Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Okay so potentially it may not even get sold on? Just the default left for 6 years then gone? but if it is sold on ill get a letter from the DCA which is the notice of assignment? Sorry what is the different between a default notice and a default cal marker? yes, i may try and work arrangements out with the OCs after the breathing space but I'll see my circumstances then thank you again for all your help and patience, I really appreciate it and apologies If i am too fast or repeating myself.
    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
    • Currently - "the maximum daily price at 100p / kWh for electricity and 30p / kWh for gas – keep in mind that's a lot higher than the Ofgem Energy Price Cap, so if you can't afford prices to increase further, you're probably better off sticking with a protected tariff such as Flexible Octopus." Octopus Tracker is a product of our labs, available now to customers through our beta programme. Octopus Tracker is a beta product. Some things may not work the first time, and installations and processes may take longer than we'd like. Third party tech like In-home Displays won't always work, and on occasion data issues with smart meters can take significant time to fix or prevent things from working at all.   Copied straight from octopus   Feel free to shove it somewhere else    
    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
  • 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 
        • 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

Help!! Abbey are defending!!


sarahc2003
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

Just received Abbey's defence in relation to my claim! What they have written is quite funny really "The claimant's contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are "penalty charges" is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimants breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage duffered by the Defendant" So it actually costs the Abbey £32 in admin costs for an unpaid direct debit charge - I think not!!!

 

A quick question - I started trying to claim my charges back in November last year and in Abbey's defence they have written "The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to charges prior to 5 March 2001 by reason of Limitation act". From what I can gather they are going back 6 years from the date of when the court served them with my claim. I requested my statements back in August last year and I think I should be entitled to claim charges going back 6 years from the date I started to write the Abbey to get these charges back - I am right in thinking this or is this another of Abbeys shabby tactics in not paying back what they should.

 

As the Abbey are defending it has now been forwarded to my local court. When I received the letter from the court they had crossed out the part that says that the AQ is enclosed and it just enclosed a copy of Abbey's defence. Has anyone else had this? What happens now?

 

Sarah

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sarah,

 

These seem to be standard wordings on every defence, including the 6 year bit. It's on my defence yet my claim only starts from 2003, so it's just a regurgitated line. Your six years starts from the date of your first letter.

 

As to the bit about your AQ, sorry can't help on that one.

All advice offered here is my opinion only based on what I would do in a given situation. If you wish to act on it you do so at your own discretion

......................................................

I have no legal expertise or qualification, and give advice on the basis of my own experience and nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sadly the six years starts from when the cause of action, so you have six years from then to issue proceedings.

 

Your first letter is not 'issuing proceedings'

 

However, having said that my claim was for charges from Apr 1997 and they decided not to rely on the limitations act in anyway and settled.

 

I have just submitted my second claim against abbey with charges from 1997 and i expect them to settle these too.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

do a site seatch on Statute of Limitations, and have a good read, many claims are going back prior to 6 years because they havnt got a defence for it, any more questions, come back and ask ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I claimed charges, interest id paid plus i claimed contractual because of a small mistake i didnt get it but my next claim is submitted and who knows.

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received Abbey's defence in relation to my claim! What they have written is quite funny really "The claimant's contention that the said fees are unenforceable and/or are "penalty charges" is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendant's administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimants breach of contract and are a genuine pre-estimate of the damage duffered by the Defendant" So it actually costs the Abbey £32 in admin costs for an unpaid direct debit charge - I think not!!!

 

A quick question - I started trying to claim my charges back in November last year and in Abbey's defence they have written "The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to charges prior to 5 March 2001 by reason of Limitation act". From what I can gather they are going back 6 years from the date of when the court served them with my claim. I requested my statements back in August last year and I think I should be entitled to claim charges going back 6 years from the date I started to write the Abbey to get these charges back - I am right in thinking this or is this another of Abbeys shabby tactics in not paying back what they should.

 

As the Abbey are defending it has now been forwarded to my local court. When I received the letter from the court they had crossed out the part that says that the AQ is enclosed and it just enclosed a copy of Abbey's defence. Has anyone else had this? What happens now?

 

Sarah

 

This is exactly why it is so important that people stick to their own timescale, not the banks. Their 8 week or more "investigation" is just their way of trying to get as many charges as possible to fall off the 6 year limit (which is also starting to become more & more challenged now).

 

As for the defence, it is the standard abbey defence, and has absolutely no substance whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I go by the Abbey's date then I will have £120 knocked off my claim. Just because they have delayed in replying to me since I tried to claim back the money in November - it all seems a bit unfair to me!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sarah

 

The law isnt fair unfortunaltely. However, if you want to use the limitation act then go for it, chances are you will get the extra charges back without any great hassle.

 

The court wont strike the claimout if it comes to it.

 

HTH

 

Glenn

Kick the shAbbey Habit

 

Where were you? Next time please

 

 

Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless

Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07

Barclaycard - Settled cheque received

Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07

Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07

GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty

MBNA - Settled in Full

GE Capital (1st National) Settled

Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07

MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here

Glenn Vs MBNA

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still haven't heard from the court with regards a court date and I still haven't received an AQ. All I have receieved is a letter from Northampton (through MCOL) advising me that it has now been passed to my local court, a copy of Abbey's defence was enclosed and then the part which says about an AQ has been crossed out. Should I give my local court a call on Tuesday to see what the state of play is with regard to my claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi sarah,

 

In the last couple of weeks the courts seem to have decided to do away with AQ's in order to speed things up which is perhaps why the bit about AQ's is crossed out.

 

a phone call seems to be a reasonable idea.

All advice offered here is my opinion only based on what I would do in a given situation. If you wish to act on it you do so at your own discretion

......................................................

I have no legal expertise or qualification, and give advice on the basis of my own experience and nothing else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just phoned the court that my claim has been transferred to and they said that my case has been forwarded to the District Judges Office and I will hear within 4-6 weeks!! They will write to me and let me know what the next stage is after that. Do I start getting my court bundle ready yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...