Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury If possible please scan redact and upload a full page copy of page 1 of the claim form. ( Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to. 29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM   1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack  Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached   2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00.  The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month.   3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement,   Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us.   Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement   9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate   4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:-   a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement number 756050. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     Thw total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by Firrst class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges ]= 5.  A the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or  alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage.   Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs.   Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024   What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  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. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   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? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg
    • Now that is an interesting article which adds afew perspective that I hadn't thought significant - but on reflection of the perspectives offered ... Now Starmer is no Blair, however 'blairite he may be perceived, but the Tories aren't tories and aren't even remotely liberal   The fast 'unannounced and unexpected election call from sunack may well be explained by the opinion linked that he hoped reform would be unprepared and effectively call a chunk of Farages largely empty bluster - making him look even more of a prat, leave scope for attacks on shabby reform candidates and mimimise core vote losses to reform - while throwing the 'middle ground' (relative) tories TO THE DOGS - and with the added bonus of likely pacifying his missu' desire to jogg off to sunny cal tout suite somewhat   thumb in the air - I expect about 140ish tory seats, but can hope for under a hundred Reform - got to admit the outside possibility of 1, maybe 2 seats with about 8% of the vote - but unlikely. I think projections of over 10% of the vote for reform is nudged and paid for speculation - but possible with the expected massive drives from Russian, Chinese and far right social media bot and troll prods targeting the gullible.
    • Commentary June 2024 WWW.ELECTORALCALCULUS.CO.UK Interesting article about just how bad it could be for the Tories.  Also Tories could be hoping on Reform not having candidates in many seats, as they were not ready.  
    • Even a Piers Morgan is an improvement and a gutless Farage Piers Morgan calls for second Brexit referendum WWW.THELONDONECONOMIC.COM Piers Morgan and Nigel Farage have faced off over Brexit and a second referendum in a heated reunion on BBC Question Time.   “Why don’t we have another referendum about Brexit?” he questioned. “I seem to remember when 2016 came around we were told there was going to be control of our borders and it was going to be economically beneficial to this country. And eight years later we have lost complete control of our borders… and economically it seems to have been a wilful act of self-harm.”   ... Piers missed off : after all somebody said a 48/52 decision would be "unfinished business" by a long way - was that person just bul lying (again)  
  • 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

Do You think it's all going Pete Tong????


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6210 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

What with Lloyds 2 cases under their belt and Halifax changing T&C's to 'fees'.

I don't think these people who take on the banks are really researching enough, and it's making it very difficult for everyone else.

 

I know heard that Clydesdale have been on the news saying that they are not paying out because of Scottish laws or something. I missed the snippet and would appreciate if someone saw it to let me know what was said.

 

I would have thought that if the bank trades in England, it comes under English laws, unless the charges are applied to the account at HO, then would that be a get out clause?

 

How do we now prove that the charges are a breach of contract when, clearly all the T&C's are changing and we cannot prove otherwise?

Can we direct the Court to make the banks supply us with older T& C's?

 

A lot of people I speak to have dropped their claim now before it goes to court as they feel they will lose. It sounds like the beginnig of the end to me.

Any views?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand people beginning to panic when they see that Lloyds have 'won' two cases but they should actually check the reason why the cases were lost before making any judgememt on their own situation.

 

From what I have seen the cases were lost by the claiment rather than won by the bank as the people involved had not prepared their case properly and were also claiming for items that were not reclaimable.

 

A lot of the banks are now referring to the Lloyds 'victory' in the hope that people will think twice but in my view I if anyone is thinking of claiming-continue with it.

PPMAN159

 

If this comment has helped please click on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

People who give up because they think they will lose are idiots who follow the latest media snippet. Thousands or cases settled in or out of court, 2 lost through lack of preparation, and they give up? Maybe they don't deserve to get their money back then.

 

What of Halifax changing their T&cs to fees? Even if it made a difference in law, 1) the charges incurred would have happened under old T&cs and would not apply retrospectively, 2) they can call it what they like, as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract, regardless of what the new T&Cs state, as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

We should ask for relevant T&Cs to be supplied to us before court, if they refuse, it will look very bad to a judge that they did not supply them when we specifically said we want to rely on them in court.

 

My view is that if people stopped jumping at their own shadows, the banks wouldn't feel encouraged to try and frighten them off even more. Those people are positively encouraging the bullying culture by the banks, and I have very little sympathy for them. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about it all going Pete Tong ( wrong ). I think you must be having a Hat , coat and Scarf. (a good laugh ). I banked a lovely cheque for £20,000 yesterday. Obviously Nat West havent been watching the news. :D

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think Barclays are reading the News.

 

They settled a second account with me this morning. :D

 

What i think is happening is that people are jumping in with two feet, without researching properly, and thinking straight and expecting the banks to roll over and have their tummies tickled.

 

Of course the banks are going to look for mistakes etc in POCs and of course they are going to exploit any weakness in the claims. Isn't that what we as claimers are doing? We are exploiting the fact that we know, if we do everything correct, that they wiill not want to defend their charges?

 

After the way they have got away with this for so long, isn't it natural that the Banks will try anything? In my opinion anyone entering in to re-claiming charges who isn't prepared properly is making it more difficult for everyone else. And of course the banks will exploit this.

 

:mad:

 

Whilst it's great to focus on the money, at the re-claiming stage it's more important to focus on the DETAILS and the LAW to ensure a successful claim.

 

:D

 

Just think how thick the papers would be if they reported every succesful claim as vehemently as they have reported the unsuccesful ones! ;)

2007 Issues ALL RESOLVED

2008 Issues ALL RESOLVED

£4,200 in charges claimed back succesfully from a total of 5 Creditors

2009 Issues ALL RESOLVED

NEXT Directory - No Agreement, No Further Action **WON**

2010 Issues

Court Claim from Black Horse - AOS 22.11.10, CPR 23.11.10

Assisting Daughter with Employment Tribunal for Wrongful Dismissal/Discrimination

 

:) My Head is officially out of the Sand :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

That's the problem though isn't it? If you don't get a judge.....

 

as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract,

How do we do that without the relevant T&C's ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

 

People who give up because they think they will lose are idiots who follow the latest media snippet. Thousands or cases settled in or out of court, 2 lost through lack of preparation, and they give up? Maybe they don't deserve to get their money back then.

 

What of Halifax changing their T&cs to fees? Even if it made a difference in law, 1) the charges incurred would have happened under old T&cs and would not apply retrospectively, 2) they can call it what they like, as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract, regardless of what the new T&Cs state, as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

We should ask for relevant T&Cs to be supplied to us before court, if they refuse, it will look very bad to a judge that they did not supply them when we specifically said we want to rely on them in court.

 

My view is that if people stopped jumping at their own shadows, the banks wouldn't feel encouraged to try and frighten them off even more. Those people are positively encouraging the bullying culture by the banks, and I have very little sympathy for them. :mad:

 

 

Of course they deserve to get their money back. It's comletely unrealistic

to expect everyone to research and present a case to the dizzy heights of your own standards and to ignore what they read in the press.

 

People are not ''idiots'', they're just less informed

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Most agree that a cap on current account overdraft charges is likely. From the date it comes in, current account customers will not be able to claim a refund. However, they will still qualify for a refund on charges from before that date for up to six years. "

Now that's what I call an idiot. From the This is Money web site

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they deserve to get their money back. It's comletely unrealistic

to expect everyone to research and present a case to the dizzy heights of your own standards and to ignore what they read in the press.

 

People are not ''idiots'', they're just less informed

 

I disagree. It's completely unrealistic to start a legal process, and not even know the basic arguments to go with it. And most of the research and presentation have already been made for them, so it's hardly groundbreaking stuff they are dealing with here.

 

My own standards do not have "dizzy heights", I started a little over 1 year ago having no idea whether this could work. But one thing I made damn sure about was doing some serious reading and understanding before I even sent my first letter. Because it was quite obvious that if the banks were ready to take that much money off me in the first place, they sure as hell were not going to hand it back without a fight.

 

I did not say that they should ignore what they read in the press, I said they should not blindly believe it, which is a very different matter. Anyone panicking that their own claim will fail could reassure themselves quite easily by researching the ratio of successes to failures. But no. They see "oh, the banks have won a second case" and they throw in the towel.

 

Destiny of Souls:

as long as you get a judge who has heard of "cloaking the penalty", you can still prove your case.

 

That's the problem though isn't it? If you don't get a judge.....

 

Don't get me started, I still can't believe that there was one judge in this country who hadn't... I am not one for conspiracy theories usually, but I still puzzle over that one.

 

as long as you can show that you HAVE committed a breach of contract,

How do we do that without the relevant T&C's ?

 

You go to court, and you ask the judge to order the bank to release them. And that's worse case scenario, if you haven't managed to get them before that.

Ok, example: You have incurred charges in 2000, say, long before your bank changed your T&Cs to their current setting. You start your claim, and the bank defends with the "service" argument. You ask for the then T&Cs and the banks refuse to provide them. You go to court stating that the T&Cs at the time the breaches were levied did say that they were for a breach of contract. The bank will want to rebut, but how? If they provide current T&Cs, you can say to the judge that these are irrelevant, as they were changed, and the judge is unlikely to be impressed with the sleight of hand. If they provide the correct T&Cs, make your case.

 

Also, what maybe everyone should remember is this: At worse, ok, you lose your case. So? You are no worse off than you were before you started, except for your court fees. The small court system is designed to protect a genuine litigant in person (as opposed to vexatious, which is a different story) from huge legal costs. The way I see it, the odds are so colossally in our favour that it makes the investment of the court fee totally worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete tong?? No.

 

I'm no expert though. When I first started using this web site I read as much as I could even now I'm still learning things

 

The Birmingham thing has made us focus on the T&Cs, and things have had to be tweeked.

 

For people starting the process this has been addressed in changes to the initial letters which will help through the process. Unfortunatley there will be some in the latter stages, doing thier bundles, or preparing to go to court, who will be really frustrated at all this, and the T&Cs element will be a problem. They might not have time now to request them from their bank etc. However for most the recent call for T&Cs may help and there are threads and post out there with people willing to share copies of older T&Cs.

 

I think the outcome of the won cases will be to stregthen the quality of peoples cases from now on. I think anybody embarking on claiming from their bank should seriously think about what they are going to do, but shouldn't base any decisions just on these 2 cases, as stated many times this is 2 for the bank v 1000's for the consumer

 

JAnyway just my 2penneth

 

Brasic

Brasic and Lloyds TSB

Followed the guidance on the site and won :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookworm is exactly right. You cannot start a legal process without knowing what you are doing. Thats really high risk. Do your homework and be prepared.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have misunderstood bookworm's statements. This site has helped more "shy and less confident " people than most. Our success rate has been spectacular to say the least.. The small claims court is i agree " hardly ground breaking stuff. " It was put into place for the specific reason of helping the litigant in person to use the legal system on a much fairer and more accessable way. I also started ayear ago, nervous,scared and terrified of the legal system, I had a claim thrown out by the financial ombusman, and was not very confident to say the least. I looked, read and learnt the way to proceed and have been very successful. With my latest claim for £20,000 being settled last week. This is a self help site and claimants must understand and present their claims as the present legal system demandsand be prepared to sit in front of a judge and argue the legalities of that claim.

  • Haha 1

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem now is though, what about all the court cases going on, how do we now prove they are Penalty charges.

 

I would think the judge would say

" sorry mate, you had your chance to get the T&C's, it's too late now"

Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, most defences at the moment are still relying on the "genuine pre-estimate of loss" argument, so the Berwick et al arguments won't apply. That takes care of thousands of ongoing cases.

 

For the few using the "service" argument, the options are:

- to get hold of the T&Cs, and as you might have noticed, there is a great deal of work going on to retrieve those to make them available to users here, but it is arduous going.

- I think your comment doesn't take into account the fact that anyone preparing should request their relevant (as in, the ones in force at the time of your breaches) T&Cs from the bank, who will have them archived, no doubt about that. A refusal by the bank will not be looked upon favourably by the judge, and if you then go to court saying they have refused to supply the very terms on which you rely to prove your case, it would frankly be against the over-riding objective for the judge not to order the bank to cough them up.

 

I think you are approaching this form the wrong angle in those "service" cases. Concentrate on showing that they are NOT a fee for a service, the penalty charge part will follow from that. The T&Cs are only part of the argument, although they have become a fairly important part after Berwick, they are not the end all and be all of it.

Remember that if Kev had answered yes instead of no when asked by the judge if he thought he had breached his contract with the bank, the outcome might have been very different. :rolleyes:

 

Of course, there is something very simple that you can do even if you can't get hold of the "then" T&Cs: get hold of the new ones. They will state something like this: "paragraph x.x - we have replaced this wording by that wording" etc...

In court, you'll argue that your contract had the terms which have been replaced, and that those terms, although you don't have a copy now, are the ones which the bank changed to make it look like a service fee. The very fact that those terms were changed after the whole charges reclaim campaign started speaks volume in itself. At that point, the bank will either have to confirm it or deny it.

 

Don't forget that in Small Claims, we are talking about of balance of probabilities, not proof beyond doubt.

 

And finally, let's not forget that for the vast majority, people will never actually get to court, as the banks are still settling (LTSB included) in their hundreds and thousands, even after Berwick. Let's also remember that Berwick was a fluke win for the bank, who didn't even turn up for the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good question.

 

The Natwest ones are, quite visibly so, but I am finding it harder on some other banks.

 

I think they all come with a "changes to your T&Cs from...", though, so that could be worth keeping an eye out, as it would produce the same end result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked, because my sister requested them for a PPI and it has no dates anywhere on it, so how can you prove that the T&C's are in fact not the ones relating to when you applied for loan etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that abuse towards ANY member of the moderating team is met with 0 tolerance.

 

We do have a complaint procedure, please see here:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/66282-cag-how-complain.html

 

If you have an issue, please use that procedure and refrain from disrupting the thread further. Thank you.

 

Note: Jonni2Bad is away at the moment, but will be back next week. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think also, a service is a helpful activity it is hardly helpful to make a charge of say £35.00 for an automated bounced cheque!

 

Banks such as Lloyds with 16 million customers do not have the recourses to provide personal staff to deal one to one with so many hence, the charges are penalties for breach of contract by customers, this makes the whole deal self policing.

 

The crux of the matter is, the legal system itself is looking for ways to take the pressure out of the claims over load this is why you have the latest ill conceived judgments everyone is buying time...

 

Don't give up people.

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crfx250,

"Of course they deserve to get their money back. It's completely unrealistic

to expect everyone to research and present a case to the dizzy heights of your own standards and to ignore what they read in the press.

 

People are not ''idiots'', they're just less informed "

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

The idiots are the people that don't bother to claim what has unlawfully been taken from their accounts. Contract law states that you have a legal right to claim it back.

As far as the press is concerned. No news is good news. There are presently thousands of people winning their claims against the banks. You wouldn't believe it, because they don't report it. I myself won £20,000 last week.If you had not read that on this sight you would not have ever known. Ignorance is bliss as far as the press is concerned. As far as people "being less informed" Thats down to the individual. There will always be the person who thinks its going to be easy and gets caught out by their own arrogance. There is enough information and help available on this site.

So its down to each individual to use it. Knowledge is power.

Bookworm's contribution to this site is vital and extremely important in the fight against the financial institutions that choose to ruin peoples lives with their regime of unlawful charges. Finally i would like to say CRFX250 have a look around the site and see the despair and frustration that many, many claiments are enduring. Both before and now during their claims and if you feel you can offer them help then do it.

The moderators and the sight helpers which in total is around 30 ish are stretched to the limit in helping people win their claims, and when they do win it is all worth it then .Try it yourself and feel the satisfaction of knowing that is one more for us and one less for them. Good luck.

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...