Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Lloyds Bank credit cards


mikesmotor
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1647 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All

 

I would be intereseted in opinions on this one.

 

My wife made a CCA section 78 request some three weeks ago, we sentin the follow up letter. She has now recieved a reply stating that because the aggreement was made pior to 19th May 1985 Lloyds is not obliged to send a copy of the aggreement. I suspect its an excuse because they can't produce one but I would be interested in any comments.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike I believe that it's because they keep records fo 6 years after an account

is closed and cannot retain data for longer.

Is the account still active???

 

Just taken a look the balance of the legislation in CCA 1974 was not put into

use until 18/05/1985 and agreements pprior to that were not sbject to the

updated legislation.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the account in ''good order''?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inasmuch as we have paid regularly for at least the past five or six years then yes howver, they seem to be saying that they do not have to supply us with a copy of the aggreement but they are looking for one anyway. Are you saying that even if there is no aggreemnt in the conventional sense they can still enforce it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that as your partner has accepted liability

and has been paying the account, then yes they probably

could enforce it.

 

I take it that this no longer on her credit files??

Was the account defaulted with a large balance??

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

the question must be asked is why are you tryng for a cca anyway?

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

then if you've not got all the statements wont an SAR help?

 

oh and if its been charged off that means its been sold.

 

so you're paying who?

 

tell us the full history please

 

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

AS I see it Lloyds TSB cannot tell us when the account was openned,

they cannot provide a copy of the credit aggreement

they are using this as a ploy and the "charged off" statement is such an example

 

we are paying Lloys TSB in line with regular monthly statements.

 

I might add we have had major issues with this shower dating back to 2006

and this is when we threatend to take out a CCA section 78 request then.

 

As I said in my latest corresspondence "enough is enough".

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant see the point of a CCA if you've paid all these years

it wont make the debt go away even if they dont have one.

 

i agree there is something a miss here.

 

however without the history we cannot really comment./

 

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

This is a pre May 1985 agreement when the balance of the CCA

1974 legislation was formally admitted in to law, there's quite

a lot of confusion and argument on what should/can be requested.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they will be working on the sequence of account numbers

to arrive at this date.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread seems to be detracting from the original question. It has raised some useful information but, at the end of the day it is down to the originators to prove validity. On enidence there is too much discrepency and I feel validated in asking for a CCA s 78 request bearing in mind the origintors history in this matter. I thank all conributors for their input and I take onboard all advice however I will play the situation as it becomes apparent over the coming weeks.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

This situation has similarities to the April 2007 changes in the CCA 1974,

where agreements prior to this date were not covered by the newly enacted

sections.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I hope that somebody can clarify an issue regarding the CCA s77/78.

I have a dispute with Lloyds TSB being dealt with by Wescots.

 

They claim that the account was opened on 27th May 2002 and therefore they are not obliged to send a copy of the credit agreement.

 

Can anyone give an opinion on this not withstanding that Lloyds TSB seem to be contradicting themselves as to the dates the account was opened.

 

Regards

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the Lloyds/TSB account a credit account?

When you applied for the account, what did the application form say you were signing up for in terms of the law that applied ?

The CCA does not apply to bank accounts as such.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Westcot have made a mistake in rejecting the CCA request and you need to submit a complaint to them.

 

I think someone at Wescot thought the debt was for a bank account.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

No this was an answer received by Wescot from Lloyds TSB. An original request was made to Lloyds but they claim that this was never received. I have since furnished proof that it was received and this is by way of Lloyds trying to get out of their resposibilities.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to the £1 fee that was sent ?

Is there a way of checking whether this was cashed ?

If not, although you can evidence LTSB received the CCA request, I am not certain it takes you forward.

 

You could reaffirm that the account is in dispute while the CCA request is outstanding, confirming that you have proof that LTSB received the CCA request and failed to respond.

 

Suggest to Wescot that they act on the CCA request to remedy the dispute, as a sensible way forward.

It would be pretty stupid for Wescot not to do this.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this your wifes one from 1995 reared its head again as per your other thread last year?

 

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

Before this goes in too many directions I would just like to confirm that LTSB are incorrect in saying that they do not have to produce a true copy of the credit agreement because of the 2002 start date.

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...