Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • This sites getting less and less accessible every week   Got my vaccination invite over weekend   despite living on the edge of a large town with a number of other large towns just a few miles away in various directions, and a 'university' city only 8 miles away, nearest center with any vaccines is about a 10 mile drive away in a small village. Interesting that the maps link showing you the locations for my nearest (sic) vaccination points are wrong - this is from the NHS vaccine booking site.   Once you have selected a location to see when vaccinations are available, it also wont let you go back to select another location, and if you just close the page down (without booking) and open the site again and put in your identification data, its gives you a 'you have failed to attend and will have to book both appointments again' message - despite not booking anything. - wonder if thats how they've counted 20 million vaccinations?   Checked with 3 local surgeries including my own asking why none of them are an option and two haven't had any vaccines for over a week and haven't even been able to book all their own vulnerable for a vaccine, other has vaccine but is only booking its own priority people   Makes me think the claim of 20 million vaccinated is complete and utter 'Johnson      
    • there is a difference.........   pass = IGNORE a DCA (we write on behalf of our client xxx bank etc)   SELL = the original creditors issues a default notice, then latterly sells it on..if that happens there must be something seriously WRONG with a debt of + £10K if they do...won't happen IMHO. (you will get a Notice of Assignment - stating xxx bank etc have now sold the debt to us)   TBH: the quicker you get the pro rata plan running, the quicker the OC's might issue default notices (but not sell) and the quicker those DN's reach their 6th Birthday..... when the whole debt vanishes from your credit file preventing you from moving forward again...doesn't mean the debt is not still owed, just that prospective creditors can't see the debt anymore.   ok it's a 6yrs plan as such, but if you were to be honest to yourself, things are not going improve any in the short term so it's better to take control of YOUR money now and plan well ahead rather than worrying forever.   dx          
    • Hey,   I was hoping for a bit of help with a really old Talk Talk debt and BW Legal.   The debt is from 2014. I'm not sure that it qualifies as statute barred? I haven't heard off them for years, but within the past 6 months or so, they've been sending me their standard debt collection letters and emails. I have just ignored them and I haven't formally acknowledged the debt. However, recently they've been threatening to issue court proceedings, so I thought I would like to try and get them sorted out.   Am I right in thinking that this type of debt it an unregulated debt? As in it wouldn't be covered by the Consumer Credit Act? If that is the case, is there any precedence for doing a SAR request to ask for a copy of an agreement to provide their services? I am assuming that they would rely on some sort of original agreement between myself and Talk Talk to provide services?   Would It be worth doing a DSAR instead?   I am familiar with doing SARs for consumer debt, like loans and cards, but I haven't done one for a utility debt. Would someone be able to point me in the right direction please?   Many thanks 😀
    • Particular Of claim   1. By an agreement between Lloyds Banking Group & the defendant on or around 13/05/2003 (“the agreement”) Lloyds Banking Group agreed to loan the defendant monies.   2. The defendant did not pay the instalments as they fell due. The agreement was terminated following service of a default notice.   3. The agreement was assigned to the claimant.   4. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS: 1) £8704.42 2) COSTS     Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claims 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 allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) – failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is admitted that the claimant has sent details of a current account with an unknown account number but has no connection to this this claim or alleged debt. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the details of alleged debt the claimant refers to nor have they referred to any account number within its particulars. I have therefore sought clarity from the claimant and requested further in formation which at this time they failed to comply to my request.   3. Paragraph 2 is noted. However, as above the alleged debt is still unknown and further I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.   4.Paragraph 3 is noted. As above as the debt is unknown its immaterial and I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant has failed to comply with either requests and in particular my section 77 request and provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of my request and is prevented from enforcing the agreement they wish to rely on.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   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.               1. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.   2. However, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.
    • the court should have written to you acknowledging your defence filing?   dx  
  • 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 1279 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

My neighbour found out recently that money had been syphoned out of his current account,

as the bank had linked his current account with a business account which the neighbour was not aware of.

 

Subsequently, £15k has been removed over the years by the old company director.

 

Natwest have investigated this fraudulent activity and state that they are not liable.

 

My question is this:

 

Are Natwest liable as they failed to inform the customer of the joining of the accounts?

 

Is there any avenues of complaint other than the bank and financial ombudsman which is not worth its title?

Link to post
Share on other sites

sar them first

prove them wrong

 

 

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

All accounts held by the same bank are linked to the extent that if one was 1000's overdrawn and another 1000's in credit the bank can offset.

Business accounts may have slightly diff rules.

However if an old company director is on the joint business account they can withdraw funds. It is up to the company secretary or accountant to have names removed or applied.

It is the current directors responsibility to keep the records up to date.

The bank is not liable, as they are only doing as instructed.

You could sue them civilly tho ( the old company director)

Link to post
Share on other sites

so there nothing with his signature to request the account opening?

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
so there nothing with his signature to request the account opening?

It looks like his but there is a slight mistake with it, so it has been forged. The bank just won't accept that fact.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...