Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bit unfair to come back here the day it's due to be filed.... Looks like london1971 one?  I'm not sure if they did Inc point 5, let @AndyOrch confirm it should be there before filing please A day late won't hurt Dx
    • Last month was confirmed to be the hottest-ever May on record, in terms of global average temperatures, completing an entire calendar year of month-by-month records.  The average temperature last month was 1.52C above the pre-industrial average, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service, known as C3S. The average global temperature for the 12-month period to the end of May was 1.63C (2.9F) above the pre-industrial average
    • This time you do need to reply to them with a snotty letter to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did try court. We will help this evening.  
    • Hi, I just wanted to update the post and ask some further advice  I sent the CCA and CPR request on the 14th May, to date I have had no reply to the CCA but I received a load of paperwork from the CPR request a few days ago. I need to file the defence today and from the information I have read the following seems to be what is required.  I would be grateful if some one could confirm suitability. Many thanks   Claim The claim is for the sum of £255.69 due by the Defendant under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a PayPal account with an account reference of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)  The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 15-09-21, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £0.00. The Claimant claims the sum of £255.69   Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had financial dealings with PayPal  in the past but cannot recollect the account number referred to by the Claimant. 2. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor the Claimant refers to within its particulars of claim.  3. Paragraph 3 is noted. On the 17/5/2024 I requested information related to this claim by way of a Section 77 request, which was received and signed for by the claimant on 20/5/2024. As of today, the Claimant has failed to respond to this request, and therefore remains in default of the section 77 request and therefore unable to enforce any alleged agreement until its compliance. 4. Therefore it is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and: (b) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice Pursuant to s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. Paypal (Europe) S.A.R.L is out of the juristriction of English Courts. 6. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.
    • Thanks @dx100ukI followed the advice given on here... then it went very quiet!  The company was creditfix I think then transferred to Knightsbridge (or the other way around) The scammer independent advisor was Roger Wallis-having checked his LinkedIn profile just this morning, it does look like he's still scamming vulnerable people... I know I was stupid for taking his advice, but i do wonder how many others he has done this to over a longer period of time (it came as a  massive shock to him when our IVA suddenly failed). Lowell have our current address (and phone numbers if the rejected calls over the past couple of days is anything to go by!) No point trying the SB because of the correspondence in 2019? Thanks
  • 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

bgqs v Halifax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6225 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

Okay, I issued my SAR and have recieved a list of charges (not statements) amounting to £336.00 :)

 

I was simply going to issue my Prelim letter but there is one problem. Halifax have not given me details of interest that has been charged and I want to claim contractual interest on this amount. Is this still possible ?

 

Can I apply a notional % of interest to my claim pre-court in lieu of the 8% statutory interest.

 

I have done a lot of reading on this but dont really understand the best method to take considering I have not been given information of interest deducted.

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am looking at it another way. Here are the figures:

 

If I claim Statutory Interest (When claim is filed in Small Claims), I will be entitled to 8% to be added to the claim figure.

 

Eg. £336 + £138.47 = £474.47

 

However, if I opt to apply for the contractual daily rate of 0.16p (18.9% AER) to the claim value of £338 and advise them of this in my Prelim Letter & LBA, then the figures work out to be as follows based on when the charges were deducted:

 

Eg. £336 + £484.58 = £820.58

 

I know it is questionable whether compound interest would be deemed satisfactory by a judge but if I could provide evidence of previous claims that were calculated using this method, then surely it would go in my favour.

 

???

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I best going for the contractual interest method ?? Anyone ? Sorry to push but I want to send my prelim letter tomorrow :)

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay contractual interest method being used....Total claim is:

 

I calculate that, as at today’s date, you have taken a total of £280.00. In addition, I also claim Contractual Interest (compounded) under the principle of mutuality and reciprocity in our contract and as such, enclose a summary of charges and interest with this letter for your information.

As Halifax PLC has taken unlawful charges from my account, this constitutes unauthorised borrowing – thus, the rate of Contractual Interest used is the bank’s unauthorised borrowing rate.

The standard rate of unauthorised borrowing set by Halifax PLC is 29.8% EAR (see Halifax PLC Current Interest Rates), therefore this rate is added to the above amount and will continue to accrue (at a rate of 0.20p per day) until this claim is settled. I calculate the Contractual Interest element at £778.61 (to 16th March 2007).

The total amount claimed including contractual interest is £1,058.61.

 

Let the good times roll :)

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

LBA being posted Monday 26th March 2007.

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

N1 Being Sent Sat 7th April :D

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have received an offer from Halifax in the order of £517.98. The amount of interest has been recalculated to £117.98 rather that the full amount of contractual interest claimed...

 

They have advised that if the offer is not acceptable, then they will enter their defence....are they bluffing ?

 

They have said they will refund the charges, an element of calculated interested and incurred court fees...however, this is some £660 short of my claim valued which included contractual interest...

 

Should I refuse their offer ?

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have partially accepted the offer from the Halifax and requested to have a judgement in default made for the balance.

 

However, Halifax have now entered a defence and I have received an AQ to complete...

 

Should I go for the Contractual Interest balance ??? What is the chance of Halifax defending this one ?

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have partially accepted the offer from the Halifax and requested to have a judgement in default made for the balance.

 

However, Halifax have now entered a defence and I have received an AQ to complete...

 

Should I go for the Contractual Interest balance ??? What is the chance of Halifax defending this one ?

 

I need advice on this one asap...thanks

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have recently thrown a case out (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/11164-cank-halifax-9.html#post847697)

 

This guy was in the same position as you. He had won his claim, and was going after the CI.

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I did read this thread but his claim was pre-6 years so it may have failed on the limitations alone ?

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

As sea-sidelady rightly says canks case was lost, right enough to say it was over the 6 years also and it may have been any or both that swung it but it was lost which dosent give much encouragement.

Sorry i cant say YES/NO but that choice is yours based on what you have read within the forum and i must admit there isnt much there that would make me pursue the CI especially as it is the CI alone that you are chasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-if-successes/18017-me-helifax.html have a read of this, if you are claiming CCI you should reject any offer to keep your claim intact, I see you have already accepted a partial offer and now it is really up to you if you continue for contractual alone, the link I have posted for you should help.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay decision made....I dont want to risk paying £100 for the allocation questionnaire and not being able to get the money recovered...I will tell the court that the claim is settled.

 

Thanks all...:D

Claims:

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.1) - Claim Issued 16/3/07 Await Defence to be Entered - Data Protection Act Non-Compliance - *WON

 

bgqs v Barclays (Claim No.2) - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges + s.68 Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

bgqs v Halifax - Prelim Letter Sent (Charges +C.I Interest) - 16/3/07 - *WON

 

*Paid Deposit on New House with my Winnings !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...