Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Served on 16 Feb.   On reviewing the MCOL website today for an updated, I noticed that 1) Hermes has aknowledged the claim, but not yet filed a defence, and 2) that I there was a glitch / error on the form. Essentially, it looks like I had accidentally left the "I will send detailed particulars of claim" box ticke (I thought I had unticked it), with the result that the claim section has been truncated, and some extra text has automatcially been added - in red below):   "...Claimant seeks £XXX, plus I will provide the defendant with separate detailed particulars within 14 days after service of the claim form. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of..."   This is obviously not ideal. Is it better to try to amend the claim somehow, or to just submit a brief POC that a) clarifies that I am seeking £XXX plus costs (which was automatically truncated), and b) sets out my calculation of the £XXX?  
    • Hi   It amazes me how they pass the buck as they don't want to deal with a private homeowner but if the shoe was on the other foot they would be hammering down on you for breach of tenancy.   As this is council housing you need to make a Formal Complaint in writing to the Council Housing about this (as a social housing landlord they have a complaints process they have to follow). you need to exhaust their complaints process. Make sure and title your letter Formal Complaint.   From what you have posted this tree is not just a nuisance but also a Health & Safety risk:   1. The tree being overgrown is now a danger to the occupants/Guest/Visitors to your property   2. The tree has overgrown into the Council Housings Boundaries your property causing damage/endangerment to the occupants/guest/visitors.   3. As the roots of the tree are also overgrown into your property you have concerns that these may be causing/damaging to any underground pipework that may be within the boundray of the property.   4. So far the Councils actions have been to treat their Council Housing tenant as a third class citizen with a private homeowner aloud to cause endangerment/possible damage due to these overgrown trees which are encroaching on your council house property/bounderies.   You also require clarification why you were sent the Healthy Neighbourhood Information which states I have to pay £375 to make a complaint. (make sure and attach a copy of the response that states this cost)   You also require copies of the following:   1. Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Customer Service Standard (not the leaflet) 3. Health & Safety Policy (not the leaflet) 4. Public Liability Insurance Policy. (not the leaflet) 5. Clarification from you if their is any underground pipeworks running through the bounderies within the garden area (you should have full knowledge of this it being your property/plans) 6. Compensation Policy (not the leaaflet) 7. Equality & Diversity Policy (not the leaflet)   When you get the above policies sit with a pen/pencil/highlighter and take you time reading them and just think to yourself 'DID THEY DO THAT' if not mark it then leave it for a while then do the same again this way you can basically throw/write back stating the haven't followed x policy with which part of that policy and your reason. (you are building evidence to use against them using their own policies. I would also like to refer you to The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/57/part/I/crossheading/dangerous-trees-and-excavations     You need to remember yes it is the Council but the Council Housing is a separate entity and is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL)   Is the Council Housing classed as a registered Charity? (what is their registration number whether charity or RSL?)   Also have a wee look at this CAG link:     
    • @rocky_sharma   Fame at last!!   Dunno how much help it would be in your case, but I could try digging out the txt of my defence if you think it might be relevant to your defence. We might hafta do this via PM, then e-mail though if ya wanna go down that route.   Good luck with yours anyway mate.
    • The car finance firm, owned by Provident Financial, voluntarily handed the money to all 5,933 customers potentially affected by the breaches, which occurred between April 1, 2014 and October 4, 2017. It was also fined £2.77m by the Financial Conduct Authority for the way it behaved. The FCA said Moneybarn's actions meant more than 1,400 customers, many of whom were vulnerable, defaulted on their loans after entering into 'unsustainable short-term repayment plans'. This meant that they were punished with extra fees and charges, which many could not afford. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/markets/article-8013573/Moneybarn-pays-30m-customers-failing-treat-fairly.html   dx  
  • Our picks

smallclaimshero

Section 75 Consumer Credit Act 1974

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 572 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

When you use Booking.com there is an intermediary between you and the provider of services (in this case a hotel) Are any users aware of a bank making a compensation payment to a customer for a substandard hotel under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, where Booking.com or other similar operators were involved?

 

As many of you will know, credit card companies are frequently claiming that there isn't a direct contractual link when there is an intermediary, but I'm looking for precedents for either settling such cases in the consumer's favour, or better still a judgment at court

 

. I have a Small Claims case coming up against a bank which denied my section 75 claim on this ground, and intend to test it in court.

I’m an experienced CAB-trained volunteer who has had lots of wins over various companies in the Small Claims Court.

 

Thank you.

Edited by dx100uk
font

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Thank you for this. They are interesting reports, and the second link does indeed bear on my case. The point is that my bank agrees that we were ripped off, but refuses to pay under section 75 because it thinks there is a break in the contract chain: Us --> Booking.com --> hotel in Vietnam. However, I think they have overlooked that Booking.com is not a travel agent - all payments are charged directly by the ultimate vendor to the customer, so the booking site is not an intermediary for payment, only for choice/confirmation. Do you agree with my thoughts on this?

 

 

Many thanks

Nick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possibly but they will always look for a get out option first before they have to acquiesce :wink:


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...