Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apologies dx100uk  I did not put the answers in red  Thank you all for your patience. H
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Northampton  Name of the Claimant ? Overdales solicitors  How many defendant's  joint or self ?  Self Date of issue – top right hand corner of the claim form – this in order to establish the time line you need to adhere to.  13 may 2024 What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account 4546384809766042. The defendant faild to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. The dbt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ?   Not to my knowledge. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred?  No Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ?  Online but it was for a smaller amount they kept on increasing this with me asking 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.  It was assigned to a debt collection agency  Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? yes  Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor?  Yes I also made offers to pay original creditor a smaller amount but was not replied to Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ?  No Why did you cease payments? I was made redundant and got a less paid job I also spent some time on furlough during covid and spent some 3 months on ssp off work. What was the date of your last payment?  May 2021 Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes at the time I communicated with all my creditor's that I was running out of funds to pay the original agreements once my redundancy money ran out that was when my accounts defaulted. I then wrote to all my creditor's with pro rata offers of payments but debt collectors took over the accounts.
    • Just an update for all. I received about a letter every other week, increasing in threat levels. Then I hadn't had one for a about two weeks, then Saturday received a carbon copy of the very first letter they sent me in February. Made me laugh, rinse and repeat. 
    • So, your response was not received by the SCP as you did not send it with a valid stamp. Therefore, from my two option in post #14, the first option is the only one available to you, but you do not have the option of asking to be sentenced at the fixed penalty level as the reason the SCP did not receive your response was down to you. Here's a reminder of what to do: Respond to the SJPN by pleading “Not Guilty” to both charges. In the “Reasons for pleading Not Guilty” box state that you are willing to plead guilty to the speeding charge providing, and only providing, the “Fail to Provide Driver's Details" (FtP) charge is dropped. This is a tried and tested method to deal with your problem and is almost always successful. Before the pandemic it was necessary to attend court to do this "deal" because it needs the agreement of the police prosecutor.. During the pandemic courts made every effort to have as few  people as possible attend and they began doing this deal under the "Single Justice" procedure without the defendant's attendance. Some courts have carried this procedure on whilst others have reverted to a personal attendance being necessary. If you are required to attend, your case will be taken out of the SJ procedure and you will be given a date for a hearing in the normal Magistrates' Court. If that is the way they do it in the area involved you will have to attend, see the prosecutor and offer your "deal" in person. 
    • what device are you using? copy all the questions then come here to this thread and paste them. then answer each question click on red give answers here. when done  hit submit reply bottom right.  
  • 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 
      • 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

Seminole v Abbey: £10,235 RECEIVED


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6372 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 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

edit.... So either they're relying on sheer bulk (like an oil tanker) to intimidate (thus breaking the law anyway) or they really have absolutely no clue what they're doing...

 

They know exactly what they're doing. They're just playing the game in the hope that people will give up. For some this will work. For most BAGers, they don't stand a chance of us giving up until it becomes an unwinnable thing for us.

 

They know that the charges are unlawful but they have no option but to come out fighting. If they didn't the landslide would start here.

 

The landslide will start when the OFT publishes its findings on these charges as it did with CC charges. Only a few months after this, a number of CC providers have drastically reduced the penalty charges.

 

Until the landslide, we just need to keep pushing and wading through all the carp(sic) from Sputnick, Trollop and Wastrel until their client realises that they can't steamroller the case any more.

 

Forcing disclosure would be geat, but it won't happen. They'll just settle out of court before disclosure gets anywhere close.

Abbey - Won DPA Claim - Aug 06 and got bailiffs in to recover my court costs of just £30.00

Abbey - Won Charges Refund of £1050 - Nov 06

Egg - Recovered £220 due to Customer Services misinformation - Feb 2007

Nat West - Prelinimary Letter to recover on Credit Card charges £30.00 sent March 2006. £25.40 offered - rejected and the bank reckons that this is it's last word on the matter. We'll see if that's still the case when it reads my N1 form sent recently. It has until the 17th April to respond or the N1 will be submitted.

 

Please check out my web site www.BankChargesScandal.co.uk for Research, Useful links and my story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder you have been quiet tonight, but I have to say, you have my admiration for turning it all around relatively quickly :)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the table was very easy. Quick pivot table in Excel and then chucked it into Adobe. I need to double check the figures although if I've made any errors they're likely to mean the total is understated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In case anyone's morbidly curious

 

Sweet baby Jeebus, December 2000 and February 2001 must have been a veritable paperstorm of "bounce" letters...

A&L: Settled - £6,200

HFC: Settled - £800

Shell Visa: Settled - £250

Egg: Settled - £700

Mint: Settled - £1200

RBS: Settled - £850

 

The opionions in this post are guaranteed to conform to the laws of physics, but pretty much nothing else...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the table was very easy. Quick pivot table in Excel and then chucked it into Adobe. I need to double check the figures although if I've made any errors they're likely to mean the total is understated.

 

I didnt mean it like that , LMAO I meant your financial situation , I am still struggling with an o/d

 

understated !!!!!!!!!! OMFG:o

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt mean it like that , LMAO I meant your financial situation , I am still struggling with an o/d

 

understated !!!!!!!!!! OMFG:o

 

Oops, it's late.

 

In the end it was a very simple solution. I sold my house, paid off everything and moved into a single room in a friend's house for a few months. I'm still there but I now have a whole floor. I jointly own another house nearby where my Dad lives and which I use for storage and the net proceeds of the sale went into buying an investment property in the States that's gone up 60% in value since 2004. Having said that it only works because I have a good income. I was just so far gone in debt that even my income couldn't sustain it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

proceeds of the sale went into buying an investment property in the States .

 

ahhh would I be right in presuming that the said property is in florida? (hence Seminole?)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am following your thread as my bank charges will be a similar amount to yours I am waiting on some statements from shABBEY, they have sent me the last 2 years statements but still awaiting the rest, but I know it will be close to 10 thousand and I am not sure if I should fast track or do 2 smaller claims through the small claims court... are you going to fast track?

Link to post
Share on other sites

One quick update. The following is in response to my letter to the ICO:

 

Our Reference: FOI/ 370

Dear Mr Seminole,

Re: Your Request for Information

Thank you for your correspondence dated 14/06/2006 which was received by the Information Commissioner’s Office on the 19/06/2006. Your request is being dealt with in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We will respond by 17/07/2006 which is 20 working days from the date we received your request.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of the Information Requests Team

I think they have their dates confused. I faxed and posted my letter to them on 14 June buy hey ho. It will still be interesting to see what they send.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seminole, dude, are you selling tickets for the court show, if it ever gets that far? Put me down for one....

 

get thee behind me CrispDust, I want to be there too , if it ever gets that far, which I doubt:D

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, decision made.

 

I am pursuing Abbey for my costs for the DPA claim which means that that claim will proceed if they don't pay up.

 

I will be amending my estimated claim to the full £11k as soon as I can. Fast track here we come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, decision made.

 

I am pursuing Abbey for my costs for the Data Protection Act claim which means that that claim will proceed if they don't pay up.

 

I will be amending my estimated claim to the full £11k as soon as I can. Fast track here we come.

 

 

OOOOO changed your pants yet???

 

Good luck, we are all behind you :D

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OOOOO changed your pants yet???

 

Good luck, we are all behind you

 

I'd prefer to stand in front...

 

Good luck Seminole.

A&L: Settled - £6,200

HFC: Settled - £800

Shell Visa: Settled - £250

Egg: Settled - £700

Mint: Settled - £1200

RBS: Settled - £850

 

The opionions in this post are guaranteed to conform to the laws of physics, but pretty much nothing else...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell semi... nice one mate. I can't state my admiration enough for your strength... the times surrounding these charges must have been some of the darkest days.

 

Kudos to you pal and I wish you all the very best. I'll be watching this thread like a hawk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good man..go get them!!

Halifax Current Account - Claiming Over £2k

Halifax Card Services - Claiming Over 1K

Capital One - Settled

Citi Cards - Claiming Over £1k

Abbey National - Claiming Over 3K

Link to post
Share on other sites

Email to the Information Commissioner regarding their failure to properly respond to my letter demanding confirmation of whether they have examined Abbey's microfiche system:

 

Dear Sir

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I wrote to you on 14 June 2006 and sent the letter by fax and post. I am therefore somewhat surprised that you have not acknowledged receipt of the fax on the next working day (ie 15 June 2006).

 

Whilst I accept that you are entitled to deal with this matter as an Freedom of Information Act request, I am very concerned that you have chosen to do so. In my letter I outlined the circumstances in which I was making the request. I am a current litigant against Abbey National plc whose solicitors have stated in writing that your office has given a preliminary assessment that their microfiche system is not a relevant filing system under the Data Protection Act. I also mentioned that the litigation timescales are not within my control. As you will have seen from the solicitors’ letter they made explicit threats to me if I choose to pursue the litigation. As it stands your timescales for a response to me will be significantly beyond the date at which I have to decide whether to proceed.

 

My understanding is that the role of the Information Commissioners Office is to protect Data Subjects and not Data Controllers. I would also suggest that it is not your role to act, or allow yourselves to be portrayed, as a private witness for a Data Controller. That is, nevertheless, your position as I see it.

 

I would be grateful if you would, by return of email:

 

  • Confirm whether you were requested to provide a preliminary assessment of the microfiche system used by Abbey National plc to archive bank statement and transaction information
  • If you were asked to make such an assessment, set out the terms of reference for that assessment
  • If that assessment was completed, provide a copy of the results.

I see no reason why this information cannot be provided immediately. If you do not do so I will pursue a complaint against your organization and also draw your actions to the attention of the judge hearing this case.

 

Yours faithfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

Semi's gone in all guns blazing LOL

 

You dont take any prisoners do you Pussycat :-)))

 

 

Well done :p

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DLA seems to have dropped any reference to the ICO in the current version of the threatening letter that they've sent to at least one other person. However, they still made the point to me and I don't want to let it go.

 

I think there are two possibilities:

 

1) DLA were not being wholly truthful in their letter; or

 

2) The ICO has been drawn into the position of being cited as privately providing evidence to support the argument of a Data Controller against a Data Subject. I suspect that this isn't deliberate and it wouldn't susprise me if they are very annoyed that they've been put in this position. Nevertheless, I don't think that they can allow the current position to continue. Any report that they have provided cannot be private to the Data Controller and they cannot hide behind the Freedom of Information Act to delay providing a copy of that report to the Data Subject and other litigant. If they continue to fail to provide it then one has to draw some very disquieting conclusions about how they interpret their role.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...