Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you!    It was bought on my debit card    
    • Hi. Welcome to CAG. How was the car purchased?  
    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. 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 as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. 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 £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. 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.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
  • 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

Claiming beyond 6 yrs - important new information!!!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5731 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

In light of the new views being taken on the limitation act 1980 I am thinking about going back after the NastyWest for some charges that I lost out on last time. Here's what happened last time, what do you reckon?

 

In Feb 07 after submitting their AQ i received a letter from Cobbetts with a cheque enlcosed. However this cheque was not for the full amount of my claim and they argued in their letter that I could not bring a claim more than 6 years after the date on which the action accrued, and as I issued my claim on 8 jan 07 i was only legally entitled to claim between the periods 8th jan 2001 and 8 Jan 2007.

 

Initially I disputed this fact and returned the chque to them and wrote back to them stating that my claim should be eligible for relief from the effects of the limitations act 1980 under sections 14a and 15b. I also pointed out that my litigation with them had actually begun when I submitted my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) in October 2006 and my claim was based upon the info they had furnished me with subsequently.

 

However in response to this argument they just sent me back the same cheque again with a letter reiterating their case under the limitation act 1980.

 

At that time I was pretty skint and the money was too tempting so I caved in and banked their cheque.

 

Does anyone think if I were to put in a new claim for the initial early charges that weren't paid last time this would be viable? I did write to the court stating that the claim was settled by agreement!

 

Also I have since accrued new charges which I am going to try claiming.

 

Brownie24:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 973
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I would say claim the new charges with the old ones. That way you can still invoke the UTCCR and they will still have the burden of having to reveal their costs before they can even begin to argue about old charges being statute barred.

 

The fact that they told you that the old charges from your previous claim were statute barred means they were admitting that they owed you the money. A gesture of goodwill cannot be time barred..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gez

 

So do you think I should go after the ones that they bullied me out of getting last time these were for the peroiod Oct 2000 to Jan 2001 and amounted to about £600 ish? I am just concerened that these were initially included in my previous claim which I did accept to a settlement of as the money was useful at the time although I kicked myself afterwards for backing down. I had also informed the court that this claim was settled, so I am not sure about how I could lawfully incorporate these amounts again into a new claim where I would also be claiming for new recent charges and charges pre this period when I get the info from a new SAR i will submit?

 

Brownie24:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I have statements going back to 1997 with Halifax - does anyone here claimed from Halifax on over 6 years. Any help would be appreciated, and OH BOY loads of charges in the earlier years!!!

Regards

DS

 

Hi DS,

I'm just piecing together my POCs against halifax for charges dating back to Dec 1993:eek: I'm going the whole hog and claiming for CCI, too, which should be fun. I'm both excited and peeing myself at the same time, but after my bout with natwest it's all part of the game.

My motto is if you don't ask you dont get:cool:

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DS,

I'm just piecing together my POCs against halifax for charges dating back to Dec 1993:eek: I'm going the whole hog and claiming for CCI, too, which should be fun. I'm both excited and peeing myself at the same time, but after my bout with NatWest it's all part of the game.

My motto is if you don't ask you dont get:cool:

 

Hi

I have just been sent statements going back to 1997 from CAPQUEST who have apparently bought the debt from Halifax. The good thing is we did not know that there were so many charges and with Interest at 8% we are up to £2.5K or thereabouts and the debt was arround £1K. Do you know the rate of interest on a cardcash account! as there is no mention on any of the statements.

 

1993, is even further back! what is CC1 ! anyway, I will now start a thread and perhaps you can give me your thread details so we can help each other. I have been successful on many other charges claims but none as yet over the 6 year period.

 

Keep in touch

Regards

DS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

I have just been sent statements going back to 1997 from CAPQUEST who have apparently bought the debt from Halifax. The good thing is we did not know that there were so many charges and with Interest at 8% we are up to £2.5K or thereabouts and the debt was arround £1K. Do you know the rate of interest on a cardcash account! as there is no mention on any of the statements.

 

1993, is even further back! what is CC1 ! anyway, I will now start a thread and perhaps you can give me your thread details so we can help each other. I have been successful on many other charges claims but none as yet over the 6 year period.

 

Keep in touch

Regards

DS

 

Responded in your thread, so I'll be seeing you there:)

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You accepted as settlement for that particular claim. This will be a whole new claim, so yes go for it!

 

Hi Gez

 

So although these charges were incorporated into my old claim but were not paid I could reincorporate them in to my new claim in view of my new understanding of the Limitations Act?

 

Just want to get my head around this properly as I wouldn't want to put myself in a position where the judge could throw my case out!

 

Thanks

 

Brownie24

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am considering doing a claim against Woolwich for an old account my Husband had back in September 1990. I have statements dating from Sept 1990 to March 1992. Total charges taken was £440.00. Does anyone now what rate of CI interest I can claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought we just used the current bank rate for CI.

I have claims going back to 1990 as well and was using 18.3% HSBC current OD interest rate

1990 rates would be high as mortgage rates then were something like 15% hate or actually love to think what that would do to the amount claimed on CI

Could you clarify Zootscoot

Templates Library

 

GE Capital Won

Capital 0ne Won

Northern rock Claim stayed working on negotiation

HSBC personal claim 1 ''WON''.

£1800 plus full stat interest plus costs.

Claim started 14/02/07 offer 3/07/07

 

Next:Coming soon to a thread near you! :)

HSBC personal Part 2 'return of the Celicaman'

HSBC business 1 ' my empire strikes back' N1 claim POC in progress after usual offensive offer from bank

HSBC business 2 'attack of the Celicaman'

HSBC business claim 3 'bank account menace'

HSBC business 4 'Revenge of the CAG Member' the final insult ....................... 'Maybe'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, great work done on this thread.

 

I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later.

 

I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sansho e-mail today requires a definitive response, notwithstanding Bank Fodder posting 7 April with reliance on Zootscott, incidentally, can't locate sansho posting on this thread?

 

"I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later. I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001

2".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, great work done on this thread.

 

I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later.

 

I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001.

 

Fair point, but the fact of the matter is that until recently none of us knew that these charges were unfair, unreasonable and not to mention unlawful. We are meerly asking the judge to make the banks justify them.

:DSUCCESSESS:D

NATWEST01&02 won over 4k

See how

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/natwest-successes/31683-muggins73-natwest.html

 

:)CURRENT CLAIMS:)

HALIFAX03

19-SEPT-07 APPLICATION TO HAVE STAY LIFTED

02-OCT-07 APPLICATION REFUSED

LLOYDS TSB04

10-MAY-07 LBA

 

ABBEY05

19-SEPT-07 LBA

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I sent off a 14 day letter to Natwest yesterday and have now discovered this news!! I only claimed for the last 6 years charges although I have statements showing charges back to 2000, so I have not claimed for approx £350.00. Is it too late to claim? Should I send a revised letter or another letter? Please advise.

 

Thanks

 

debs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All, great work done on this thread.

 

I am a bit concerned with the arguments regarding Section 32 (1)(b) of Limitation Act regarding concealment of the true cost of the charges. Would a competent barrister not argue that the opportunity existed for the Claimant to bring forth action regarding the true costs of the charges at various points in time when the charges were applied as opposed to 10 years later. As the Claimant would most likely be aware that charges were debited from the account. So why now would the Claimant contest or seek to verify the validity of the bank's business costs incurred as a result of its breaches 10 years later.

 

I am just wondering if the arguments presented in this thread are cogent enough to defeat the limitation clause. Can someone shed some light if I am missing some critical facts regarding this key point. I have a hearing date set in August over an application to strike out elements of bank charges prior to March 2001.

 

In short,

What they have been concealing is the true nature of the charges.

They have always presented them as just being a recouping of their own legitimate costs involved in dealing with such matters, whilst in fact they have actually been profiting unlawfully from them. This means they have in actual fact been penalties all along.

The fact also, that despite all the publicity, The OFT's report, the countless cases they are choosing to settle, and the fact that they employ legal counsel to advise in such matters..... yet still will not provide disclosure of how the charges are calculated, and still persist in presenting them as a recouping of legitimate expenses (yet everything else indicates otherwise) means that the concealment is ongoing, and so our claims of such are uncontestable.

Any rights to protection under the limitation act are voided by this concealment.

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

Debs,

your claim amount is not 'set in stone' until you file in court. Maybe you should send them another letter, informing them of 'new information has come to light...' or similar, and add your earlier charges.

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...