severe penalty you mean ? criminal record is criminal record right ? isnt it still their duty comply with GDPR albeit Civil
  • Our picks

Don4071

Garage didn't pay road tax

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 966 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

Hi. Looking for some advice please.

 

I purchased a 2nd hand car on 14th March 2017. Once the purchase has been sorted I paid 6 mths Road Tax before I driving the vehicle.

 

At the end of May I learned that in fact despite paying the garage the road tax the vehicle was actually not taxed.

 

Obviously I immediately taxed the vehicle before driving it.

 

I have phoned the garage to ask for a refund (have receipts​) of the road tax I paid them.

 

I wonder if there is any other options available?

 

I'm concerned that I've been driving a car with no road tax which apart from invalidating my insurance had I been involved in an accident, I could have been pulled by police too with serious consequences.


NatWest

Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006

Statements rec'd 14/9/2006

Preliminary Letter sent - 27/9/06

LBA - 18/10/06

Claim with Court - 31/10/2006

Got until 14/11/06 to acknowledge.

7/11/06 Received ltr offering full settlement minus

interest + court costs

12/11/06 - Rejection sent

17/11/6006 - Natwest Acknowledged

4/12/06 - Rec'd Natwest Def (Cobbetts)

5/1206 - Rec'd partial offer (Cobbetts)

THE WOOLWICH

Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006

List of charges rec'd - 04/9/2006

Prelimary Letter sent - 06/09/2006

Response - 'fully investigating' - 11/09/2006

Claim with Court - 20/10/06

Acknowledged - 20/10/2006

Defence by 17/11/2006

AQ to be returned - 11/12/2006

Court Date - 14/02/2007

**SETTLED IN FULL**

CAPITAL ONE

**SETTLED IN FULL** 3/11/06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

send them a 7 days notice letter before action??? maybe


:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxing a car on line you should have received email notification from DVLA that the Garage completed for you...using your details?

 

Andy


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

Garage accepts they didn't do it. I just don't find it acceptable that's what they have done. Although haven't received it yet they SAY they will refund the £.


NatWest

Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006

Statements rec'd 14/9/2006

Preliminary Letter sent - 27/9/06

LBA - 18/10/06

Claim with Court - 31/10/2006

Got until 14/11/06 to acknowledge.

7/11/06 Received ltr offering full settlement minus

interest + court costs

12/11/06 - Rejection sent

17/11/6006 - Natwest Acknowledged

4/12/06 - Rec'd Natwest Def (Cobbetts)

5/1206 - Rec'd partial offer (Cobbetts)

THE WOOLWICH

Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006

List of charges rec'd - 04/9/2006

Prelimary Letter sent - 06/09/2006

Response - 'fully investigating' - 11/09/2006

Claim with Court - 20/10/06

Acknowledged - 20/10/2006

Defence by 17/11/2006

AQ to be returned - 11/12/2006

Court Date - 14/02/2007

**SETTLED IN FULL**

CAPITAL ONE

**SETTLED IN FULL** 3/11/06

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an aside, not having VEL on a vehicle does NOT invalidate insurance thumbup.gif

 

I've seen this mentioned a few times on here (not just this thread) and it's simply not true.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

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...