Jump to content


Grant123 Vs BOS/HBOS.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6073 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 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

How are you Grant,

Any progress yet?

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you still looking for T&Cs?

 

Have you tried here?****Serious request please.****

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone

 

I have just received a Notice of claim form for one of my claims. Howard has until the 10th of September to reply.

 

Unless I've missed something, the form does not instruct me to do anything.

 

I take it the next step in the process will be if and when Howard files his defence or requsts a stay.

 

Back to sitting on thumbs, I think !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, that is exactly what it is.

 

So i think twiddling those thumbs might be a better idea..:eek:

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had noticed new avatar Grant, but didn`t want to be first to comment. LOL It is not only Thumbs that get sore DK

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great avatar grant..! So thats what you do on here all night...:D

 

 

Glad to see you found something useful to do with your thumbs!!!

  • Haha 2

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont have to type it up. Have a look through this link and see if yours is the same.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/halifax-bank-bank-scotland/110071-urgent-halifax-defence-filed.html

 

There isnt really anything you can do now. Just wait to hear from the court.

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all

 

The defence from Optima is the same as the one Kelvid received, here it is below.

 

I am correct in thinking the mainstay of their defence is that I agreed to the T and C's therefore the charges they make are fair game, And Also paragraph ten seems to say that they believe their charges are fair !!.

 

Any advice appreciated !

 

 

Here is how Halifax defence is worded:-

 

1. Save as is specifically admitted in this Defence, the Defendant denies each and every allegation set out in the POC.

 

2. It is admitted that the Claimant had an account with the Defendant, numbered XXXXXXXX & XXXXXXXX ("Account").

 

3. At all times, the Account has been subject to the applicable terms and conditions ("Conditions"), which form part of the contract between the Claimant and the Defendant and to which the Claimant agreed when he opened the Account. Under the Account Conditions, the Defendant is entitled to apply charges to the Account, inter alla and so far as is relevant to this claim, for;

3.1 each calendar month when a debit balance on the Account exceeds any authorised overdraft limit;

3.2 refusing to honour payment instructions issued by the Claimant where there are insufficient funds available for withdrawl from the Account (after taking into consideration any authorised overdraft limit);

3.3 honouring payment instructions issued by the Claimant where the overdraft limit has already been exceeded, or is exceeded as a result of honouring the payment instruction.

 

4. The Defendant will contend that the Claimant received a copy of the Conditions and the said Tariff Charges.

 

5. The Claimant appears to be claiming charges applied to the Account. By vitue of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3 above, the Claimant was in breach of Contract and the Claimant became liable to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time. In accordance with the Conditions, such fees were debited from the Account.

 

6. Further or in the alternative, even if it is said that the Claimant did not breach the terms of the Conditions referred to in paragraph 3, the Defendant was entitled to Charge the fees in accordance with the Conditions and the Tariff of Charges applicable at the relevant time, and the charges were reasonably applied for the agreed banking services.

 

7. In view of the facts and matters referred to in paragraphs 3,4 and 5 above, the Defendant denies that the amount of £XXXXX or any amount was unlawfully debited from the Account and the Claimants claim for the repayment of that amount is therefore denied.

 

8. The Claimants contention that the said fees are unenforceable is denied. The fees reflect and are proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred due to the Claimants breach of Contract or in the alternative, it is found that there has been no breach of contract by the Claimant, that the fees have been reasonably incurred in accordance with Conditions and Tariff of Charges detailed in the contract.

 

9. Further, the Defendant denies being in breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and or the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and that the terms and conditions satisfy the test of reasonableness.

 

10. Further or in the alternative, even if the said fees are not proportionate to the Defendants administrative expenses incurred (which is denied), the Claimant remains liable to pay such fees as may be found to be proportionate and the Claimant is not entitled to claim repayment of the full amount of each charge made to the Account.

 

11. No admissions are made as to the amounts claimed by the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof of the same.

 

The defendant believes that the facts stated in the defence to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...