Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

New Terms and Conditions on Credit Cards


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6530 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

Seems like the card companies are starting to implement the OFT guidelines without fighting their corner.

 

Even though my LTSB credit card hasn't run out, I recieved a new one today with....[drumroll]...yes, you guessed it, a new Terms and Conditions booklet.

 

I quote:

"Section 8 Charges

8.1 For letting you continue to use your card (if we do let you) despite your having broken these conditions, we will charge you:

  • £12 for not making at least your minimum payment by the payment date
  • £12 each time you exceed your credit limit
  • £12 for each payment ...[etc] ... not honoured

We will also charge reasonable costs and expenses resulting from you breaking these conditions."

 

Note that they have gone down to the OFT rates, but that still contradicts their own term "reasonable".

 

Interestingly, in Section 9, Other Conditions/Other Charges, 9.1 states:

"We charge an annual fee of £X on or around each anniversary..."

 

I read the whole document and tried to see what 'X' equated to, but alas, nothing. :confused:

 

Is this a case of pick a figure out of the air, or does the first person to spot this missing algebraic nonsense win a prize?

 

Anyway, pleased to note that the last term 18.9 = "English law governs this agreement and any pre-contractual negotiations..."

 

which nullifies the charges anyway, but does this mean that card holders can now pre-negotiate their terms and conditions???

 

I might just phone them up and have a laugh! ;-)

 

Note: they are also changing the "definition of Cash Withdrawal to include cash related transactions, or purchases of money orders..." i.e. this will now include PayPal.

 

In the menatime, Marbles have sent me all my statements...free(!), but Monument have replied wondering if I had a aompliant and why did I want my old statements.... ho hum

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post - record the call to Lloyds if you do phone up for a giggle :D

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.1 For letting you continue to use your card (if we do let you) despite your having broken these conditions, we will charge you:
  • £12 for not making at least your minimum payment by the payment date
  • £12 each time you exceed your credit limit
  • £12 for each payment ...[etc] ... not honoured

We will also charge reasonable costs and expenses resulting from you breaking these conditions."

 

£12 for each offence and reasonable costs - I thought the £12 was (supposedly) the reasonable costs! They really don't get this do they?

... a little

Mahala is a powerful thing ...

 

If you like my advice, please click the scales.

All advice is offered informally. If in any doubt, seek professional advice.

Barclays:claiming £908. Defence filed

Simply Be: settled in full

Abbey: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

GE Capital: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

Aktiv Kapital: Failed to comply with CCA disclosure. Debt unenforceable.

If this site has helped you, please make a donation to help keep it going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody cheek.

 

Do I read this right?

 

8.1 For letting you continue to use your card (if we do let you) despite your having broken these conditions, we will charge you:

  • £12 for not making at least your minimum payment by the payment date
  • £12 each time you exceed your credit limit
  • £12 for each payment ...[etc] ... not honoured

We will also charge reasonable costs and expenses resulting from you breaking these conditions.

 

 

Are these T&Cs saying £12 PLUS reasonable costs and expenses? Because that's how I read this, and if that's the case, boy oh boy... That would be the clearest and purest admission that the £12 IS a penalty... Game, set and match... :D

 

Edit: Mahala, snap, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

snap lol

 

 

and again lmao

... a little

Mahala is a powerful thing ...

 

If you like my advice, please click the scales.

All advice is offered informally. If in any doubt, seek professional advice.

Barclays:claiming £908. Defence filed

Simply Be: settled in full

Abbey: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

GE Capital: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

Aktiv Kapital: Failed to comply with CCA disclosure. Debt unenforceable.

If this site has helped you, please make a donation to help keep it going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Section 8 Charges

8.1 For letting you continue to use your card (if we do let you) despite your having broken these conditions, we will charge you:

  • £12 for not making at least your minimum payment by the payment date
  • £12 each time you exceed your credit limit
  • £12 for each payment ...[etc] ... not honoured

We will also charge reasonable costs and expenses resulting from you breaking these conditions."

 

 

Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh!

 

They've completely missed the point! Bunch of f***wits!

 

The whole point of the £12 should be to cover the reasonable costs and expenses they incurr as a result of you breaking the conditions!

 

So, it's still a penalty charge although has been cleverly reworded so that it actually isn't a penalty charge. It's a fee for them allowing you to keep your card which means that, if it isn't a penalty clause, they could probably get away with charging whatever they wanted because it's effectively a card fee, similar to an annual fee.

 

That's how I see it anyway.

 

OC

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, four posts while I was typing that!

 

I think what they're doing is applying a fee for allowing you to keep the card despite the breach and then stating that they'll also apply reasonable fees etc. However, what will happen is that if you make a late payment, they'll charge the £12 fee but won't charge the other reasonable costs etc and then claim to be lenient if you take them to court because they didn't recover their losses in respect of the breach like they were entitled to, only the £12 keep your card fee.

 

I suspect this is the way most of them, including bank accounts, will go.

 

OC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I read in the OFT report that they will not tolerate attempts like this to mask the penalties by calling them another name.

 

It depends if they will do anything about it though,

First Direct, £4031 Recovered

Halifax, £953 Recovered

MBNA Credit Card, £120 Recovered

American Express, £160 Recovered

Coming Soon......

Blackpool Council, £190 in unlawful parking tickets

Carstoppers. £50 from the cowboy clampers

Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesn't depend on the OFT though does it? The law is the law and if the OFT allow breaches to slide, I'm sure the courts won't!

... a little

Mahala is a powerful thing ...

 

If you like my advice, please click the scales.

All advice is offered informally. If in any doubt, seek professional advice.

Barclays:claiming £908. Defence filed

Simply Be: settled in full

Abbey: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

GE Capital: Claim issued for DPA compliance order

Aktiv Kapital: Failed to comply with CCA disclosure. Debt unenforceable.

If this site has helped you, please make a donation to help keep it going.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did phone them up, and the poor Miss girly-call-centre-'hasn't-a-clue' referred me to a supervisor (i.e. someone who's managed to last there more than 6 months and gets promoted by default), who then referred me to the Customer Care department that looks after Terms and Conditions queries.... who also didn't have a clue.

 

I pointed out that I was happy to pay a fee of "£X" as it wasn't defined, so couldn't be retrospectively applied in the event of any dispute....

 

and she said "That's okay, the charge won't apply to you". I asked for that in writing.... [Porcine Airways Gulf-Bravo-Sierra, you are clear for take-off]

 

Anyway, I also asked about the rest of Section 9, in particular 9.3:

"We charge £6 for copies of non-current statements, £5 for copies of transaction receipts...etc. These charges and the charges listed in condition 8.1 will be added to your account when they arise".

 

So, I said to them, all very well, but this was a bit naughty (following my conversation with the ICO about Barclaycard's letter the other day), and said that if I wanted to, I could send them the princely sum of ten of our finest English and formally demand all the statements that I could eat...

 

She didn't understand, until I mentioned the ol' DPA

 

LTSB CC: "Which section is that under?"

 

Me: "which section would you like? Have your legal people even read this leaflet prior to sending it out? Or read the Data Protection Act? Have you heard of Durrant versus the FSA?"

 

LTSB CC: "Who? What? This is way above me, this sort of thing"

 

Me: "But, you're a 'senior' customer services manager, in the department dedicated to answer queries on the terms and conditins?"

 

LTSB CC: "Yes"

 

Me: "Okay, might I respectfully suggest that you go get your legal eagles to hold a training seminar with all you Ts and Cs staff about a few Acts of Parliament, statutory instruments and English case law. I think you might find the basics helpful for future calls, of which, I am sure you will receive many."

 

LTSB CC: "Erm... yes. Er... I'll tell you what, I'll get them to ring you back."

 

Me: "And could you also ask them about Condition 18.9 regarding 'pre-contractual negotiations' - I take it that this allows me the opportunity to negotiate these terms before I accept them"

 

LTSB CC: "Er...I don't know...I presume so"

 

Me: [trying not to pi** myself laughing] "Thanks, you've been very helpful".

 

I await with baited breath for 'the' call

  • Haha 3

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely PRICELESS xr! BRILLIANT!

 

Laughing my ass COMPLETELY off here. I hope you DO get a call... LOL. Also I would send them a letter quoting clause 18.9 and attempt to negotiate some changes to the T&C's, see what they do...!

Link to post
Share on other sites

[Porcine Airways Gulf-Bravo-Sierra, you are clear for take-off]

 

o lol :D

reload vs Lloyds - £2703.11 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload vs Lloyds Round 2 - Prelim sent 27/03/07. £435 owed.

reload vs Capital One - £456.57 Settlement Reached 14/07/06.

reload's mum vs Barclays - £745 owed. £375 partial settlement reached 17/10/06.

Lloyds Bank - The Template Response Letters!

 

Advice & opinions of reload are offered informally, without prejudice and without liability. Please use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

LMAO can't wait to hear if they phone you back and what they say..Ihave a CC with them so can't wait for my new T&C's as I can record the call ;-)

 

OOOOOOH wonder who will be the first to start a claim under these new terms :D

When you want to fool the world, tell the truth. :D

Advice & opinions of Janet-M are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any

doubts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these T&Cs saying £12 PLUS reasonable costs and expenses? Because that's how I read this, and if that's the case, boy oh boy... That would be the clearest and purest admission that the £12 IS a penalty... Game, set and match...

 

Have just re-read your post, and I agree, this really does seem a classic case of not just shooting yourself in the foot, but blowing your own leg off with both barrels!

 

They clearly don't explain what the £12 is for, other than just an arbitrary figure-out-of-the-air, in addition to their reasonable costs, which they would be entitled to recover.

 

I wonder if any other contracts contain such a faux pas - I might ask my current pool of defendants to give me a copy of the orginal contracts.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bl**dy hell!

 

Their legal people must either:

 

a) be tw*ts

 

or

 

b) holding their head in their hands whilst quietly swearing at whomever wrote it (if indeed it wasn't them).

 

We should delete this thread, so they don't realise (if they haven't already) what they've done!

 

Unbelievable!!!!

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have just re-read your post, and I agree, this really does seem a classic case of not just shooting yourself in the foot, but blowing your own leg off with both barrels!

 

They clearly don't explain what the £12 is for, other than just an arbitrary figure-out-of-the-air, in addition to their reasonable costs, which they would be entitled to recover.

Would it be worth sending a copy of these Ts & Cs to the FSO and OFT for their comments?

 

Priceless!!! :grin:

Jeep (The Wife & I)

Halifax joint a/c (£3800 charges + £40 interest on charges over 11 years) - paid in full 23/06/06

Halifax joint a/c new charges £1100 - LBA sent 02/08/06

Halifax 2nd a/c (£1500 charges + £150 interest on charges) - partial payment received 13/07/06 (no s69 interest) - AQ filed 07/08/06 - Court awarded 50% of s69 interest (Bank didn't turn up!)

Halifax Visa (#1) Data Protection Act sent - statements arrived - £350 so far

Halifax Visa (#2) Data Protection Act sent - refunded £170

DONATE - Support this site, it supported you!

Follow the route: FAQs > Template Library > Parachute Account > Bank Forums > Spreadsheet

All advice given in good faith and without prejudice or liability, to be taken at your own risk!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, who wants it scanned...

 

Can we put pictures within posts here?...

 

Maybe deleting the thread might be a good idea, but my call has probably already put the cat amongst the pigeons.

 

I note that the wording starts with:

"For letting you continue to use your card (if we do let you) despite your having broken these conditions, we will charge you:" de dum, de dum, de dum...

 

However, I might just write to them and ask them quantify how it costs £12 to leave a card already registered on their system to continue to be registered, i.e. the "let you continue" bit.

 

BTW, Condition 14.7 says "You authorise us to make payments due to us under this agreement from current or savings accounts you have with us if you don;t pay them on time yourself. Unless we believe the funds from your current or savings account will be moved before payments are made, we will give you at least 7 days advance warning before we do this." :eek:

 

You f*****g think you will do what????

 

a) banks can't move money bewteen ANY accounts, unless there is a signed contract in place, and suitable instrument (duly signed), e.g. DD or SO. It is illegal (under anti-money laundering legislation) to move money between accounts without a signed authority - as in criminal offence.

b) How do they interpret the condition, or suspicion, that funds in your accounts will be moved prior to them being able to pay off your card?

c) 7 days is a contravention of the Banking Code - because this condition doesn't even exist in the Bankng Code. So, they have abitrarily made this one up.

 

It beggars belief that this has been okayed by persons within their legal office - you could drive the QEII through the holes.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

a) banks can't move money bewteen ANY accounts, unless there is a signed contract in place, and suitable instrument (duly signed), e.g. DD or SO. It is illegal (under anti-money laundering legislation) to move money between accounts without a signed authority - as in criminal offence.

 

Erm... Actually, not quite. THEY can. It's called offsetting. We have had a few people on this forum to whom it has happened, and as far as I am aware, it is legal. Ethically disputable, but legal. If you know any different, can you advise or post a link to authority? I would LOVE to be proved wrong on this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will also charge reasonable costs and expenses resulting from you breaking these conditions."

 

Well done xr537 you have just recorded the 10th most preposterous statement I have witnessed since being on the BAG (see my other posts for nos 1 - 9). And for reference purposes - if arranged in order of hilarity and value - it is number one.

 

Scan it and PM me please. The George W Bush poster of grammatical malapropisms has exceeded its shelf-life.

 

"broadband internet connection £14.99, copy of OFT report free, subscription to BAG free, postage for letters to bank £2 , money claim online £30. LloydsTSB credit card terms and conditions. Priceless"

"BA Group. The World's favourite CA Group"

 

HSBC 2 claims amalgamated. £1195. settled in full prior to filing claim.

BARCLAYS settled in full 2 days prior to submission of defence by Barclays

CAP ONE settled in full on day 14 of LBA (£210)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm... Actually, not quite. THEY can. It's called offsetting. We have had a few people on this forum to whom it has happened, and as far as I am aware, it is legal. Ethically disputable, but legal. If you know any different, can you advise or post a link to authority? I would LOVE to be proved wrong on this one.

 

All account transfers have to be auditable and authorised by the account holder, or the acount holder could easily argue that they were not aware of money being transferred from their account, especially without notice. Interestingly, I had this very situation with Barclays and told them to move it back there and then, or I would ask the local CID to investigate who moved my money without signed authority. It was back in my account 18 minutes later - I had given them 15, and then a five minute extension.

 

Also, the UTCC Regs...

SCHEDULE 2

Regulation 5(5)

INDICATIVE AND NON-EXHAUSTIVE LIST OF TERMS WHICH MAY BE REGARDED AS UNFAIR

Terms which have the object or effect of:

...

(n) limiting the seller's or supplier's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by his agents or making his commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality;

...

(p) giving the seller or supplier the possibility of transferring his rights and obligations under the contract, where this may serve to reduce the guarantees for the consumer, without the latter's agreement;

 

Worth a pop on (p) as the supplier has arbitrarily transferred part, or all, of the contract to another legally separate contract.

 

Effectively, they are insisting that you act as a guarantor to your own credit card, which under the CCA they have to ask you to sign a guarantor's form, not simply bung it in as a condition.

 

I will get the Anti-laundering legislation pulled apart, as I'm sure it's in there, specified in definite terms.

I'm often a sarcastic SOB and speak my mind (and I don't do PC at all), but I have a laugh as I go. I won't be intimidated, and I don't take prisoners... so live with it, or go get yourself a humour implant :p

 

Copy of Law book from Amazon…£19.95, Refund Request stamp...32p, LBA stamp...also 32p, Court fees...£750.00,

The look on the bank's barrister's face, when they lost the '£25k Mother-of-all unfair charges' cases...(plus his £8k+ of costs)... Priceless!

 

The legal bit: These are my opinions and own view of legislation and process. I accept no liability whatsoever for any outcome as a result of anyone invoking any or all of the advice given - clarify your own personal stuation with an insured legal professional.

Saying that, I've used these methods against many of these corporate crooks:evil: and won hands down!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can actually find the specific legislation, there are many of us, me included, who have had monied transferred to completely unrelated accounts due to being overdrawn etc on another ac.

 

I had 3 accounts with Bank of Scotchland, none of which were related and they were held at 3 different branches. They took my housing benefit out of my cardcash account and credited my current account as I was over the overdraft.

 

I went into the branch in tears and ranting & raving about how my rent was not going to be paid now and they said, as Bookworm did, that it's called 'off-setting'. I also told the manager that you couldn't sequester benefit payments towards debts (up here anyways, not sure bout down south). He obviously disagreed.

 

They have now closed all accounts due to my refusal to give them ANY money towards the debt I do owe them. I am awaiting confirmation that the summons has been served (was at Edinbra Sheriff Court to hand in the SC summons on Fri last week.)

 

Once I receive some cash from them, as I've told their stupid 'debt collectors' I'' figure out what exactly to pay them back...

 

Funnily enough, when I first started to challenge the bank charges and spoke to one of the managers at another branch, I told him it was not allowed to transfer accounts that are clearly in dispute. I thought that my screaming & crying in a managers' office would've been logged as a complaint meeting, but, alas, alack, not to be!!!

Lloyds Current A/C DPA sent 7th May 2009 Closed and charges wiped Summer 2010.

 

Barclays A/C DPA sent 4th June 2009: no reply, no correspondence as of 2011.

 

Littlewoods Data Protection Act Section 10 sent 09/06/2006 - Fraudulent A/C closed and CRA data removed November 2006.

 

HSBC Default & Debt wiped March 2009 (6 yr Statute barred reached)

 

RBS - Claim 1 - Settled in FULL £766.00 20/06/2006.

RBS - Claim 2 - Settled in FULL £777.95 08/09/2006

 

 

BOS A/C No. 1 & 2

Amount - £586.39 claim plus 8% interest

SETTLED IN FULL 08/09/2006 - CHEQUE FOR £625.25

 

Halifax Visa Data Protection Act Disclosure Received

 

First Direct Data Protection Act Disclosure received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their legal people must either:

 

a) be tw*ts

 

or

 

b) holding their head in their hands whilst quietly swearing at whomever wrote it (if indeed it wasn't them).

 

My money's on b*th. :)

HSBCLloyds TSBcontractual interestNew Tax Creditscoming for you?NTL/Virgin Media

 

Never give in ... Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Churchill, 1941

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...