Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Ok thanks for that, well spotted and all duly noted. Yes they did eventually submit those docs to me after a second letter advising them I was contacting the ICO to make a formal complaint for failing to comply with an earlier SAR that they brushed off as an "administrative error" or something. When I sent the letter telling them I was in contact with the information commissioner to lodge the complaint, the original PCN etc quickly followed along with their excuse!
    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
  • Our picks

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

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

novice computer user v barclays.*WON DEFENCE THOWN OUT*


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5923 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

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

right, do you print this n244 off yourself and use?

then fill in as per michael brownes post here?

use pocs from abbey v me@ defence?

give it to court and bobs your uncle?tez

Link to post
Share on other sites

right, do you print this n244 off yourself and use?

then fill in as per michael brownes post here?

use pocs from abbey v me@ defence?

give it to court and bobs your uncle?tez

 

Having not been in this situation i can only offer limited advice

 

You can fill in the N244 form on the PDF sheet but are not able to save it, so print off at least 3 copies. Yes use as MB's post

Then i presume a new N1 form with the new POC's, again print off at least 3 copies. The Abbey ones look great, obviously ammend to suit your own case.

give it to court and bobs your uncle.

 

Hope this now puts your mind at ease. I know it will have cost you an extra £35 but its best to get it right.

 

Please correct me if any info is wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow Tez

 

Looks like you have had a busy day. Was it a post i made on another thread re POC's that you spotted?

it was matmondes p o c amendment..thread. noticed we were given same defence and had used wrong template letter,evidently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having not been in this situation i can only offer limited advice

 

You can fill in the N244 form on the PDF sheet but are not able to save it, so print off at least 3 copies. Yes use as MB's post

Then i presume a new N1 form with the new POC's, again print off at least 3 copies. The Abbey ones look great, obviously ammend to suit your own case.

give it to court and bobs your uncle.

 

Hope this now puts your mind at ease. I know it will have cost you an extra £35 but its best to get it right.

 

Please correct me if any info is wrong

believe me trucker its not the 35 quid i would pay 10 times that to get this sorted.thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, ive had a read of your thread, it seems you are concerned about your POC's right?

 

You will need to post on here, what you used as your POC's so we can get this sorted once and for all.

 

and then what Barclays are using against you in relation to the POC's

 

But as I said in an earlier posting, I think you will need to send in the FULL POC's [templated from this site] AND your updated SOC's. sorry Jill

 

I might regret asking this but.......how far have you got in preparing your bundle.?

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can fill in the N244 form on the PDF sheet but are not able to save it,

I did...I used 'Traction Screen Grab' - useful little tool which allows you to capture any image on your screen, paste it into 'Paint' and then save it.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 between xxxxx and xxxxxx the defendent debited numerous charges from the claimants account.

2 the charges are an unfair penalty under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations 1999, because they are a disproportionatey high sum in compensation compared to the cost of the purported breach.

3 under the law of penalties, the charges are an unlawful,. exstravigant penalty

4 under the county courts act,the claimant is entitled to interest of 8 percent per anum from the date they were deprived of the money. this totals, xxxxxxxxpounds accruing at the daily rate of 0.021 percent until judgement or payment.

5 the claiment asks the court to enter judgement in their favour for total charges plus interest.totalling...total.

how does this meet with the consumerwiki amending a claim statement.?

dose this state the statutory and common law basis of claim?ta.

hi darren,this was my pocs taken from martins site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1[]the particulars of claim do not provide details or particulars of the account in question and or the precise charges alledged to be unlawful, or the dates thereof .to the exstentit is alledged the claimant incurred bank charges on the claimants account for unauthorised borrowings ..whether unpaid fees for returned cheques, paid referrals fees or any other such fees..,the defendent puts the claimant to strict proof of each charge and the date thereof.

2 the pocs are summary in nature.accordingly ,this defence is summary in nature and the defendant reserves the right to amend this statement of case in due course.

the rest is usual stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the defendent debited numerous charges from the claimants account.

 

This is it.. You should have entered the amount that was taken from account/ No. xxxxxxxxxx.

 

and

xxxxxxxx pounds accruing at the daily rate of 0.021 percent until judgement or payment.
Should have read....0.00021 and also ...or an amount the judge deems correct.

strict proof of each charge and the date
= SOC's and then statements showing the charges to be included in bundle.

.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/

http://news.sky.com/skynews/madeleine

 

If I dont reply to a direct question please feel free to PM me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is it.. You should have entered the amount that was taken from account/ No. xxxxxxxxxx.

 

and

Should have read....0.00021 and also ...or an amount the judge deems correct.

= SOC's and then statements showing the charges to be included in bundle.

cheers, just shows that template letter should be binned.done in good faith i know,but how many other sheep out there?course of action ?tez.

Link to post
Share on other sites

phoned court today have chat about amending pocs,friendly man said write letter say what your amending and why, and the judge will have a look.he asked what prob was, i said it was partly due to mcol not having enough space on forms,he said make sure you put that in as part excuse. also imformation missing. he more or less said the courts are not that happy with mcol process.i then said are you sure letter would be ok because i had been advised to use n244@n1 forms,he back tracked a bit and said they would be better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi trucker,said it before say it again should be warning sign about using the other site to warn people off using templates lot more of these defences trickling through?tez.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tez, i've been reading your post for a while and was worried to read you thought it had all gone wrong! I started my process on the other site too, but am very glad I've found this one. You're getting some great advice, so just keep going. I've every confidence you'll get there in the end. In the meantime you're providing inspiration to people like me who are much further behind.

Good luck

 

nickyc

nickyc

 

26.06.07 Prelim letter sent

02.07.07 Acknowledgement received

12.07.07 LBA sent

28.07.07 Received Barclays standard OFT letter

29.07.07 Lost it :?

14.08.07 Recovered and back on track :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tez, i've been reading your post for a while and was worried to read you thought it had all gone wrong! I started my process on the other site too, but am very glad I've found this one. You're getting some great advice, so just keep going. I've every confidence you'll get there in the end. In the meantime you're providing inspiration to people like me who are much further behind.

Good luck

 

nickyc

bldy hell,thanks,but i feel its the site helpers and others who do that,all i do is try to get them, in the nicest way, to answer in the most simplistic way poss for me to understand,hard work for them. if my mistakes help others good.wish i had found this site earlier.now for the start of some questions.get the bacardi out.

do i need to fill out both n1 and n244 to amend claim.ta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear

 

Have just been reading your thread and llike you have struggled around the site asking all manner of oh so simplistic questions !!! Now worried about my mcol claim (having read your thread) as I'm sure I didnt put all those details in. Barclys put in defence - court bundle due next week (nearly done) - would this have been questioned by now if not correct? But within Barclays defence it says 'Defendent resp requests an order that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR r3.4 as it does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

Also says 'does not comply with CPR r16.2

 

Sorry , should prob be asking all this on my own thread (wherever that is)but somehow found myself here and cant be asked to find my way any further. Up to my NECK in court bundle. Please let this be OK!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear

 

Have just been reading your thread and llike you have struggled around the site asking all manner of oh so simplistic questions !!! Now worried about my mcol claim (having read your thread) as I'm sure I didnt put all those details in. Barclys put in defence - court bundle due next week (nearly done) - would this have been questioned by now if not correct? But within Barclays defence it says 'Defendent resp requests an order that the claim be struck out pursuant to CPR r3.4 as it does not disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.

Also says 'does not comply with CPR r16.2

 

Sorry , should prob be asking all this on my own thread (wherever that is)but somehow found myself here and cant be asked to find my way any further. Up to my NECK in court bundle. Please let this be OK!!!

If the judge hasnt deemed the PoC's insufficient then you should be ok i will locate your thread and give it a bump to the top so you can find it :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

who else, to early for anyone else,want my answers before you spill it over computer.lol

pffffffffffffft lol

 

Ive not started just yet ...... tho will be very soon now that you have drawn my attention to it ;-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...