Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok just an update sent my DQ recorded delivery, received by court 18/07/24, nothing yet showing on mcol. Deadline is Monday 22/07/24. Hopefully shows on before
    • So, the two child benefit cap is going to (rightly or wrongly) be a big issue, with the care of kids undoubtedly taking second place to political point scoring  ... Some think that parents should be responsible for kids, and the state pay as little as possible else the parents will just use having kids (which they then neglect) as a means of income for them to spend on fags and booze. Some think that benefits should be effectively there for anyone whatever the circumstances.   So what do people think might be some sort of solution?   I think that both those stances are extremes,  and you can be sure of just a few things 1. Neither or any approach fits all affected. There are some who will abuse the system, just as there are some left in genuine desperate need. 2. None of its the kids fault, and how they are treated will have a large impact on our nations future.   So, despite the claims of 'it means only rich people can have kids' which is rubbish, I think the cap should stay. ... BUT that free school meals should be introduced for all state school kids:   Which would * ensure our nations children kids get fed at least one meal a day with the funds intended for that * be a significant incentive to go to school for the poorer kids at least - keeping many off the streets and away from bad company * almost certainly reduce problems and increase productivity in the classroom from irritable hungry kids (per stats)   Not a perfect solution by any means - but seems a positive move to me.    
    • and more positive change From next year, mobile phone, paid television and broadband companies must inform customers of any price rises at the point of sale. The changes, ordered by Ofcom, will come into force on 17 January and mean that any mid-contract price rises must be given “in pounds and pence” and in a “clear and comprehensible” way.   Taken a change of government to do it after years of bluster about it eh?   Mobile phone companies banned from hiking prices mid-contract based on inflation WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK The new year plan ensures providers are transparent on prices at the point of sale  
    • Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? It depends which country, I imagine. Most UK banks want proof of address and ID, probably more. If your friend/partner can use the house address and provide bills that could help. You would need to look at various online banks and see what their requirements are. Or there are expat accounts but I haven't looked closely at how they work. Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage) I'd have thought the DWP would pay to a new account, as long as the person they're authorised to deal with asks them and provides details. The international pensions people in Newcastle are pretty helpful.
    • HB - he has certainly given me a challenge ! I set a plan in motion. A refinance plan that would have enabled me to take time to sell one asset and sort out another for him.   The bank account blockage has hindered the plan.  His partner seems to think I can do everything w/o paying anyone for anything.  I don't mind helping - but it's not normal to clear out 2 properties, organize storage or sale of possessions, get properties ready for sale/ rent - w/o being paid.  He has the money to pay for things and services - and for my help - but the blockage prevents that. If the refinance plan could still be actioned then at least I would have some time to sell one asset.  Could he/ his partner set up a new internet bank account?  In his name ? Could I then get his pension diverted to that new account?  That would at least cover some costs  ( ie epc/ storage)
  • 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
      • 162 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

rob2010 v halifax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6395 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 started my claim last year december i sent my first letter off to my local branch requesting they pay me nearly £13,000.00 this includes the year 2000 gote letter back of bank manager saying he has past it on to his customer relations dep. I had letter of them this week offering just under £5,000.00. So the next day i rang them saying that it was not good innuff she put me on hold and came back and said the highest they can go is just over £6,600 i turned it down i dont know if i have done the right thing . Sent last letter off yesterday by recorded delivery asking for my money with intrest whitch takes it up to around £16,000.00 but i would settle for £12,000.00 i have cheqed royal mail web site today they have received letter today . Fingers crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt they will settle for £12k until you file at court. But why would you settle for less than the full amount?

HSBC

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3078

24th October - LBA

7th November - Claim filed

11th November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Defence filed

16th December 2006 - Offered full amount but no default removal. Rejection letter sent.

 

Halifax

7th October 2006 - Prelim for £3427

24th October - LBA

3rd November - Offered £913

3rd November - Accepted as partial payment

7th November - Claim issued

21st November - Acknowledged with intent to defend

11th December - Offered full amount but no late payment removal

4th January - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

 

A & L

19th October - Prelim for £540

26th October - Offered £358

2nd November - Accepted as partial payment and LBA

27th November - SETTLED + removed adverse credit info

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest bluecloud

You can claim back at least 6 years from the date you became aware of the ability to claim. So if you contacted the bank in December 2006 then you can claim from December 2000.

 

There are some people that are attempting to claim back for more than 6 years.

 

The 6 years is due to the Limitations Act. There are a couple of points within the Limitations Act that may allow you to claim more than 6 years but I'm not sure how successful people have been (more reading is required).

 

If I was making a claim this large I would only go back 6 years as I would be concentrating on reclaiming what is "easier" to get back, however it is your claim and therefore your decision.

 

Please be aware though that you will have to pay quite a large Court fee for a claim of £13,000 and could, if ruled against, be liable for the costs incurred be the bank - I don't want to frighten you, just make sure that you're not going in completely blind.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...