Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good points, TJ. I still think there are holes in the story.   OH [tennis fan] thinks Djokovic could have problems getting into the States for the US open if he doesn't get vaxxed.
    • There is little point asking questions if, when given a direction such as that by FTMDave above, you decide that instead of reading a thread from post #39, you read from #63 and think that it will give you answers.   This Forum is self help, so it is incumbent on you to do just that .
    • “The following has now been clarified as a category for which you may be eligible for a temporary medical exemption: Recent PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (after 31 July 2021) where a vaccination can be deferred until six months after the infection,” TA said in a letter to players and their teams.   The same document also made it clear that any applications for a medical exemption needed to be sent “no later than Friday 10 December 2021” — six days before Djokovic tested positive — meaning a positive Covid test would have come too late for TA’s exemption guidelines. Djokovic missed exemption cut-off by six days   Let alone that he quite clearly seemed to juggle the actual date of knowledge of his alleged infection to allow him to masklessly mix with youngsters and others     Anyway all other issues aside, lets ask the first question first: He applied for his visa without  required exemptions at the time, and without any intention whatsoever of being vaccinatated (not that he had time) - why? and how did he think he was going to be allowed access?   Notes: * I don't know, but Its probably a simple tick box of 'do you meet requirements and can you supply evidence' on the original application * There was clearly some issues with this known as the Aus tennis association said they had confirmed a prior infection (within stated limits/requirements) could or did allow an exemption (technicality - also included statement that infection exemption meant vaccination could be deferred form 6 months - not refused)    
    • Indeed I thought the court case concentrated more on technicalities and possible flaws in the reasoning rather than whether Djokovic met the conditions. Maybe not a legal reason, but he doesn't seem to worry about keeping to the rules about self-isolating and seems to have been economical with the truth over travel in the two weeks before the tournament.   As you say, there are doubts about the test and someone has also asked what he planned to do in the event he didn't manage to test positive a couple of weeks before he travelled.
    • There is a confusion of terminology here. When it comes to documents granting tenancies they are either described as "tenancy agreements" or "leases". However, though the former is generally used to describe an instrument granting a tenancy for three years or less and the latter to describe an instrument made by deed granting a tenancy for more than three years, they are not "terms of art", that is words or phrases with set meanings. The word "lease", though perhaps primarily used to refer to a document. also refers to an interest in land so that "lease" and "tenancy" mean the same thing, that is a leasehold interest.   Any purported grant of a tenancy for a term exceeding three years is void as provided by section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925:   All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.   By way of clarification:   Section 205(1)(ii) says:   “Conveyance” includes a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance of property or of an interest therein by any instrument, except a will   Section 52(2) says:   This section does not apply to [...] leases or tenancies or other assurances not required by law to be made in writing   That is clarified by section 54(2) which says:   Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall affect the creation by parol of leases taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years (whether or not the lessee is given power to extend the term) at the best rent which can be reasonably obtained without taking a fine   (For your information I post as Lawcruncher on LLZ)  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

can they do that ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5528 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

I have an overdraft facility which i am reducing on a monthly basis as part of a manage down agreement.


I recently spoke with somebody in the debt management department and i told them i would be claiming back my charges which are over £5,000. I was told that when an account is in dispute the account is frozen.


as a result of this i did not make a payment.


On friday i got a letter from abbey saying i had broken the agreement and i must pay back the full overdraft over the next couple of months otherwise it will go to a recovery agency.


I took this to the complaints and they told me they would look at my charges and overdraft and call me back.


I got a phone call this morning telling me they have refunded £700.00 towards my overdraft which leaves about 200 outstanding.


I'm a little confused, they did not make me an offer ( not that i was expecting one) they just went ahead and reduced my overdraft and told me they had done it as a gesture of goodwill.


and also does this affect any claim i make through the courts. I have just received my last 6 years statements and am about to file in the courts.


I am worried that in court they will say i accepted an offer of £700.00. Abbey did not offer this they just told me that is what they had done.


Thanks any advice hugely appreciated !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you need to write to them formally telling them the account balance is in dispute due to the charges and confirm your intentions with respect to the outstanding balance ie whether your going to pay or not.


Personally i wouldn't pay anything whilst the dispute is ongoing but then i don't have to worry about my credit rating.


I would expect now they wont enter into a new arrangement in an effort to force you to withdraw your claim. It may be worth sending them the payment you missed plus reinstating the payments if you can afford it and are worried about your credit file.


In theory they shouldn't default you whilst the account is in dispute but they don't seem to take any notice of their banking code.


I think you have some choices and depending on your circumstances will depend on whats best for you.


I'm sure others have their views which may differ from mine.





Kick the shAbbey Habit


Where were you? Next time please



Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same problem as you, story of left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Get back to the debt management department and demand that the charges and interest are stopped until the dispute is resolved. HTH.


Regards bish.

Abbey : £8070.41*PAID IN FULL*14/02/07:D

Capital one : LBA sent 17/09/06 £1,087.22

Marbles : LBA sent 17/09/06 £720.00 ; £720 offer accepted:D

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...