Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   I have a conference call with the solicitor on Friday and will raise the issue of quantum then   UU were advised in December of last year that our plans were to employ a specialist to look at the land and produce a report and we invited their comments. Our last correspondence via our 'employed' solicitors was back in January and UU issued a final letter saying that they were happy that there was no contamination based on the fibre reports that had been issued and they did not take responsibility for any delays that were being caused.  Our solicitor at that time followed that letter up quetsionning how there could be no contamination based on the fact that asbestos cement had been found lying on the land but UU did not respond to her even after she chased it.  They went on 'radio silence' and there has been no direct discussion since with UU.  At that time she advised that we proceed through our legal expenses cover as they were not responding to her letters and she anticipated escalating costs based on their refusal to reply.   We have not had a survey carried out as our Solicitors are relying on Environmental Health to produce this as mentioned earlier.   I have involved our MP in the matter and he got the HSE involved again but their position was that the matter had been dealt with by the contractors regarding the breaches and they described it as a one off incident so closed their file.   There were a number of disciplinary actions taken within the teams and new procedures were implemented.   He also contacted UU with our concerns and they replied with an almost carbon copy of the final letter sent to ourselves back in January.  They claim that they are acting within the Waste Framework Directive in that a decommissioned pipe may remain in 'situ', however, as the pipe was substantially damaged this does not apply but this is what they are sticking to.  Our MP has offered his assistance moving forward should we need it but we haven't asked for his involvement any further at the present time.   We are in Cumbria and although my husband and I have discussed it we have not contacted the press although we do openly talk about it to anyone who wants to listen.   At the present time we are not looking to speak to the press but if we decide to do so I have numerous videos and photographs of all the works and also a recorded conversation with the SHEQ manager of the contractors who openly admits that there were breaches.   Thanks  
    • I couldn't send it through paypal as they say -    Donations to this recipient aren't supported in this country
    • Exactly, I hope that I can witness its closing down in the future years.  I just sent through a donation. It is not much, but I hope you won't mind 😛
    • I received the Notice Of Discontinuance this morning from E Shoreman-Lawson for Elms Legal, on behalf of VCS. Thanks again for all assistance and encouragement. There is no doubt that this site is providing a service to the underdog and I will certainly be making a donation. I will also upload anything from my exhibits that may be useful for others, in particular the DVLA audit of compliance in which VCS do not fare well. Although yesterday was a bit of an anti climax, today I am taking comfort from the fact that at least this case has cost VCS money.
    • In any case let's be optimistic for a minute and say "prove I'm the driver" is a good defence point.  The problem is that if the judge doesn't agree you immediately lose the case.  "Prove I'm the driver" needs to be one of several points.   1.  Locus standi.  NCP are not the landowner.  You do not believe they have the right to bring this claim.  You requested to see a contract with the landowner giving them such a right by way of a CPR request and their solicitors refused to do so.  Exhibit BW Legal's letter.   2.  Suing the wrong person.  Your "prove I'm the driver" point.  (Obviously this will have to go if you admitted being the driver to NCP).   3.  Insufficient signage.  Tiny print.  What LFI wrote in post 29.   4.  Planning permission.  You do not believe their signs have planning permission which is a criminal offence.  You requested to see such permission from their solicitors but the solicitors refused to do so.  (Have a look at the WS in post 123 of EL21's thread  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430570-vcs-2vanishing-windscreen-pcns-now-claimform-brook-retail-car-park-ruislip/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-5130039  You can adapt point 41 of this WS).   5.  De minimis.  The incident happened four years so you are unsure what happened.  It's possible you paid but you input your registration number wrongly.  You put NCP to strict proof you didn't pay.  Paying but getting a single digit of the registration number wrong is de minimis.   6.  Unreasonable conditions.  In any case NCP deliberately make it difficult to pay so they can issue PCNs.  No cash.  Card payment which often doesn't work and they do nothing to fix.   7.  Unicorn Food Tax.  (You can use nigh-on verbatim points 45-53 of EL21's WS).   As dx says, you're a Litigant in Person so you don't have to write in legalese.  When you have time, post up a first draft and we'll take it from there.    And please answer about how NCP suddenly started to write to you personally.
  • Our picks

Citi Card any advice which option to go for ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5313 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

I see from the postings in this section citi go all the way (cos of inhouse solicitors)! But do come a cropper when judge ask's for full disclosure ;-)

 

I was interested in which options you would advise someone just starting with Citi. I have successfully got Lloyds to settle via small claims so do know how the process works.

 

1. I have all statements to hand. Is there any pitfulls with citi re claiming contractual interest via the spreadsheet in the library section ?

 

2. Instead of going to court with the claim, has anyone tried going to the banking ombudsman ? I ask as citi appears to meet the claim difference between £12 + £25, does the ombudsman insist they pay the whole claim. Do they also recognise contractual interest ?

 

3. If I do go the court route, I see the citi try and avoid full disclosure by just sending an equation. What is the latest thoughts on how we should word the AQ so they can't use this trick ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have it under good authority that the Financial Ombudsman has so far not had to make any formal decisions, that would mean that Citi are settling at the FO if any complaints have been made (which is likely).

 

The legal route is a little more uncertain, plans are being formulated behind the scenes which should make the process easier.

 

However at the end of the day it depends on the judges that deal with your case as much as anything esle, and whether they are willing to take Citi's Cost Justification Witness statement on face value without orderring any further disclosure as to the figures which make it.

 

So far we've found that Citi are far from forthcoming when it comes to disclosing a full breakdown of their figures to justify the supposed £12.88 cost to them per default. And that would be your main point of attack when you are far down the legal route.

  • Haha 1

Advice offered by ENRON is without prejudice and is for your judgement as to whether to take it. You should seek the assistance or hire of a solicitor or other paid professional if in doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats good news Enron about the FO.

 

Trouble is they are taking an age to even allocate cases at the moment. Mine is still unallocated after almost 8 weeks of waiting. But if it means me getting my money then I don't mind.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FO would seem a better route to go with Citi to avoid the hassle of court visits etc.

 

This link on the FO site does confirm:

 

"so far, we have not had to make any formal decisions on disputes about bank charges – because the banks have preferred to settle the complaints brought to us, making offers to customers to repay disputed charges on a goodwill basis."

 

FAQs - complaints about bank charges

 

Anyone know if they would accept a claim + contractual interest? Frankly I don't see why not, as I will be suffering a loss due to the extra interest payments. I may try ringing them and seeing their view. However if the bank was to decide to contest the interest part of it, then it might open them up to a full FO investigation. So it is worth doing to see what the result is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...