Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • 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

MacBoy Vs. Halifax and Hello To the Group!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5646 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

  • Replies 895
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Update - Current Account

 

Standard Stay letter rec'd today.

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yeah.. but there's not that much I can do about it, Tuttsi :(. I'm not a hardship case, so Ill just have to deal with it I guess.

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update - Current Account

 

AckoS filed @ Lambeth on 19/08 with intention to defend.

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Update - Current Account

 

Defence arrived at the weekend, with a £200 AQ fee to pay. Also included (slightly worrying), was the fast track/Multi Track leaflet - I was hoping to be able to keep it away from those. I have until 3rd Nov to file AQ.

 

Claim No: NLBXXXXX

 

IN THE LAMBETH COUNTY COURT

 

BETWEEN:

 

Mr. M. Boy

 

Claimant

 

~ and ~

 

BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC

 

(SUED AS "HALIFAX (BANK OF SCOTLAND) PLC")

 

DEFENCE

 

1. On 27th July 2007 a "Test Case" was issued in the High Court between the Office of Fair Trading and a number of banks (namely Abbey National pic, Barclays Bank pic, Clydesdale Bank pic, HBOS Plc, HSBC Bank Plc, Lloyds Bank Plc, Nationwide Building Society and The Royal Bank of Scotland Group) Plc in relation to the recovery by personal current account customers of charges paid by them to the banks.

 

2. The Defendant respectfully requests that this claim is stayed until further Order pending the final decision in the Test Case.

 

3. The Defendant intends to defend this action, and will file a full defence within 28 days of the expiration of the stay in proceedings.

 

3.1. It is intended that the full defence will also address the Claimant's claim in relation to any issue raised concerning compound interest and any aspect of the claim relating to charges applied prior to the applicable limitation period. The Defendant does not propose to address these matters at this stage until the substantive issue of the legality of the charges has been addressed as a result of the Test Case.

 

4. In the meantime, the Defendant makes no admissions to the particulars of claim, and the Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all.

 

The Defendant believes that the facts stated in this defence are true.

 

XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

 

DLA Piper UK LLP

Defendant's Solicitor

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

Sally, TUTTSI

 

Although all seems quiet, things have been buzzing along in the background with research, preparations and so forth.

 

Bank Account is stayed as you know, but Credit Card Interest Hearing (compound vs. simple) is a week tomorrow, 15th Dec.

 

Will keep everyone posted :D

 

Mac

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax surprised me by serving a Witness Statement, along with a Skeleton Argument written by a top Barrister and an intimidatory covering letter at 9am this morning by FedEx. That's ZERO working days before the trial.

 

Am working on responses and getting my bundle together, although I am going to first try and nail them for breaching the Judges orders that they must have their documents in by 1st December.

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do these banks get away with doing as they please and flaunting the Legal system. Especcially when they know they are up against a lay person they think they can just do as they please.

 

I expect it means that they are also late with getting the papers to the court for the Judge to have looked at it in advance of the hearing. So don't think the Judge will be too impressed. I think they have tried it on with the hope that you will back down before the hearing.

 

Looking forward to hearing that you get the result that you want.

 

All the best

 

Tuttsi xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update

 

Case has been adjourned for a period of "2-3 months" for a Directions Hearing in relation to the current Test Case for Bank Account cases.

 

DJ said that he had 'concerns about this case at either end', saying that on the one hand he felt that the only way he thought my claim could go forward was as 'a contractual claim'; and that the establishment or otherwise of this had a dependency on the full outcome of the test cases.

 

He said that on the other hand, The County Court was a 'creature of statute' and was not convinced it could actually award compound interest - even though he was 'fascinated' with the case itself.

 

He said that although he accepts that the test cases relate to current accounts, that the fates of the two are 'intrinsically linked'. He also stated that, according to a conversation he had recently with the DCJ, a number of CC cases are being stayed along with bank account cases and that he felt this was the right thing to be doing.

 

'I can only say that had this case not come before a Deputy at the last hearing, it would not be here in its present form this afternoon', he declared, clarifying that this was not in relation to the case's merits but from a case management standpoint.

 

He was complimentary about the way I had presented my case and quite scathing about the Defendant's reasoning as to why they thought I couldn't go ahead using Sempra.

 

In fact he all but said they were wrong and I was right!

 

However, the Defence Barrister continued to argue strongly that the trial should go ahead today. By this time, I was clear that tactically I had to play on the Judge's uncertainty and fall into line with him; because I felt sure that his nervousness about the County Court re. compound interest, could lead to problems for me.

 

So, when he came to ask me what I thought, I agreed with him. The other side looked a bit disappointed but I was happy - the last thing I wanted was to end up in the High Court.

 

I know some may find his puzzling - but I think I got the best outcome I could hope to come away with today.

 

Directions to follow, costs reserved (the Barrister was barking like mad for costs, trying to intimidate me LOL).

 

I'll summarise the order here when I get it.

 

Mac ;)

  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't, and I didn't play on it Tuttsi - although the barrister asked me beforehand if I was planning to. I definitely considered it -but once aware of the DJs other concerns with the case decided to pick my battles. ;)

Edited by MacBoy
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a resolution and payout.

 

But a fair result of sorts.

 

At least you now have 2-3 months or more to prepare for any further hearings and know what kind of defence to expect. They're unlikely to be able to throw any last minute surprises upon you for next time... at the last minute as usual.

 

Also encouraging that DJ saw merit in the use of Sempra case.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you receive an offer quite soon.

 

PM

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya MacBoy

 

im impressed too, wow what a fab learning curve thread

 

am subbing so i can keep tabs on this as im going to soon get my upto date claim into halifax

 

a little breathing space now

 

more time for you, but great the judge was impressed with your work effort

 

and you did well not to get intimidated by other side barrister, and to think they have had all their training and legal info and yet it still didnt quite go their way today, so folks its down to the preparation of the case, the points you can battle and choosing the right battles to fight,

 

all tips for me in the future

 

take care all

 

laters angel x

Im happy to help with support and my own thoughts, but if I offer any thoughts to your problems please take it as from my life experience only and not of any legal standing. Always take further advice from the legal experts in your final action.:)

 

my new motto is,,,",Taking back control of your life and home - such peace is priceless"

 

This is all due to truecall device , have a serious peek at this you will be thankful like I am x laters angel :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback guys. Yes Angel, you are correct it is all about prep. I'd also add, for those going for compound interest, reading your case law and understanding it; not just being able to parrot it.

 

Photoman - the interesting thing (and in my view a strong indication that the banks are running scared on compound interest and Sempra) is that for this trial, they hired a very highly-rated (Legal 500) Banking Barrister from probably the pre-eminent Chambers for complex banking cases, Fountain Court. These guys don't come cheap. They are definitely worried.

 

Someone is going to break through soon.

Edited by MacBoy
  • 04/04/07 - £104 exit fee refund - Portman BS
  • Halifax Current a/c 20yr (closed) - in progress - all 20 years statements recovered!
  • Halifax Platinum Card 15 yr - Court Action Commenced - all 15 years statements recovered!
  • A&L Current a/c - You're next..

Write to your MP and

COMPLAIN about the ANTI-CONSUMER way in which the OFT Test Case is being handled!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...