Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hammy1962
      If ever there was a reason to ditch Microsoft and move to Linux, this is it - MS Recall

      By Hammy1962 · Posted

      Just as the title says, if ever there was a good reason to ditch Micro$oft and move to Linux then this is it :-   Giving Windows total recall is a privacy minefield • The Register WWW.THEREGISTER.COM It's only a preview, and maybe it should stay there ... forever Help is available, most modern PC's can run a version of Linux suitable for your needs and it is not difficult to use or learn. Ubuntu is popular, new version is very modern Garuda Linux is the one I use, based on Arch, rolling release, bang up to date. I have friends and acquaintances, old and young, PC Literate and not. Most people who try it never go back to Windows Hamster
    • FTMDave
      Amazon.de/Evri - PAPLOC Now Court Claim - Lost returned Faulty AirPods

      By FTMDave · Posted

      I've had to hide two of your posts.  Anyone clicking on your links gets sent to external sites.  On top of that your real name is showing on one screenshot.  Fellow Site Team member dx100uk has already politely asked - Anyway, jk2054 wants to see the communication you got from your local court which will have told you about the hearing date of 17 June, and will have mentioned a deadline for filing your Witness Statement.
    • Emmzzi
      Employment Tribunal

      By Emmzzi · Posted

      I believe it is helpful to seek guidance from a range of places and decide on the validity of the sources and frequency of responses which are most helpful. A single voice can be a dangerous thing. As, of course, can groupthink. Scott, it feels like £4k on a solicitor for a £1.5k bill is overkill. Were we back in time I'd suggest small claims court as your claim sounds like it may be straightforward? By all means add that phrase on. I also suggest you contact the court and go and sit in on a couple of similar cases to get a better understanding before you shell out.
    • dx100uk
      PRA Group Claimform - old Barclaycard

      By dx100uk · Posted

      a card should be 16 digits...urm... note your dates above please. do not miss them no matter what happens  ......................... pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’. Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time. You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID. You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .. get a CCA Request running to the claimant . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/ .. Leave the £1 PO unsigned and uncrossed . get a CPR  31:14  request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] ... https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . .use our other CPR letter if the claim is for an OD or Telecom Debt or Util debt]  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ on BOTH type your name ONLY Do Not sign anything .do not ever use or give an email . you DO NOT await the return of ANY paperwork  you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count] ..............  
    • pralink
      PRA Group Claimform - old Barclaycard

      By pralink · Posted

      Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northamton, civil national business centre Name of the Claimant ? PRA Group Uk Portfolios ltd. How many defendant's  joint or self ? self Date of issue –  21 May 24 date of AOS - 07-06-2024 date for filing defence by - 21-06-2024 Particulars of Claim 1. The claimant claims the sum of £5600 for an outstanding debt owed. 2. On Mar 2000 the Defendant entered into an agreement with Barclays Bank Uk PLC for a credit card under reference ( 11 digit ref ). 3. on Mar 21 the defendant defaulted on the agreement  with an outstanding balance of £5600. 4. On Aug 21 the debt £5600 was assigned to PRA Group (UK) Limited, who itself assigned the debt to PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd on Dec 23. 5. Notices of assignment were sent to the defendant in accordance with S136 Law of Property act 1925. 6. The claimant has instructed PRA Group (UK) Limited to act on its behalf in the recovery of the outstanding debt and to pursue litigation on its behalf. AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 1. The sum of £5600 What is the total value of the claim? £6100  Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No - just emails threatening action   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Yes   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? no Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? credit card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? before - in 2000   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? I don't recall - I suspect post / online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? am awaiting access - but I suspect it is    Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. assigned - debt purchaser has issued the claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Pretty certain - Yes   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? pretty certain - Yes   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? there's been gaps - they went very quiet  Why did you cease payments? Covid lockdowns  What was the date of your last payment? i thought it was 2020 - they say 2021 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? no Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? no

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Reclaiming Abbey mortgage early redemption fees.

ANNALH

By ANNALH
in Mortgage companies

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5597 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

zootscoot

zootscoot

Posted
Posted

Hi annalh

 

It looks like they could do with a rocket up their proverbials!

 

Try something on the lines of this:

 

Claim no xxxxx

Account no xxxxx

 

Dear xxx

 

Thank you for your letter dated xxxxx regarding my claim for the return of fees levied on my mortgage account. The basis of my claim is indeed the fact that the fees levied represent a penalty. In the case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract as oppose to a charge which represents a penalty. This law was confirmed and upheld in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79. A charge will be held to be a penalty if the sum stipulated for is extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison to the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach. A penalty clause is void in its entirety and unenforceable. In the absence of your disclosing a full breakdown of your charges and how you arrived at your 'genuine pre-estimate', I can only assume that no genuine pre-estimate was actually undertaken. Your repeated refusal in this matter is what has lead me to bring my claim.

 

In addition your charges appear to represent an unfair term of contract which is contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). My account falls within the ambit of Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 as I am a consumer. Your charges constitute an unfair penalty under Schedule 2 of the said Regulations which provide an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair. Under paragraph 1(e) of schedule 2 this specifically includes terms which have the object of requiring any consumer who fails his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation. We would vigorously contend that this is the position regarding the fee of XXXX which you deemed fit to apply to our account.

 

 

Furthermore a fee levied requiring us to indemnify you against any commercial risk to yourself in offering us a reduced interest rate in order to attract our cutom, or to fund the product and redeploying the funds on redemption is also contrary to s.4 Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which provides that a term requiring a consumer to indemnify costs incurred as a result of a breach are unfair unless the institution relying on them can show that they are reasonable. I am confident that a court is likely to consider this clause to be unreasonable within s.11 of the said Act as a large commercial institution such as yourselves is in a far better placed position than myself as a consumer to bear the burden of the vicissitudes of business.

 

I would also like to bring your attention to the following statement by The Office of Fair Trading:

 

"A term in a mortgage agreement which requires the borrower to pay more for breaching the contract terms than actual costs and losses caused to the lender by the breach (or a genuine pre-estimate of that) is likely to be regarded as an unfair penalty and to be unenforceable both at common law and (in a consumer mortgage) under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. A redemption charge may be regarded as a penalty even if it is expressed as the price for exercising a right rather than a consequence of breaking the agreement."

 

The fact that I agreed to this term contained in the terms and conditions can not prevent a court finding that it is in fact a penalty. In all reported cases on penalty clauses there is no dispute that the term was in fact agreed to.

 

I am rather shocked at your continued intention to defend this claim where your chances of success are remote in the extreme, however, I recognise this is the right of the Abbey to do so and eagerly await your full explanation of how you calculated the fees in the court. However, in accordance with my duty to under the overriding objectives of the CPR, I am offering you the chance to settle my full claim with out the need to take the further time of the courts and save you the expense and inconvenience of pursuing further.

 

I look forward to hearing from you.

 

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

xxxxx

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ANNALH

ANNALH

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well I sent the letter.

 

Now I have had a letter back, well actually a copy of the documents they sent to the court to request reallocating the claim to the multitrack. Basically their reasoning behind this is that any decision made by the court has a huge financial impact for them because they realise lots of other customers will reclaim their ERC's too. I'm not sure if this is good news or bad news for me but at least they are taking us seriously and are scared about what decision the courts will make - meaning they are unsure of their defence??

Link to post
Share on other sites
zootscoot

zootscoot

Posted
Posted

If it gets allocated to the multi-track you could end up in the High courtas oppose to the county court. There are no fixed costs and generally barristers will be used. This means that the bank will be paying barristers fees on top of solicitors fees and costs can escalate considerably.

 

This is likely to be a scare tactic but you need to be aware of the implications of this. Write to the court and state your reasons for not wanting to go to the High court and ask if you can in fact be allocated to the small claims. (Claims above 5K can and have been allocated to the small claims).

 

Points to argue in your favour include:

 

1. It is a consumer dispute and should be allocated to the small claims which is designed particularly for consumers.

 

2. You filed the claim believing it would be dealt with in the fast track and did not anticipate the risk of bearing the costs in the Multi Track. So to transfer to Multi track would be grossly unfair.

 

3. Under the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Rules there is an obligation on the judge to ensure the parties are placed on an equal footing. As the defendant is a huge financial institution it would be unfair to place this in the fast track or multi track as they would have the advantage in being able to bear the risk of costs whereas you do not and you do not have access to specialist legal teams.

 

4. The points of law relied upon are well established and settled law with no complex issues of interpretation. There is thus no need for it to go to the County Court or High court.

 

5. Whilst you have repeatedly tried to contact the defendant to resolve the issue, they have failed to respond to any communication, they have refused your request for a breakdown of their costs in order to satisfy you that their ERC was lawful.

 

6. You believe fully in the justice of your case and if it is to be transferred to the multi track could the court ask that no cost orders will be made against you.

 

 

This is likely to be a scare/ delaying tactic but you need to be prepared that they may fight this all the way. You might want to also have a look at Sandy v Gmac's thread who have been through a similar experience.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions/7223-sandy-gmac-rfc.html

 

Hope this helps

 

Zoot

Link to post
Share on other sites
zootscoot

zootscoot

Posted
Posted

That would be in relation to the track allocation. This would be to stop you from putting forward your arguments for disagreeing with going to to the multi -track. If you contest this it should go to a hearing and you would need to go to court. So in your letter state that you would like a hearing regarding this in order to put your points across.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Les Gunn

Les Gunn

Posted
Posted

AnnaLH

 

Been reading this and they sound like a right bunch of b******s.

 

Whatever you decide, the best of luck - that said, these people think they have the law on their side...how naive they are...!

 

We're behind you all the way!

 

;)

--------------------------------------------------------------

HSBC

Settled in FULL on 8/8/06 - £3619.53

:D

CAPITAL ONE

Settled in Full on 6/9/06 - £84.76

:D

ABBEY NATIONAL (Old N&P Mortgage)

Settled In Full on 2/3/07 - £307.13

:D

SPML

*Court Case Withdrawn - family illness*

MORTGAGES PLC

*Court Case Withdrawn - family illness*

Link to post
Share on other sites
rascal3103

rascal3103

Posted
Posted

Hi Annalh,

 

I will be watching with interest. I am just about to apply for my MCOL with the aid of Zootscoots recent Pm with valuble info. Cant thank Zoot enough.

Good luck with yours and keep us all informed.

 

Stef

Spanish Holiday Rental - 10% off BAG and CAG Members

www.rent-in-spain.org.uk

 

 

Progress so far:

 

Yorkshire Bank - LBA 26/07/06 £1001.00 - £500.50 offered and rejected

RBS Credit Card - Settled £200.00

Sainsburys - Settled in full £100.00

JD WIlliams - Settled in full £50.00

Argos Card Services - £98 - offered £60 and rejected.

Abbey Mortgages - MCOL 2nd October - Deadline 21st

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANNALH

ANNALH

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The Judge has set an allocation hearing on Weds 4th October (next week!!!)

time allowed is 15 minutes and it says I have to attend.

Has anyone been to an allocation hearing or know what will happen? Will the bank be at that hearing??

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANNALH

ANNALH

Posted
  • Author
Posted

DLA have requested the allocation hearing on Wednesday be conducted by telephone. I agreed to this as I do not have the time to go to the court so I am waiting for them to set up conference call facilities so it can be done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANNALH

ANNALH

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I was thinking of using an argument based on the fact that i was backed into a corner and it wasnt my choice to terminate the mortgage therefore they shouldnt have charged me a redemption fee. As if they didnt have my arm behind my back i would have stayed with them for years (at least until after the tie-in period).

Even if i dont get the ERC back I want them to prove the 'admin' charges. I want them back as im sure they just looked at what they had to pay me (the excess after the house was sold) and made that figure their 'admin' charges so i didnt get anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
KPH

KPH

Posted
Posted

From what Zoot has posted it does seem pretty clear that some precendent has been set in case law, I suppose its a case of convincing the judge of the connection between your circumstances and them

Link to post
Share on other sites
zootscoot

zootscoot

Posted
Posted

Good luck Anna,

 

Don't forget this is an allocation hearing so you will not be expected to argue the points of law in your case. But make sure you put forward the 6 points I made in the earlier post.

 

All the best

 

Will be thinking of you

 

Zoot

Link to post
Share on other sites
ANNALH

ANNALH

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Guys,

 

Bit of a mixed result today. Abbey sent a barrister who had a lot to say for himself.

 

The Judge refused Abbeys request to move it to the multi-track. The barrister then said they want to appeal and requested that the main hearing in 2 weeks time is adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal. The Judge agreed on the basis that it may spark lots of other cases and may cost Abbey lots of money/set a precedent etc.. so said it would be passed to a higher judge to decide.

 

The barrister then asked for an order for costs and judge said no need because it has not been moved from small claims track.

 

Thats it really, some other waffle quoting legal case numbers that went over my head, but I am happy with that for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Les Gunn

Les Gunn

Posted
Posted

Well done Anna - I would say 50/50, but I wonder how long Abbey will be paying Barrister fees, based on the avalanche of claims that'll be coming...?!

 

;)

--------------------------------------------------------------

HSBC

Settled in FULL on 8/8/06 - £3619.53

:D

CAPITAL ONE

Settled in Full on 6/9/06 - £84.76

:D

ABBEY NATIONAL (Old N&P Mortgage)

Settled In Full on 2/3/07 - £307.13

:D

SPML

*Court Case Withdrawn - family illness*

MORTGAGES PLC

*Court Case Withdrawn - family illness*

Link to post
Share on other sites
tamadus

tamadus

Posted
Posted
Hi Guys,

 

Bit of a mixed result today. Abbey sent a barrister who had a lot to say for himself.

 

The Judge refused Abbeys request to move it to the multi-track. The barrister then said they want to appeal and requested that the main hearing in 2 weeks time is adjourned pending the outcome of the appeal. The Judge agreed on the basis that it may spark lots of other cases and may cost Abbey lots of money/set a precedent etc.. so said it would be passed to a higher judge to decide.

 

The barrister then asked for an order for costs and judge said no need because it has not been moved from small claims track.

 

Thats it really, some other waffle quoting legal case numbers that went over my head, but I am happy with that for now.

 

That sounds like a fairly good result to me ANNALH. You went to court and took on a barrister and stopped him getting it moved to multi-track. I have no doubts that you will (or should) win the appeal. Lots of other cases are about to start anyway, I already sent a LBA for my claim of just over £2000 so I will be issuing MCOL in just over a week.

Alliance & leicester:Settled 8/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/alliance-leicester-successes/19700-tamadus-l.html?highlight=tamadus

Capital One:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/capital-one/16644-tamadus-capital-one.html?highlight=tamadus

MBNA 2 accounts:Settled 22/9/06 http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/13831-tamadus-mbna-i.html?highlight=tamadus

Smile:Settled 15/11/06

Egg Card:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 2/10/06

GE Money:S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent3/8/06 LBA sent 26/9/06

Abbey:ERC prelim sent 14/9/06. LBA sent 2/10/06. Now it's getting interesting so keep watching

Barclaycard:In criminal default watch this space

Lloyds TSB:In criminal default watch this space

 

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...