Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That explains it then. MET's fantasy is that it's a pay car park.  You're only let off paying if you are a Starbucks customer which you can't be when Starbucks is closed.  'Cos otherwise lots of people would abuse the car park facilities on the far edge of the Stansted Airport area in the middle of nowhere to ... admire the bushes?  Look at the cloudy sky? The important thing is that we have around 140 cases for this site, and MET have only tried court seven times.  Even then, they had no intention of getting as far as a hearing, they were attempting to intimidate the motorists into paying, when the Caggers defended the cases MET discontinued.
    • She's an only child and he as a brother and sister. He has no will and we have done a check on this to find out if he had left one and nothing has come up. He has savings of around 28k His sister and brother are well off so 28k is nothing to them and aren't interested in his money. This just leaves my wife/his daughter. Would this still need to go to probate there is no estate e.g house or business to sell and the amount left in his bank is just small? When his wife died they just closed her bank account and moved her money across to his account and we just assumed that once my wife has handed in the death certificate and shown evidence of who she is the same would apply to her? We don't know yet the council have only just written to us today with a guide of what to do next.  
    • Did your FiL leave a Will and if so who is the Executor? Strictly speaking banks could refuse to take instructions until Probate is granted but In practice I would expect the bank to take instructions to cancel the DD if the Executor presents the death certificate and a certified copy of the Will
    • Hi   Sorry I probably wasn't clear enough. He had lived in the flat until December 2022 with Dementia by this time it was unsafe for him to have capacity to live on his own and he had to move into a nursing home. We had left it too late to apply for power of attorney so approached a solicitor in March last year for Deputyship. We were still in the process of dealing with it by May 2024. He passed away a few weeks ago and the solicitor was contacted to halt the application and we will just pay the fees of what work he has done up until now. My wife was the named person on her dads bank account but we didn't have the ability to alter any direct debits hence the reasons for applying for Deputyship as we were having problems trying to stop some payments coming out of his account Eon being another difficult company. We kept his flat on from December 2022 - August 2023. it was at this point I contacted Sancutary housing to inform them he was no longer living in the flat, it had been cleared out and was ready for a new tenant and that he had Dementia and had moved into a nursing home December 2022 and explained the reasons why we kept it on. As the named person to speak on his behalf I asked them what proof they needed in order to give notice on the flat e.g proof of dementia and proof that he was living in a nursing home and anything else they wanted. The lady in the upstairs flat and some of the other residence in the street had asked about him and we had told them he had moved into a nursing home. The lady in the upstairs flat wanted his flat for medical reasons so asked us once we had given notice could be let her know and she'll ask them if she can have it. We explained the difficulties and it was left at that but I did tell her I would let her know once notice was given. I contacted the company by email a number of times and also telephone conversations and nobody followed it up and it wasn't till the end of February this year that the housing manager for the area wrote to our home address to ask about him that he had been to the flat a couple of times and nobody answered and he had asked some of the residence in the street and they hadn't seen him for sometime. There was an email address on the letter so I contacted him and copied in the last 2 emails I sent Sanctuary regarding me wanting to give notice on the flat for at least 9 months explaining that it went ignored as well as telephone calls. I also stated I wanted to have his rent payments returned from the date I wanted to give notice which was from August 2023 as the bank wouldn't let us stop the DD without POT or deputyship explaining we were in the process of Deputyship. He gave some excuse about not having POT to cancel on his behalf and spoke to someone in HR and said he would contact the nursing home to confirm he was there with Dementia and if it all checks out we can give notice on the flat which came to an end on the 22 March 2024. There was not mention of back payments for the rent already paid or the fact I had asked to give notice in August 2023. Despite someone living in the flat from 1st April they continue to take DD payments for the flat and have taken another 2 payments of £501. another concerning thing despite Eon not allowing us to cancel the DD to his account the lady upstairs informed Eon that she was moving into the flat February 2024 and Eon refunding the account to his bank and said in an email sorry you are leaving us and canceled his account. Something they wouldn't let us do but a stranger. She also changed her bank account to his address despite the fact notice hadn't been given on the flat yet. So we need to find out how much information Sanctuary actually had for her to tell her power company she was moving into the flat in February despite the housing manager only just getting in contact to find out where he was. So a complaint is going into Eon and Sanctuary and we are going to take advice and ask the bank to charge back the rent. My wife hasn't taken the death certificate to the bank yet to inform them of his passing.  
    • Yes, I believe the Starbucks was closed at the time the car was parked there 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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