Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I had some contact with this company earlier in my working life but I'm afraid there's not a lot I can suggest that you haven't already done. During your grandfather's time  British Celanese was a subsidiary of Courtaulds. Courtaulds was subsequently (after your grandfather had stopped working there) acquired by Alzo Nobel. They in turn closed down the Spondon site and sold it. I have no idea what the number is that you are trying to call. It's a Derby (Spondon) area code but the number appears not to be allocated. From my slim knowledge of the history of the company I would have expected your grandfather's pension to be in the Alzo Nobel (CPS) Pension Scheme.  But Willis Tower Watson are the Pension Scheme Administrator of that scheme and would be the people who should know if your grandfather had contributed. Is your grandfather certain he contributed? Joining pension schemes wasn't compulsory in those days. Or might he have got his contributions returned when he left them? That happened sometimes back then. Sorry not to be of more help.      
    • I am sorry I am not aware of this report from IAS assessors? The Court will consider my application at a online hearing in June. The Court instructed me to send Bank copies of my sons condition proving he could not have been the driver I have heard nothing further. My son is not aware of any proceedings I have not involved him to avoid causing him distress, he has been sectioned a fair few times and I need to avoid this happening.
    • I am very pleased that the Court has taken the decision to allow you to  represent your son and hope that he is happy enough with that to relieve the stress he will also be feeling. I do agree that Bank parking are so insensitive, greedy, horrible etc etc to continue proceedings considering  in what it is a very minor case of a wrong number plate . Even their  own  IAS Assessors, who are normally hopelessly biased in favour of their members, went out on a limb and said  " The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." That is damning evidence and you must take that report with you as well as including that in your Witness Statement which we will help you with. I would expect that Bank would discontinue the case at that point.  But I am sorry to say  that you should not count on it.  
    • Evening all,   I have deliberated over this offer for two weeks and I have decided to take their offer. I do understand that some may prefer us to go to court and receive a judgement but with our personal circumstances and my current military commitment that could become an issue. I am so grateful for all the help and support you have all offered me over the last few months. I will continue to monitor this site and push all those that are being wrong to get in touch.   Thank you! what you all do is truly amazing!
    • When I first responded to the PAPLOC, and received that 29 page junk back it was accompanied with a letter saying that they had already responded to my request back on Feb 18th 2023,(I never received it). I was just clearing out some paperwork today and found a letter from Lowell, dated Feb 17th 2023, explaining that they were still waiting for the documents from PayPal, and my account was on hold  until further notice.  Does this mean they were lying and can it be used against them if this goes any further? I have now filed my defence, and have had an acknowledgement from Overdales and the court. A little threatening from Overdales , explaining that part of my defence was invalid because they have now complied with the CCA, and they were still waiting for the Default notice from PayPal.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 161 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

membership fee on cahoot cc?? help pls


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6353 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 Leah

 

I had two membership fee assessed entries on my statement, both for £4.23 in 2002.

 

I left them out.

 

Although I don't specifically remember agreeing to them, I can't be sure as it was that long ago.

 

Good Luck (Am off to watch Bank Robbery on BBC2 now)

for FAQs & Step By Step

click here

for Templates Library

click here

for Court Bundle

click here

________________

 

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Halifax C C

here

WON 121o121 'vs' Cahoot CC

here

WON 121o121 'vs' LloydsTSB (again)

here

 

________________

Link to post
Share on other sites

When cahoot first setup thier credit card you had the option to either pay interest on the balance or pay a membership fee. The membership fee assesed is just the agreed amount that cahoot charged instead of interest. With this in mind you should be putting this ammount in the credit card interest column of the spreadsheet.

 

Hope this helps.

Cahoot

Prelim sent 2nd Aug 2006 - usual "if your not happy then sod off" reply.

LBA sent 25th Aug 2006 - another "if your not happy then sod off" and an offer to refund £130, accepted as partial settlement, used to pay for MCOL

MCOL filed on 15th Sept 2006.

Acknoledged 26th Sept 2006

Defended 12th Oct 2006 in a letter to me but not to the courts

Started judgement by default on 30th Oct 2006

Barclaycard

Citibank

Halifax sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) on 09/10/06 nothing back yet

Capital one

etc..........watch out here I come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, no idea about those fees. It might me an idea to phone cahoot and ask them.

Cahoot

Prelim sent 2nd Aug 2006 - usual "if your not happy then sod off" reply.

LBA sent 25th Aug 2006 - another "if your not happy then sod off" and an offer to refund £130, accepted as partial settlement, used to pay for MCOL

MCOL filed on 15th Sept 2006.

Acknoledged 26th Sept 2006

Defended 12th Oct 2006 in a letter to me but not to the courts

Started judgement by default on 30th Oct 2006

Barclaycard

Citibank

Halifax sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) on 09/10/06 nothing back yet

Capital one

etc..........watch out here I come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...