Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The important thing to know is that MET - although they will send you threat after threat about how they will divert a drone from Ukraine and make it fall on your home - hardly ever do court. Even in the very small number of cases where they send court papers, if the Cagger defends, they drop the matter before the hearing.  They have no real intention of putting their rubbish claim before a judge.  The aim is to find motorists who are terrified of the idea of going to court and who will give in when the court papers arrive. Thanks for doing the sticky and well done on finding F18's thread.  Do what they did.  On the first page - I think post 19 - there is the address of the CEO of BP.  Write to them, lay it on thick about being genuine customers in the various premises, mention the small kids, the very short stay time, attach any proof of purchase - and request that they get the invoice cancelled.
    • Thank you for that, I have obviously already been convicted so I think the appeal lodged is for the previous offence? Sorry if that doesn’t make sense. I suppose my only concern is that weds I go there and they don’t let a stat dec happen. If they do then as you say and solicitor says it’s highly likely I’ll be happy with the outcome. But I’m being told there’s no guarantee for the stat dec to be hard Weds as that’s not what the hearing is proposed for. Solicitor has stated that you can put a stat dec before a magistrates at any time so it shouldn’t be a problem.   
    • I re-read the extract from your  solicitor's letter this morning and think I might understand what they have in mind. I believe (and it’s only a guess) their strategy is this: 1.    You will make your SD 2.    You will enter fresh pleas to the four charges (not guilty) but will offer to plead guilty to speeding on the understanding that the FtP charges are dropped. 3.    If this is accepted they will attempt to argue that the two offences were committed “on the same occasion” 4.    You will be sentenced for those two offences (the sentence depending on whether the “same occasion” argument succeeds). They also have a plan in the event that your offer at (2) is unsuccessful and you are convicted again of the 2xFtP charges (and so face disqualification under “totting up”): 5.    They will make an “exceptional hardship” argument to avoid a ban. 6.    If that is unsuccessful they have already lodged an appeal in the Crown Court against that decision. (This is the only “appeal” I can think of). 7.    They plan to ask the court to suspend your ban pending that appeal. If I’m correct, I’m surprised the Crown Court has agreed to accept a speculative appeal (against something that hasn’t happened). The solicitor says this is to lodge it within the normal timescales. But you will have 21 days from the date of your conviction (which will be next Wednesday) to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court, so there is no need for a speculative appeal. I have to say that an application to have your ban suspended pending an appeal is unlikely to succeed. The Magistrates Court is unlikely to agree to it for one very good reason: if they make such an order (suspending your ban until your appeal is heard), all you need to do is not to pursue the appeal and the Magistrates order suspending your ban will remain in place. Hey Presto! No ban and no need for you to trouble with an appeal. Perhaps he will ask for your ban to be suspended for (say) three months or until your appeal is heard (whichever occurs first). This potentially creates a problem because if your appeal is not heard in that time either your ban will kick in or you will have o go back to court to get the suspension extended. But the solicitor obviously knows more about these things than I do. I would want to be very clear about this solicitor’s fees and what he proposes to charge you for. As I said, there is absolutely no need to lodge an appeal with the Crown Court. That can be done if and when it becomes required. But I am still firmly of the opinion that it is overwhelmingly likely that you will not need to progress beyond point 2 above. Point 3 is optional and I don’t know whether he solicitor has made It clear to you that the only thing you will avoid in the event of success is three penalty points. You will still be fined for the second offence and your driving record will still be endorsed with the details, but no penalty points will be imposed. Do let us know how it goes.  
    • I'm really trying, but worst case I can't find what are my options?
    • John Lewis' Privacy Notice states that their CCTV Systems does not use facial recognition or collect biometric data - so I assume it should be fine?    Thank you a lot for your reply. I've scheduled my first therapy session ne t week. Really the time to turn my life around..
  • 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

Please comment on the new SAR generator here


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6204 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 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just tired it on by selecting a few accounts

 

The Account numbers did nt appear on any of them

Otherwise spot on!

 

Paul

 

The account numbers show on the last page!

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, overall really good system. I seem to be the only one to mention something to improve on, so I'm sorry but.......................

 

The only thing that I think could be added to make it better is the ability to:

 

1. An option to remove account numbers that have been inputted in error - if you add some account numbers in wrong, you have to go all the way back and type everythign again!

2. Maybe a "preview" option so that you can check everythings there and ok before you submit it - saves haveing to retype everything again.

Disclaimer: Anything I write in these forums is my personal opinion and offered without prejudice. If in doubt, please seek independent legal advice.

 

*If what I have told you in this post has helped, please press the star at the bottom left and tell me!!*

 

My charges claims:

un1boy vs egg *SETTLED* | Un1boy vs LTSB-SETTLED | un1boy vs Black Horse-SETTLED | Un1boy v Smile *WON* | un1boy v HSBC - SETTLED! | Un1boy's HSBC CC - SETTLED! | Un1boy vs Co-Op *SETTLED* |un1boy vs Co-Op CC *SETTLED*

 

Default removals:

un1boy v Equifax - Default removal

un1boy vs Experian - Default removal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I had only 1 letter come through, on both downloaded files... each only 1 page and without account numbers...

But its easy enough to compile your own using the templates already provided elsewhere, which only takes up a little time ....

So no real problem..

Thanks anyway for trying to make things even easier for us all!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

very easy to use but i couldnt find rooftop motgages but other wise totally brill!

when i win ...... 5% goes back to the site!

 

Halifax- 14/6/06 Data Protection Act.28/6/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) - (Subject Access Request) handed in person. 2/7/06 Prelin sent for £3297. 19/7/06 LBA sent SETTLED

Halifax cc- 26/7 prelim for £140 - 14/8 LBA sent - 21/8 £ 70 offer - 22/8 Halifax agreed to pay £140 after call SETTLED

Halifax loan #1 - SETTLED

SMPL- 20/6/06 prelim sent for £610 4/7 sent lba after no reply. MCOL 29/9

Rooftop Mortgages - 20/6/06 prelim sent for £225. 29/6/06 letter rec'd saying no! /2/7/06 LBA sent

Capital One- 24/6/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent. 2/7/06 prelim sent for £137. 19/7/06 LBA sent MCOL 29/9 SETTLED

Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be nit picking but...

 

Date format is not professional, should be in the format of 14 June 2007. An extra line space between the date and the heading would be better.

 

Also, if like me, you tab through form boxes would it not be possible to tab down the page instead of tabbing across as it does currently on the previous address boxes?

 

Apart from that it seems to work fine. Good idea

The advice I give in relation to benefits should be viewed as general advice and not specific to your individual claim circumstances. I cannot give specific advice on your claim as I cannot access the claim.

 

If you find the advice useful please click on my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for the feedback everyone.

 

The technical issue which people were experiencing, whereby account details were not being added to the letter has been resolved. This issue was caused by a confusingly labelled button. This was the only 'technical' issue which came to light.

 

The other issues mentioned were to do with the content and formatting of the letter itself.

 

We have agreed that the reference to inspecting documents atr the bank's premises should be removed, because quite a few are either 'virtual' banks or don't have wide branch networks.

 

A few folk have mentioned putting the account number on the first page of the letter itself, as opposed to on the additional info' page. We have decided not to do this because we want to make it clear that account numbers are for identification purposes only, and we don't want to give the recipient an excuse to only send personal data for that particular account.

 

A number of people also mentioned issues to do with line spacing and other formatting. These will be addressed in due course.

 

The feedback portion of the CAGSARG beta testing is now complete, and this thread is closed. There will now be a short period of technical testing to ensure robustness, as well as tweaking to the wording of the letter as described above.

 

We would like to thank everyone who gave us such excellent feedback, and we look forward to implementing CAGSARG fully in the next week or so. :)

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6204 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...