Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Chunky Linc Vs. HSBC


chunkylinc
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4708 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

:D You're a credit to the spirit of CAG chunkylinc , you certainly have been busy ......keep up the good work ! LOL....

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

not been about on here for ages, how's everyone been? I kinda lost hope a little after the outcome of the court case, but a colleague was talking the other day about some new legal argument which can be used. I'll try to find out more and let you know.

Do we know if anyone has had any success since the court ruling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi chunkylinc , welcome back! :)

 

I don't know if you've seen this link , if not it should hopefully fill in a few gaps ...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/244669-hsbc-after-test-case.html

 

 

Situation at the moment is that we believe the door was left ajar by the Supreme Court to claim under another section of the Act .... which the OFT declined to pursue ..... but we're hopeful that , with a good revised set of POCs ...... it can be kick- started again ... and people are working on that at the moment ...

 

There is also I believe , at least one Court Hearing pending and it will be interesting to see if that is successful , to be used as a precedent ...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/oft-test-case-updates/248268-sheriff-puts-bank-scotland.html#post2782254

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

yer, and so am I lol.

 

Well that's me up to speed with a bit of weekend reading, I'd best pull my finger out and get on with some letters...

 

It's a little odd tho as I've not actually heard a thing since the ruling from my local court or from D&G, infact the only correspondence I've had came directly from hsbc mid december saying that unless I contact them within 8 weeks they would consider the case closed...? I'd have thought D&G would have been a little swifter to act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi chunkylinc ,

 

Did you let them know that as far as you were concerned , it wasn't closed ?

I'd watch them , because if you didn't respond , telling them that your case was still at court waiting new POCs, they may tell the court that you didn''t respond within the 8 week dead-line and ask the court to throw it out on the grounds of ''no movement ''.........

 

They've tried this in the past .... the court of course should ask you to confirm that you want this to happen , but it has also been known that they haven't in some cases ........ leaving a claimant struggling to have it re-instated......

 

Worth checking out I'd say ....... and if necessary write and let DG know it's still ongoing .....

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi JM,

 

Errr well no, not exactly. After the loss of the test case and the letter from HSBC I kinda did nothing for a while as I assumed that it was all over. I then started doing some further investigation into the situation around feb time, which was when I learnt about persueing under financial hardship through the FO. So I finally contacted HSBC early march time, where I told them that I'd intend to withdraw the court claim and take matters to the FO. So I'm hoping that letter will stall them for a while as I have not contacted the court to close the case in the slightest...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I finally contacted HSBC early march time, where I told them that I'd intend to withdraw the court claim and take matters to the FO.

Chunkylinc ,

I'd say that makes it even more imperative that you check with the court if you haven't withdrawn the the claim . Bcause if you told HSBC you would , they've got a lever and may even have told the court of your intention to withdraw ... :eek:

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, yep! I've screwed up.

 

Is it best to write to them or simply try and call them to ask? If they havent been contacted I guess I can write back to hsbc (I didnt send that letter to D&G) and say I've changed my mind?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Well after several months of all being quiet on the western front It's kicking off again. Today I recieved two 'General Form of Judgement or Order' letters from Norwich County Court (one for each of my cases), so it looks like my stay has been lifted - has anyone else experienced this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do they say?

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think your stay should be lifted without the court giving you the chance (and the time ) to either agree or contest this ..you could try ringing the court and asking for further details ...

 

If they intend to lift your stay you need time to :

a) adjust your POCs if necessary ...

 

b) ask for further extension of the stay , on the grounds that some important cases are in process(the Scottish ones )the results of which could affect the outcome of your claim ...

or

 

c) give you time to come to a mutual agreement with the bank ..

 

My son went for b) and has had his case stayed again ... hope this helps ... but as Caro says it depends on what the Court Orders say ...

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My son went for b) and has had his case stayed again ...

 

That's good to know johnny. :-D

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

from reading the letters I think I may well be able to also try route b.

 

Content of the letters is as follows...

 

Upon this claim having been stayed pending the decision of the Supreme Court in OFT -v- ABBEY NATIONAL and ors (2009) UKSC6 And it now being settled law that:-

 

1. sums of money payable to their banks by customers persuant to their banking contracts and in particular sums payable in respect of unauthorised overdrafts are properly designated as 'charges' and are not contracted penalties, and

2. There is no power under regulation 6(2)b of the Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (as amended) to assess the fairness of those charges as expressed in clear and intelligible language in relation to the adequacy of the price or remuneration as against the services supplied in exchange whether at the behest of the OFT or the bank customer.

Upon review of the claim and of the courts own initiative IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The stay on the claim be removed forthwith

(2) Unless the Claimant files within 28 days of the deemed service of this order upon the claimant, a notice of application seeking further directions in the claim the claim shall stand struck out without further order (3) any notice of application files in accordance with paragraph (2) of this order must clesrly explain the legal basis upon which the claim as set out in the Particulars of claim should be permitted to continue or exhibit draft amended Particulars of Claim. The notice of application with all accompanying documents must be filed with the court tgether with sufficient copies for service on all other parties. The court fee of £75.00 (fee2.6) will be payale unless the claimant/applicant produces evidence of entitlement to excemption.

 

yep, thats pretty much word for word what it says - And being incredibe thick it makes about as much sense as a paper umbrella!!

 

So,clearly I have 28 days to send a couple of copies of whatever it is i need to change to the court (and also directy to DG I guess?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

so with the above in mind, do you think writing asking for a further stay will work? Does any one have a template for this letter, does it need to contain any legal type jargon, or is is merely just the case of writing to the judge and asking for a further extension due to several scottish cases? Do I need to provide specific details here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a couple of thoughs on this chunky, which probably won't help in your decision, but are maybe worth considering.

 

1. If you let the strike out stand and give up the claim, it would appear that you won't have to pay any costs.

 

2. If you do that and GLC go on to win, I don't know if you could then start again with a brand new POC. HSBC might fight that.

 

Has your claim been allocated to a track, eg small claims? If not how much is it for.

 

You need to consider whether pursuing this may end up costing you, and no guarantees of a result.

 

Perhaps Johnny could advise on how his son managed to prolong the stay.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's that word I dont like again.... "costs". It was so long ago now I cant remember exactly what I did - but after the letter before action, I then went onto moneyclaim online and filed my case within the small court, as I thought that even if you loast HSBC could not then come after you for there costs??

 

So are you saying that if I ask for another stay and then I eventually lose i'll be liable for HSBC's costs...? or is the letter just saying I can apply for a stay, but will have to pay the court costs again? Obviously I have already payed the court once as when applying online you need to pay at the time of submitting the case - Im confused now, which doesnt take alot I know!

 

I'm just wondering why not too many other people have had this type of letter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the case hasn't yet been allocated then you can still be liable for costs. If you haven't filled in an allocation questionnaire yet, and the claim hasn't been allocated to small claims by a judge you are still exposed to costs, including HSBCs. Only when it's allocated to SCT are you safe from them. You submit a claim but it's not up to you if it's in small claims or not. It's a judge, so if you haven't had anything saying it's small claims you could be on dodgy ground. Just because it's under £5k it isn't automatically a small claim. especially if it isn't considered a simple issue.

 

If you want to apply for the stay to be extended you will have to pay an application fee according to the order - unless you're exempt from court fees due to low income or being in receipt of certain benefits.

 

Your letter says it's the courts initiative to take this action, and different courts are doing different things, but in time I suspect the courts will want to clear the stayed cases off their desks.

 

Just because you apply to extend the stay there is no guarantee the court will agree unless you can show good reason for it.

 

I don't want to put you off continuing. I just want you to know that there may be risks, and at the moment all you have to lose is your court fees so far.

 

On the positive side, have a read of this. GLC are in court in a bank charges case in August! :-Dhttp://govanlc.blogspot.com/2011/05/bank-charges-fight-still-alive-glc.html

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi chunkylinc,

 

This is the gist of the letter my son sent . He actually did include Reg 5 in his original POCs so maybe that could have a bearing on para 4 ... but you could always say you'd like to reserve the right to amend your POCs to include Reg 5 if the cases in train at the moment are successful.

 

btw .. he sent this to the court ... by his deadline date ... however they haven't come back with a yes or no yet apparently ... but it must still be in court or they'd have notified him .... hope this helps .... :

 

"

 

DATE : xx xxx xx

CLAIM NO. xxxxxxxxxxx

 

 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

 

Vs

 

 

HSBC

 

 

With reference to the order received from the court dated xx xxx .2011, I respectfully request that the order be amended and that the stay remain in place.

 

My reasons for this request are as follows

 

Although the Supreme Court decision found in favour of the banks, the Law Lords in their summing up went to great pains to point out that the case was focused only on regulation 6 (2) (b) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

In addition the law lords also pointed out that ‘the charges might still be open to assessment on other grounds under regulation 5 of the UTCCR 1999

 

UTCCR 1999 REG. 5.(1) A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

 

My Particulars of Claim include a challenge under Regulation 5 and this issue remains unresolved. I strongly believe that the defendant has acted in bad faith and that it has caused an imbalance in rights that has been to my detriment.

 

At present two cases are being taken through the Scottish courts by the Govan Law Centre, Sharp vs Bank of Scotland and Reid vs Clydesdale Bank Plc and are in large part based upon Regulation 5 being used to challenge the fairness of bank charges.

 

As the banks were granted a stay in regard to the ‘Test Case’ at the Supreme Court, in the interests of fairness I would like to request that my case remains stayed until judgment has been made with regards to the above cases and until the legal position in regards to Regulation 5 has been clarified.

 

 

 

Yours etc.

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...