Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant just change their mind as to what condition was breached, it has to be given on the screen ticket ad the NTK and match one of the conditions on the signage at the time.   If I employed you to cut my grass and you did a rubbish job of that and I decided to sue you for not watering the flowers I cant suddenly change my mind when I realise that is a loser and say that you didnt cut it in a nice stripy pattern when there was no such mention of that condition in the agreement.   GOGW is admissible to show that thier client doesnt really have a contractual claim for the sum at all. they will say they are being generous but the truth is they are abusing the courts to try and coerce you into paying money that isnt actually owed and they know it. half of what they ask for is unlawful under the terms of the POFA but they do like to try it on as it mitigates their costs of the actions they lose
    • so just follow the advice given in the other threads and if they are stupid enough to threaten court action you respond to that but nothing before that.   The barriers might have been removed due to a loack of planning permission so chack with the council. If they know nothing about any of it then enquiries to the land agnets/management co would be in order.
    • "Dear Simple simon" as Simon Renshaw Smith owns the company   drop the reference to your lawyer. if you had one he would be writing this letter dont ask for an explanation,  it only repeats what you say 2 lines later anyway
    • you ignore this begging letter. Also yu check with the council about planning permission, if you cnat find it on the planning portal you ask the council planning dept about any applicatiosn for that address. You cnat assume things but you can state that you do not belive they have the necessary contracts/permissions/consents because they have failed to provide them when requested under CPR 31.14 now there is a thing called Standard Disclosure for all civil proceedings (CPR 31.6) so they cant wriggle out of it so easily as that includes anything that adversely affects their case so if they wont produce their contract with the LL then you can say that you believe they have failed to do so because it aversely affects their case. they are then caught by the "when did you stop beating your wife" impossibility.   make sure that you have all documents you need to avoid them throwing it back at you but generally there wont be an equivalent if you arent the driver!  
    • Here is the section which applies. Internal VAT Guidance. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/vat-business-non-business/vbnb41720 The Sheriff’s Officer organises the activities of the bailiffs and, where necessary, the sale of the debtor’s goods. In some areas, they are a salaried employee of the Under-Sheriff. In others they are a self-employed sole proprietor or partner working either full- time as a Sheriff’s Officer or part-time as a Sheriff’s Officer with other business activities such as an auctioneer. If they are not an employee their services are taxable. The position of bailiffs is similar to this. The other people involved in High Court debt recovery work, for example locksmiths, auctioneers or removal men are also regarded as making taxable supplies in the course of their businesses. (b) Nature and value of supply The total fees and allowable expenses payable in respect of services provided by the different people involved are set out in the relevant Sheriff’s Fees Order. The value for VAT purposes is the amount each person gets as their share of the statutory fee and any expenses charged. The full amount charged, including tax, is recoverable from the debtor.
  • Our picks

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

Not sure if  I am posting this in the correct sub forum or not...

 

I have recently been working as a sub contractor. On Friday the home owner told me that they recently discovered that the main contractor was recently released from prison for ripping subbies and customers off. I googled his name and discovered that, yes it is it true that he want sentenced to 38 months.

 

I have been receiving trickle payments but I now realise how much I am owned. At no point have I really known who is paying me. I can see the truncated name of the account holder on my banking app.

 

Today i rang my bank to find the full name of the firm that has been paying me. Unfortunately they could only see the same truncated name on their system, They gave me the sort code and account number and recommended that I phone the bank that the account is held with. I rang that bank. They told me that they were not legally allowed to divulge the full name of the firm unless I submit a written "audit request" and that the said audit request will only be considered if the company in question agrees. 

 

The bank claims that the data protection act prevents them from divulging any information about the firm (including the trading name of the firm). I was under the impression that the DPA only applies to individuals and not companies.

 

Personally I don't want to believe that he is going to rip me off. I like him but if I am being paid by a firm that doesn't actually exist I would rather know sooner than later. He has previously told me that he works for ABC123, the truncated name that appears on my banking app is ABC45 and not the ABC123a

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed the Information Comissioner's Office for clarification.

I explained the above and asked them if the DPA applies to firms.

 

To my surprise,  they phoned me today.

Lloyd bank's policy of refusing to release information about corporate (ie business accounts) is incorrect.

 

The fellow at the ICO told me I am legally entitled to ask my own bank to insist that Lloyds provide them with the info that I want.

 

I cannot remember the name of the protocol but when i phoned my bank and explained that I had spoken to the ICO, my bank's operative spoke to a superior and confirmed that they would now start the ball rolling.dd 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GDPR ??

good news there


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2019 at 23:09, dx100uk said:

GDPR ??

good news there

 

Thanks dx100uk.

 

Not sure that I completely understand your reply, that said, thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

I did follow your link to the GDPR thread and Subject Access Requests. I can't remember if that was the term that the ICO used. 

 

I am not sure that it would have been a SAR, my bank didn't insist that I apply in writing and ultimately it wasn't my bank that was being obtuse.

 

Then again, it may well be the case that the guy at the ICO did indeed use the term Subject Access Request. As I said,  I got a call from a 0300 number and decided to answer it, half in the expectation of it being a spam call.

 

So is SAR a direct consequence of GDPR? If yes, it is ironic that I am using to circumnavigate Lloyd banks flawed interpretation of the Data Protection Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...