Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A full-scale strike at the firm could have an impact on the global supply chains of electronics.View the full article
    • He was one of four former top executives from Sam Bankman-Fried's firms to plead guilty to charges.View the full article
    • The private submersible industry was shaken after the implosion of the OceanGate Titan sub last year.View the full article
    • further polished WS using above suggestions and also included couple of more modifications highlighted in orange are those ok to include?   Background   1.1  The Defendant received the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) on the 06th of January 2020 following the vehicle being parked at Arla Old Dairy, South Ruislip on the 05th of December 2019.   Unfair PCN   2.1  On 19th December 2023 the Defendant sent the Claimant's solicitors a CPR request.  As shown in Exhibit 1 (pages 7-13) sent by the solicitors the signage displayed in their evidence clearly shows a £60.00 parking charge notice (which will be reduced to £30 if paid within 14 days of issue).  2.2  Yet the PCN sent by the Claimant is for a £100.00 parking charge notice (reduced to £60 if paid within 30 days of issue).   2.3        The Claimant relies on signage to create a contract.  It is unlawful for the Claimant to write that the charge is £60 on their signs and then send demands for £100.    2.4        The unlawful £100 charge is also the basis for the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.  No Locus Standi  3.1  I do not believe a contract with the landowner, that is provided following the defendant’s CPR request, gives MET Parking Services a right to bring claims in their own name. Definition of “Relevant contract” from the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4,  2 [1] means a contract Including a contract arising only when the vehicle was parked on the relevant land between the driver and a person who is-   (a) the owner or occupier of the land; or   (b) Authorised, under or by virtue of arrangements made by the owner or occupier of the land, to enter into a contract with the driver requiring the payment of parking charges in respect of the parking of the vehicle on the land. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/44   For a contract to be valid, it requires a director from each company to sign and then two independent witnesses must confirm those signatures.   3.2  The Defendant requested to see such a contract in the CPR request.  The fact that no contract has been produced with the witness signatures present means the contract has not been validly executed. Therefore, there can be no contract established between MET Parking Services and the motorist. Even if “Parking in Electric Bay” could form a contract (which it cannot), it is immaterial. There is no valid contract.  Illegal Conduct – No Contract Formed   4.1 At the time of writing, the Claimant has failed to provide the following, in response to the CPR request from myself.   4.2        The legal contract between the Claimant and the landowner (which in this case is Standard Life Investments UK) to provide evidence that there is an agreement in place with landowner with the necessary authority to issue parking charge notices and to pursue payment by means of litigation.   4.3 Proof of planning permission granted for signage etc under the Town and country Planning Act 1990. Lack of planning permission is a criminal offence under this Act and no contract can be formed where criminality is involved.   4.4        I also do not believe the claimant possesses these documents.   No Keeper Liability   5.1        The defendant was not the driver at the time and date mentioned in the PCN and the claimant has not established keeper liability under schedule 4 of the PoFA 2012. In this matter, the defendant puts it to the claimant to produce strict proof as to who was driving at the time.   5.2 The claimant in their Notice To Keeper also failed to comply with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 section 9[2][f] while mentioning “the right to recover from the keeper so much of that parking charge as remains unpaid” where they did not include statement “(if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met)”.     5.3         The claimant did not mention parking period, times on the photographs are separate from the PCN and in any case are that arrival and departure times not the parking period since their times include driving to and from the parking space as a minimum and can include extra time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to pass in front.    Protection of Freedoms Act 2012   The notice must -   (a) specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;  22. In the persuasive judgement K4GF167G - Premier Park Ltd v Mr Mathur - Horsham County Court – 5 January 2024 it was on this very point that the judge dismissed this claim.  5.4  A the PCN does not comply with the Act the Defendant as keeper is not liable.  No Breach of Contract   6.1       No breach of contract occurred because the PCN and contract provided as part of the defendant’s CPR request shows different post code, PCN shows HA4 0EY while contract shows HA4 0FY. According to PCN defendant parked on HA4 0EY which does not appear to be subject to the postcode covered by the contract.  6.2         The entrance sign does not mention anything about there being other terms inside the car park so does not offer a contract which makes it only an offer to treat,  Interest  7.1  It is unreasonable for the Claimant to delay litigation for  Double Recovery   7.2  The claim is littered with made-up charges.  7.3  As noted above, the Claimant's signs state a £60 charge yet their PCN is for £100.  7.4  As well as the £100 parking charge, the Claimant seeks recovery of an additional £70.  This is simply a poor attempt to circumvent the legal costs cap at small claims.  7.5 Since 2019, many County Courts have considered claims in excess of £100 to be an abuse of process leading to them being struck out ab initio. An example, in the Caernarfon Court in VCS v Davies, case No. FTQZ4W28 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated “Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones- Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates (...) in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court v Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued, he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law it is hereby declared (…) the claim is struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.”  7.6 In Claim Nos. F0DP806M and F0DP201T, District Judge Taylor echoed earlier General Judgment or Orders of District Judge Grand, stating ''It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverabl15e under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in Parking Eye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4)) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998...''  7.7 In the persuasive case of G4QZ465V - Excel Parking Services Ltd v Wilkinson – Bradford County Court -2 July 2020 (Exhibit 4) the judge had decided that Excel had won. However, due to Excel adding on the £60 the Judge dismissed the case.  7.8        The addition of costs not previously specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.   7.9        It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).   In Conclusion   8.1        I invite the court to dismiss the claim.  Statement of Truth  I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.   
    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
  • 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 
        • 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

Claiming charges back


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1908 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

Surely the major point (which I may have missed someone else covering) is that IF the banks start charging for basic services because the penalty charges have been outlawed, then that is the final nail in the coffin for them legally. This would prove that, year on year, the banks KNOWINGLY made charges for breaches of contract WAY WAY over the actual cost incurred, i.e. not a genuine pre-estimate. Even the banks know that would start an avalanche of claims. It could go back beyond the 6-year threshold too as we could prove it was done in full knowledge (if it was being used to fund free banking).

 

I expect the banks to increase overdraft rates, reduce interest when in credit etc rather than p155ing EVERYONE off to this extent. Of course, if it started with one bank, and all the others followed suit over 5 years or so, then it would become accepted practice. Some people are so lazy they would never change their banks whatever the banks got up to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I spotted this angle too... saying that free banking is out of the window because they aren't allowed to charge these fees is tantamount to saying that they were making a profit on them; it's an admission of guilt. Personally I don't see them doing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

..and, in my opinion, one that should be addressed urgently.

 

I think I may draft a letter to my MP (and maybe suggest that others do the same), in light of the revelation that banks are going to start making charges for their 'services'.

 

Although, I'm not sure what to ask him to do about it?

 

What do you think? What about a petition to get the law changed back?

 

I totally agree with what you are saying but I think employers would strongly oppose going back to paying wages in cash as it would then, in turn cost THEM money to have the cash delivered because I think there would be a health and safety concern if they sent an employee to the bank to collect the cash (talking about large companies with big payrolls).

 

I also think there would be an increase in armed robberies, I worked for Royal Mail, I was involved in the security of the cash vehicles nationally and they have AT LEAST 5 armed robberies a WEEK (that was considered a quiet week!) Maybe I am being overly dramatic, I'm just speaking from my experience of large amounts of cash being carried.

 

I don't know what the answer is though!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the simplest solution would be for the government to set up a bank of it's own (sort of). They'd then be able to issue benefits claimants with accounts that the DSS had main control of, meaning that the state could enforce it's duty of care much more easily, helping those who really needed it (although I suppose it's a little alarming, given the possibilities if that control was mis-applied).

 

Quite frankly, I'd like it if they had regular basic accounts allowing DDs, etc to be set up, but with genuinely cost-reflecting charges and zero interest. My account's so rarely in credit that the net interest is usually about a penny.

 

Of course, being the government, such a scheme would be tendered out to the lowest bidder, rather than actually being done as a national service, meaning that the service would probably be very poor, and the whole thing would devolve into little more than legitimised tax-farming.

DPA Letter received by NatWest 11/04/2006

DPA Request expires 21/05/2006

Statements received 15/05/2006

LBA sent 15/05/2006

 

If you find me vaguely coherent, click the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the simplest solution would be for the government to set up a bank of it's own (sort of). They'd then be able to issue benefits claimants with accounts that the DSS had main control of, meaning that the state could enforce it's duty of care much more easily, helping those who really needed it (although I suppose it's a little alarming, given the possibilities if that control was mis-applied).

 

They did (in a way), the Post Office Card Account, which they're scrapping in a year or two.

 

Draw your own conclusions.

If you found this post useful, please click on the "scales" icon in the bottom left of my post and say so!

 

The opinions of this post are those of monkey_uk and do not constitute sound legal advice. I am not a lawyer.

--

 

Halifax Unlawful Bank Charges: S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) Sent 28/02/07 - CC Statement's rcv'd 18/04/07 Bank a/c statements rcv'd 19/04/07

 

 

 

First Direct Unlawful Bank Charges: Settled in Full 12/05/06 | £2235.50

Link to post
Share on other sites

I spotted this angle too... saying that free banking is out of the window because they aren't allowed to charge these fees is tantamount to saying that they were making a profit on them; it's an admission of guilt. Personally I don't see them doing it.

 

Obviously, yes.

 

But the banks could argue that as they are no longer allowed to 'recover their costs' that they have to recover that money elsewhere.

 

Thus not admitting that they were more than covering their costs.

 

We know it's a crock - but as they won't release information as to how they arrive at the figures for penalites, we can prove nothing.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

------------

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

------------

Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding benefits, etc, surely the govt could give benefits in the form of a cheque (the old giro) to be cashed at a bank(the old post office) Was that system so difficult? people had their cash and it was in their hands what they did with it. Ditto employers. Years ago I worked for social services and our salary was a co-op bank cheque which we could take to the local branch and get cash. Banks have large amounts of cash anyway so armed robberies wouldn't be an issue. The trouble is, in those days you could go to your local high street and pay your electic, gas phone and other bills in cash. All these local offices have now gone and people are penalised for paying by good old fashioned cash.

If you found this post helpful please click on the scales, top right. Thank you.

 

If you find this site helpful and if you reclaim your charges please donate by clicking the button at the top of the page

 

First Direct 1 - settled

First Direct 2 - settled

RBS 1 - claim made 8/5/6

RBS 2 - claim made 8/5/6

GE Capital - counter claim 6/5/6

Halifax - settled 31/5/6

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Lueeze

they got rid of the system to save money im sure...think of man hours in handing/sending them out...its all a [problem], I get incapacity and I opted for it to go into my bank account, for the last 8 weeks Its been paid by Giro, god knows the left arm doesn't know what the right arm is doing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks should not be allowed to take customers money directly from their accounts. If they consider that a customer owes them money then they should invoice the customer stating what the charges are for then the customer can either pay up or refuse.

This would put an end to the whole saga of these punitive charges, because the banks would be taking the customers to court instead, and have to justify these outrageous amounts.:smile:--

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

I'm a newbie, this is my first post and I will soon be posting my own claim to HSBC, Alliance & Leicester, and some loan companies.

 

I totally agree with Kraik. Half my problem has always been being charged an extra £30 taking me further into red and depleting my ability to level up and reducing my next wages.

 

If we were sent invoices it would make the whole process transparent and allow us the time to find the money needed to pay what was owed. However, one problem with this, the sheeple of this country would then see directly how much they were being fleeced. This would leave the banks exposed to protest and millions of claims.

 

Perhaps this idea is something we can write to our MPs about. Is there already something in law already that allows us to request some sort of invoice, rather than the bank just dipping into our pocket?:-o

Fearmonkee

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe one of the problems with businesses switching back to a pre-1985 way of paying employees (Giro, cheque whatever) is the BACS system.

 

I'm pretty certain that the whole taxation system is now geared up to use the BACS 'clearing house' to remove your National Insurance contributions, Tax, Student Loan repayments etc as it's much more efficient than having the Inland Revenue poring over lists of payments made via cheque, Giro etc. Plus it's much more legit, as they can be certain of exactly what each and every person in legal paid employment is being paid.

 

Can't see any massive changes in the near future myself despite the stuff being bandied about 'post-May'.

-- Hail to the thieves --

FirstDirect : £215~ - Prelim letter sent 15/05/06 - £250 offered and accepted 18/06/05 - 7% Donated to CAG.

NatWest: DPA request sent 30/05/06

NatWest CC: DPA Request sent 30/05/06

Do you have a website? Add the following code to add a link to The Consumer Action Group:

<a href="http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk"><b><font color="#FF0000" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The Consumer Action Group</font></b></a> - <font color="#FF9900" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Reclaim your rights as a consumer and reclaim your unfair bank charges! Free site with letter templates and helpful forum.</font>

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I am a (very) small employer so I can tell you what the difference is for us of making salary payments via BACS or Cash;

 

Internet payment - 30p

Direct Debit - 32p

Cheque - 58p

Standing Order - 60p

 

Cash - 70p per £100.

 

The value of the electronic methods doesn't effect the cost, so paying somebody £1600 a month (very roughly the national average) by Internet payment costs 1.9p per £100, making cash nearly 40 times more expensive!

A&L: Settled - £6,200

HFC: Settled - £800

Shell Visa: Settled - £250

Egg: Settled - £700

Mint: Settled - £1200

RBS: Settled - £850

 

The opionions in this post are guaranteed to conform to the laws of physics, but pretty much nothing else...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suggest that you join the Federation of Small Businesses (if you're not a member already) and have a look at their deal with the Co-op Bank for free business banking.

Jeep (The Wife & I)

Halifax joint a/c (£3800 charges + £40 interest on charges over 11 years) - paid in full 23/06/06

Halifax joint a/c new charges £1100 - LBA sent 02/08/06

Halifax 2nd a/c (£1500 charges + £150 interest on charges) - partial payment received 13/07/06 (no s69 interest) - AQ filed 07/08/06 - Court awarded 50% of s69 interest (Bank didn't turn up!)

Halifax Visa (#1) Data Protection Act sent - statements arrived - £350 so far

Halifax Visa (#2) Data Protection Act sent - refunded £170

DONATE - Support this site, it supported you!

Follow the route: FAQs > Template Library > Parachute Account > Bank Forums > Spreadsheet

All advice given in good faith and without prejudice or liability, to be taken at your own risk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the simplest solution would be for the government to set up a bank of it's own (sort of). They'd then be able to issue benefits claimants with accounts that the DSS had main control of, meaning that the state could enforce it's duty of care much more easily, helping those who really needed it (although I suppose it's a little alarming, given the possibilities if that control was mis-applied).

 

Could you imagine the chaos, just think tax-credits, I trust the government's ability less than the banks

If you find my post helpful please click on the scales at the top. Thank you

FAQ SECTION HERE

 

Halifax Bank Claim filed and settled

Halifax Credit Card settled

Argos Store Card settled

 

CCA requests sent to

Halifax Credit Card

LLoyds TSB Credit Card

Capital One

Moorcroft (Argos)

NDR

18/06/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, nat, that's not the problem: The problem is that the government tend to farm out all their schemes like that to the company who puts in the lowest cost bid, or who happen to be mates with one minister or another. This means that you get shoddy performance dirt cheap, because the idea of paying a reasonable amount for reasonable performance doesn't ever occur to them. It's no better than tax farming, IMO.

 

I don't know who said it, but generally speaking "those people who most desire power are usually those least suited to wield it." The only decent politician I've ever met is Lembit Opik. Still, at least he proves they're not all ****.

  • Confused 1

DPA Letter received by NatWest 11/04/2006

DPA Request expires 21/05/2006

Statements received 15/05/2006

LBA sent 15/05/2006

 

If you find me vaguely coherent, click the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Hi This is my first time posting so I hope I'm doing this right. I agree that I would not like the Government doing it as they would farm it out to the cheapest operator and it would probably be worse than now.

 

I am having problems with A&L at the moment does anyone have any experience with them?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is set in stone and each bank will be different but it looks like they will most likely either charge a monthly fee for the account or charge per direct debit and so on...

That seems unliklely to me, as any bank doing that would lose income.

 

Right now, most bank transactions are between an individual and a business; and banks charge businesses. And when a transaction goes between two different banks, the banks charge each other.

 

So, a bank that introduced charges would lose personal accounts, and with it the income that comes from transactions on those personal accounts.

 

There's a reason why banks offer free banking! It's because they make money from it.

 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you imagin if the governemtn set up their own banks???

 

They cant even do the job they are supposed to do ie runthe country, nhs, school, police etc etc

 

I used to work for them, and would love to tell a few tales but offical secrets act forbades it - doh!!!! (sound more impressive than it is)

 

I would call em muppets - but someone corrected me earlier on here for insulting muppets and thats is to true - muppets are more intelligent!!!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks are a business but they are providing a service which we the customers have to pay for. An Unlawful charge applied to your account is an act of misconduct. There are bank charge packages around for small businesses that help you identify unecessary charges to your account. Consultants will come and scrutinise your account and charge you 20% of the fees recovered. The point is the banks deliberately overcharge everyone, hoping that the vast majoority of customers dont notice.

The average account is charged circa £200 per annum in illegal fees. We are consumers and we have rights under the consumer act...use them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If all the website members ( bank charge hell/penalty charges) moved one account to a newly formed CAG bank..."The peoples bank" it could set up in competition with all the others. Set up your parachute accounts here etc etc. Instead of administering a website...you could be running an online bank guys??

Link to post
Share on other sites

me thinks these guys got their hands full just running this site without starting up a bank!!!!

Allyxia

KEEP FIGHTING FOR YOUR MONEY - EVEN WHEN IT GETS TOUGH

The Banks are somewhere which lends you an umberella when it is sunny, and takes it away when it rains

 

HSBC £1200 - Settled in Full

Cap 1 2 X £100 - Settled in Full

Nationwide £1641 - Settled in Full inc Default and CCJ Removed by Court Order

NatWest £2215.60- Settled in Full and Removed Default Natice

Woolwich £3690 - Settled in Full

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1908 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...