Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Halifax and No Notice of Sums in Arrears/Default Sums - old loan.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 256 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,

I've started a complaint with Halifax in June 21 regarding lack of notice of default sums/sums in arrears provided at the correct frequency in accordance Section 86B CCA on a loan agreement.

In March 22 they came back to me with copies of notices previously provided which started in 2011. They should have been sent for the previous 5 years (yes I was in trouble with the loan for a while). This letter also mentioned that there was a "change in the administration system" which would explain a "change in format" of the notices, but this occurred in 2015 and I had not enquired about the format of the notices. I was enquiring about their existence.

I have written to them a further 16 times asking them to confirm that no notices were provided prior to 2011, but they've ignored me. Now they've written again saying the complaint is closed and no further letters will be read, stating that they've given a final answer on the case and that is the notices weren't present due to the "change in administration system" 

I've called them to get clarification on this and couldn't get through to the person that had written to me. I spoke to a colleague and he said, it's likely those particular notices had been deleted or archived and there was no culpability. 

The account is settled, but I've had 3 or 4 DSAR's on the account while it was live and at no point are these notices included. It's obvious to me they were never generated and sent. I asked the guy today if that was a possibility to which he would not comment. But he stated that they were under no obligation to hold that information due to its age. I asked why all other information prior to 2011 and from the loan inception was present, but not the notices, and he simply repeated the case is closed and that I can go FOS route within 6 months of their "final answer" which he says was dated march 22.

At no point in their March 22 letter do they say it's their final decision, and indeed, the letter starts with the words "We agree with your complaint" 

They're obviously giving me the run around and hoping I'll go away. 

has anyone got any experience with auditing historic agreements, particularly lack of NOSA/NDS? Anyone know how to get around the Halifax complaints department and escalate further? 

Any advice welcome...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Halifax and Notice of Sums in Arrears/Default Sums
  • dx100uk changed the title to Halifax and No Notice of Sums in Arrears/Default Sums - old loan.

i will gather you are trying to say because of no NOSIA between xxx and xxx date they should not have charged you interest nor levied and penalty charges, so you want some money back?

its gonna be a hard nut to crack s even if you could prove it, they will claim its outside of 6yrs, then move on to stating that its outside of the 3yrs period when you should have reasonably known you could have claimed.

how much do you think they owe you?

 

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

Hi, Yes I had a similar thing happen for an identical product and situation with a different lender. But They came to me while the loan was live and said They'd messed up due to a system error. They reduced my product by 15.5k. Appreciate I was lucky with that.

Is the 'proof' not apparent in the fact that they're not present.? in Any DSAR's and subsequent investigation by Them? Surely if there are crucial rules to stick to within a financial agreement then evidence of that should be retained and available should it ever go to litigation? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

not outside of 6yrs no sadly,

theres no remit that compels a creditor to keep all data concerning a product outside of 6yrs esp once paid off. AFAIK

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

What about if the agreement is live? The complaint was lodged while it was still live. 

And is it conceivable that all information for the dates in question IS available and has been provided in DSAR's and the only thing missing is these notices? If that's the argument, why are they not present in earlier DSAR's?

Surely that can't be accepted.... also can I demand that records are provided of the destruction/deletion of those specific notices? 

Thanks for engaging by the way, Albeit you're not filling me with hope here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

but are they not saying they have no data before 2011? and these notices relate to a period before that?

they dont have to keep the actual letters no nor produce them, just like say a default notice, they only have to hold data that they were sent. typically this info is in the comms log under their relevant codes on xxx date. xx date etc etc 

 

 

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

Their original answer on paper in March 22 said "these are the notices we've sent" with copies attached starting from 2011 and correct thereafter........ then it said "you may have noticed a change in format due to admin system change etc" which occurred in 2015 (and so at this point, is irrelevant to me)

I wrote back several times asking to confirm that no notices were sent before 2011. They've never answered that question. 

I'll note at this point as well that I hadn't actually made an accusation, I'd asked for them to demonstrate what nosia they'd sent. So no "decision" at that point was required.

It was their response which then triggered the accusation (complaint) and follow on letters. This letter was received after almost a year of writing to them and this was the first time they gave me a complaint reference number. And the letter starts with BOLD statement saying "we agree with your complaint" But then it's ambiguous because it goes on to say 

"we should have got back to you sooner and recognise we've done something wrong" "Here's a cheque for £50 for not responding. So it's like the complaint reference is to do with the late responses and not the actual core complaint of lack of Nosia

Now they've written to me stating that their answer (above) was final, and that the notices they'd sent (2011 onwards) "were the only ones they had available"  "due to a change in the administration system"

but they'd already told me previously that this occurred in 2015, and when they told me that first time, they only referenced it as me maybe noticing a change in format of the notices. Nothing to do with 'frequency' or 'lack of' notices from 2005 - 2011. 

Then verbally only (so far) on the phone today, a guy said what you've said and they had no obligation etc etc. I asked why (if they existed) they would not be present in earlier DSAR's when the account was in its mid stages - no comment. 

I checked with him what the reference number was referring to and he said "it refers to both the late response AND the Nosia complaint.

then just repeated FOS, Final decision etc etc. 

I called back again to try to reach the sender of my latest letter closing the case and I got a different guy.

I expanded a bit of the above, but also said to him that the previous guy had assured me that the complaint reference number WAS to do with Nosia, and that the letter starts with "We agree with your complaint". I asked him why the case is closed if they agree with the complaint? He agreed with me that it was ambiguous and re-opened the complaint. On the deletion of data, Surely they would all be missing if a new system had deemed them disposable.

In answer to your data question, no, they're not saying "no data prior to 2011" data is present in my DSAR's from the loan inception 2005. Just not these notices. And I also think I've checked for codes (I'm looking at a lot of different accounts) and they're not there. 

I can't believe that they could win by saying the items I'm looking for are the only thing that's ever been deleted from my records? It's pretty bare-faced right?

And also, why wouldn't they just start with that?

We don't have to hold that data so See-ya.

Why try and mix up and change the meaning of letters previously sent, or use "admin system" as an excuse? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you had complaints running. they've acked that they were lacking in not responding in a timely manner and given you a £50 cheque because of that.

thats as far as it runs.

they appear to be indicating that, due to a system change/upgrade, it caused their system not to hold your required data prior to 2011 relevant to said complaints.

they dont state if that means all data, nor is it obvious if you sent a general SAR or specifically asked for targeted data. if the latter, then .......

 

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

Yeah that's correct. Here's the correspondence below, for clarity.

They're mixing the messages to suit, and it's very clear that they didn't send out the notices as they're obligated to do. 

They've drawn attention to the admin change, but not in connection to the missing notices, (march 22 letter) then a year later advising me that the system change WAS the cause of the issue and that they'd already told me that in March 22. They're reaching. 

inbound April 23 .pdfinbound March 22 alleged final decision.pdfInbound August 23 Case closed.pdf

 

In their March 22 letter which they are now calling their final decision. You can see they've said "I've enclosed copies of all the letters we've sent you since 2011, you'll notice a change in format of these letters after November 2015 as we changed our admin system"

Then in April 23 they say "due to a change in the admin system, the letters I'd sent you are the only ones we have available"

2 different things completely. Even if I'm out on timing, or data-holding etc, can I not shine a light on the fact that they're clearly lying about this? 

Also, would you say the march 22 letter adequately serves as a final decision letter? There's no mention of a 'final' decision. Although they do tell me I can go FOS

Edited by D.J.F.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...