Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They are idiots.  Not exactly a grand apocalyptic threat is it - pay up or ...   ... we'll send you another letter, so there!   Relax & ignore them.   But do come here if they really do send the Letter of Claim.
    • That's not what we had in mind.   The time to be sending SARs was way back in March or earlier when you first heard from them, not at the last minute when you're on the eve of a court case.   You need to write a snotty letter so the idiots realise (a) you haven't moved so no chance of a backdoor CCJ and (b) you're a pain in the backside who would cause them big trouble if they did do court.   There's a suitable snotty letter in post 32 at  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/439586-futuregladstones-anpr-pcn-paploc-funfair-bridge-st-stourport-on-severn-worcs/page/2/#comments  Obviously change things such as the addressee details and the amount of the Unicorn Food Tax,  add the PCN number and send off tomorrow to both DCBL and UKPC, otherwise you could well get a county court claim form.    Use snail mail, not e-mail, if this does get to court, using e-mail would mean they could file documents at one minute to the deadline full of lies which it would be too late for you to counter.   If you want to send a SAR as well to find out what this is all about, then fine, send the SAR in a few days' time, but to UKPC only.
    • AMAZING and thank you so much.  Still not able to access online MCOL so will be emailing.  Just waiting for hubby to get home so he can sign the form. Will keep you posted.
    • Could I please have some help putting a defence together, I have tweaked the defence which DX kindly helped me with from my other ongoing case, here is what I have so far   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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. 1. 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 October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have had in the past a contractual relationship with Barclays Bank. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars therefore I am unable to admit or deny the alleged debt claimed. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my 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 Barclays Bank and received by the Defendant.   4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or Barclays Bank. 5. On receipt of this claim on the 25/08/2021 I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request and CCA1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. PRA Group (UK) LTD is yet to respond in relation to the CPR 31.14 request. To date, 20/09/2021, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 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 Defendant 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;   6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   7. 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.   8. 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.
    • The SARs letters will be as follows (via emails)   to DCB Legal:  (a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017. (b) I have sent your client a SAR (c) also confirm your correct 'address for service' if you've moved and the PPC has two addresses. (not relevant as they are writing to our current address)   to UK Parking Control Ltd: - ALL photos taken - all letters/emails sent and received, including any appeal correspondence earlier - all data held, all evidence they will rely on, and a full copy of the PCN, NTK - and a list of all PCNs outstanding against you and/or this VRN, and remind them that any claim must be for all PCNs, not several separate claims.   Are these OK, do I need to add anything?  Do I need to say that nobody remembers this?   Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Banking Ombudsman says NO to closing accounts


Snorkerz
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5265 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

Abbey have threatened to close my account if I take them to court, so I did a little research and came up with this (which I have copied from my letter to them)

With regard to your threat to close my account as a punitive retaliatory measure, I would advise you that the Banking Ombudsman adjudicated in February of this year as follows:

The Financial Services Authority includes in its Principles for Businesses: “A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”. Mr A, like any other customer, is entitled to bring a complaint if he feels he is being treated unfairly. He should not be prevented from bringing a legitimate complaint by the threat of having his account closed; nor do I consider it fair or reasonable of the bank to respond to his complaint about charges by closing the account. The bank appears to me to have used the closure of the account as a retaliatory or punitive measure.

In addition to the above comments, the ombudsman made a financial award to ‘Mr A’. I think the fact that this adjudication has already been made, and that I am reminding you of it before action and before the threatened account closure would give sufficient grounds to ask the Financial ombudsman to not only adjudicate on your actions, but to also impose a much higher level of compensation.

 

I would urge you to look again at my request to refund these unlawful charges. In view of your mis-understanding of our initial complaint, we shall suspend action for a further 14 days.

 

The actual award was £200. I'm not a lawyer but hope it will be enough to at least protect my account - I like Abbey when they're not acting unlawfully!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What stage of your claim are you at? and for what ammount? When you say thery have threatened to close your account - what wording have they actually used?

 

And by the way it is unlawful not illegal - there is a difference

Link to post
Share on other sites

What stage of your claim are you at? and for what ammount? When you say thery have threatened to close your account - what wording have they actually used?

 

And by the way it is unlawful not illegal - there is a difference

 

Quite right about unlawful/illegal, should have picked that up myself.

 

I have written to Abbey requesting that one bounced DD fee be refunded and one monthly 'Unauthorised Overdraft' fee not be charged.

 

They have responded with

If the claim escalates into a claim in the County Court, we will review each case individually, and if we feel that our relationship with our customer has broken down completely, we may decide to give notice to close the account under the Terms and Conditions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...