Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 2nd attempt at defence. if nothing else I am stubborn.   1.The Claimant claims payment of an overdue balance in the sum of 1739.60 incurred by the Defendant under a AvantCredit, Unsecured Loan, account number **********   2.The Defendant failed to maintain payments in line with the Agreement and the Account has now matured.   3.The account was then subsequently assigned to the Claimant and the Defendant has been given notice of the accounts assignment.     Note: The above is paragraphed by the Defendant.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   1. The Claimant claims 1739.60 is owed under an unsecured loan agreement with AvantCredit. I am unaware of what alleged debt the claimant refers to and have requested further information by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant has failed to supply a copy of the signed agreement as per my request dated 04-01-2022 and on 26-07-2022 by recorded delivery and is in breach of the section 77 request.   2. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Claimants statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925, allegedly served on the defendant, from either the Claimant and or AvantCredit.   3. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have not complied to my section 77 request and remain in default (and with regards to my CPR 31.14 request). The claimant with their none compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim. Remove between the brackets?? or leave   4. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and © show and evidence that a Default Notice was issued pursuant to sec87.1 CCA1974; © show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   5. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.   as always thanks for all the help T
    • Its being delayed if anything, there are a number of instances where Johnson has made false or misleading statements in parliament .. uncorrected. Videos readily available to all.   Like a thief walking into a shop, grinning at the security cam, then grabbing a a cake and a beer and scoffing them .. all without paying - as the pictures show ...   Pretty cut and dried. Whats taking so long  
    • The forms are not to challenge the pcn's . Merely to exercise your right to have everything reset because you did not, for whatever reason (other than you purposely ignore them), receive them    Dx
    • Hi all   i bought return flights from london Heathrow to Stockholm, travelling 4 aug and 10 aug. The airline is SAS but I bought them through trip.com. The outward flight was cancelled due to a cap on passenger numbers at Heathrow, and so I couldn’t travel. I can get a full refund on this flight. But as for the return flight…    I have explained to trip.com repeatedly that I searched for return flights, I bought them in the knowledge that they were a pair of flights, and even in the portal after purchase it shows them as “departure” and “return” flights. And so I should get a full refund.   They are insisting the following Please kindly see the attached screenshot. Our website clarifies that “to help you get a better deal, your flights will be split into separate bookings. After tickets are issued, any cancellations and changes will need to be dealt with separately according to the corresponding supplier.” This was apparently shown far down in the screen before booking. therefore I can only get some taxes back, ie £20 instead of the full cost £200.   now this seems really really unfair. It’s not reasonable to expect me to notice that and factor that into my decision. By “helping me get a better deal” they have cost me £180!!   As I said it clearly says in the portal that I booked a departure and return flight (even if the email confirmation at the time  split it into two bookings with separate ref nos).   I’ve told them this repeatedly but they are not listening. They are saying it is airline policy to not refund the 2nd flight as it’s a separate flight to the departure one. sas  are just saying it’s a matter for trip.com .   has anyone experienced this? How can I get a full refund on the return flight?   can I appeal to any other body or claim compensation some other way?   thanks all in advance!  
  • Our picks

Office Of Fair Trading Test Case


Guest Wild Billy
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5217 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

as we see with northern rock people will vote with their feet eventually

 

What a fiasco. I don't think we have the truth on what is actually happening with Northern Rock. The media are claiming that there will be more casualties and that NR are a 'small' bank. Also, details have emerged regarding a takeover by a bigger bank.

 

If this bigger bank has withdrawn any facility previously provided to NR, it will put NR on its knees and leave it wide open to a takeover at a bargain price.

 

The majority of people in the queues outside the branches were 50+, and looking to take out their life savings to place somewhere safer. Also, the facility to withdraw funds across the internet has been restricted, with the excuse that the website has been overwhelmed with such requests.

 

This cannot be down to bandwidth as the rest of the site is accessible.

 

Tomorrow will be a very interesting day.

 

Check the share price here free of charge.

 

Telegraph Shares & Funds

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

i wish it were barclays bank.i am supprised no one is taking their money out of them yet because they had to borrow but i can see NR biting the dust before the end of the week,and snooty M king the creep,will get his come uppance for giving his support,it makes you wonder if the other banks have asked to make it difficult for NR in order to purchase them for nothing POLITICAL manouvers afoot.is MR M KING the same Person who was once at BA when FREDDIE LAKER bit the dust because all this has the same hallmarks,MR K likes to fix Prices from what i can remember

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of points here, the first is that we are rapidly approaching a number of deadlines in the test case on the 28th September.

 

Also, the majority of the banks are due to release their 3rd quarter results.

 

This crisis has been blamed on the American mortgage market, and nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, which will affect profits. AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past. This will also affect profits.

 

Maybe there's a few profit warnings on the way, when banks cannot produce the results to match their forecasts.

 

This will start a further panic.

 

All eyes on the actual results.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

well it should stop the fat cat directors from pocketing their anual millions ,but im afraid this wont happen huh....

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally
These are the banks that can request a waiver -

 

Abbey National plc

Barclays Bank plc

Clydesdale Bank plc

HBOS plc

HSBC Bank plc

Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Nationwide Building Society

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc

 

I started to read this thread but it is so long ..... :D and a few threads joined so it is disjointed and difficult to follow.

I do have a few questions though ...........

I notice that Natwest is not on this list, is that an oversight? Or can't they ask for a waiver, if not why not?

 

Why are the banks still paying out on some claims if they don't have to?

Is it worth carrying on or better to wait until this test case has finished?

 

A little confused

 

Sally x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally
nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, which will affect profits. AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past. This will also affect profits

 

Tide

 

Just seen this and don't understand.

My bank is still charging me the same amount for going over. They call it a "maintenance charge" now.

And I thought the point of this case was to see if they will be forced to repay the charges, so I don't understand you saying "they are being forced".

 

Been out of the bank loop for a while so have missed a few things.

 

Sally x

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started to read this thread but it is so long ..... :D and a few threads joined so it is disjointed and difficult to follow.

I do have a few questions though ...........

I notice that NatWest is not on this list, is that an oversight? Or can't they ask for a waiver, if not why not?

 

Nat West is part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group and they are on the list;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...and even they weren't, the FSA allowed all banks not involved in The Test Case to apply for a waiver permitting them to opt out of the FSAs complaints proceedure pending judgement of the The Test Case, providing they agree to abide by it.

 

Which they all have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally
nobody has mentioned the fact that the banks cannot make the charges they used to, AND they are being forced to repay charges they have made in the past.

 

Tide

 

And anyone know what all that means?

Natwest is still charging £28 and if they are being forced to repay what is all the concern about?

 

Sorry if all that has been explained already, but have you seen how many posts there are on this thread!!?

 

Sally x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Very much agree with nevos.

 

My own personal opinion is that the banks would much rather NOT have a test case that could lead, eventually, to them being forced to pay back a proportion, at least, of every charge they've ever levied without the need for Court action, and that the OFT would much rather NOT have to fork out vast sums of money taking their case through every stage of appeal. My opinion on this is very much strengthened by the Northern Rock situation - the Government has shown very clearly that it will do anything to protect the Banks from serious risk, and I am convinced that it will do the same thing with the 'Test Case'.

 

I believe that, eventually, some sort of compromise will be reached, probably full of grey areas, which will leave things pretty much as they are now! Sadly, though, until we know for certain there's very little that we can actually do apart from making our opinions known! One thing we can be pretty sure of is that any compromise will take as long to achieve as the Court process.

 

Just my opinion, of course, but would be very interested in what others think.

 

All the best - Adam.

  • Haha 1

I do my best to be helpful, but at the end of the day I'm not a professional - please seek further advice if you're not sure. On the other hand, if I have helped, please click my scales - thanks ;)

 

Current Claims (all for friends!) -

 

Abbey - over £4k - Court claim issued & AQ filed ('Tish vs Abbey'). Alloc'n Hearing 21 Sept - Claim stayed 29/8/07.

Cap One - just under £2k - WON (just over 2k!)('Tish vs Cap One')

Cap One - just under £1000 - WON (just over £1k) Nov 07 (JimmyBoy vs Cap One)

Lloyds TSB - £3.5k - Court claim issued, defence rec'd and AQ filed; Alloc'n hearing 7th Sept Claim stayed 29/8/07! (JimmyBoy vs Lloyds')

MBNA - over £1k for mis-sold PPI - WON - approx £1500(IpswichWitch vs MBNA . . .)

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the responses I had back from the OFT, having sent the letter from this site.

 

(sorry it wont copy them over for some reason and they are too long too write).

 

In a nutshell they gave me the basic blah blah blah about why the test case was carried out and the waiver etc.

 

I then wrote and said it didnt answer my questions, and why was the banks allowed to continue charging their penalty charges whilst we were unable to continue with our claims, and how unfair and one sided it was etc etc.

 

and Mr Howards response was

 

"The consumer panel believes that the issue of bank charges during the interim period is one of the questions that should be addressed during the FSA's review of the waiver at the end of September. The panel will be consulted by the FSA as part of the review process and we will carefully consider the position of consumers faced with continuing to have charges levied whilst being unable to proceed with their court cases. Of course if the test case finds that the charges are unlawful, consumers will be able to ask for repayment of all unauthorised OD charges, including those levied during the period since the test case was announced"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jules,

 

That's all very well and good, but what about those who are experiencing hardship and still being charged whilst this is resolved?

 

Just got another bad taste in my mouth, and again get the feeling that those who were supposedly set up to oversee the industry are not powerful enough to take any action against the lenders to protect the consumer.

 

Will somebody please stand up and be responsible for this mess.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

FSA are the BANKS/FINANCE CO SPIN DOCTORS they are the ones who put or paint a nice rosy picture as to how well they are looking after their consumers...ooops sorry i meant their PAYMASTERS BANKS AND FINANCE,,,has anyone any idea which judges will be used on the case,this will be very interesting one to find out,no doubt the BAnks etc already know who is who...

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are the responses I had back from the OFT, having sent the letter from this site.

 

(sorry it wont copy them over for some reason and they are too long too write).

 

In a nutshell they gave me the basic blah blah blah about why the test case was carried out and the waiver etc.

 

I then wrote and said it didnt answer my questions, and why was the banks allowed to continue charging their penalty charges whilst we were unable to continue with our claims, and how unfair and one sided it was etc etc.

 

and Mr Howards response was

 

"The consumer panel believes that the issue of bank charges during the interim period is one of the questions that should be addressed during the FSA's review of the waiver at the end of September. The panel will be consulted by the FSA as part of the review process and we will carefully consider the position of consumers faced with continuing to have charges levied whilst being unable to proceed with their court cases. Of course if the test case finds that the charges are unlawful, consumers will be able to ask for repayment of all unauthorised OD charges, including those levied during the period since the test case was announced"

 

The waiver has been granted to allow the banks to accrue enough interst on the charges in order that any claims they pay out are paid for by the interest.....the OFT will drop he case and we will continue to be able to claim for charges.

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

I thought the OFT's response was very informative myself. Interesting that the consumer panel of the OFT will be consulted in the waiver review and not just the legal dept

 

 

It may be interesting, but it's obviously a load of crap.

 

Either the OFT's consumer panel is so powerless it has not been listened to and therfore its involvement is just lip service, or their policies are so far out of touch it's unbelievable.

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

Is it not interesting how the FSA have gone awfully quiet after I offered to take them to court because I am fed up of the bull's muck they keep emailing me in answer to my question.

 

I have asked them to explain how their waiver decision complies with their obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in that every decision they make to change the rules should be in the consumer's interest.

 

If they fail to adequately explain this, I have offered to let a Judge decide.

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

IMO this government will do anything to prevent any kind of financial run on NR, bank charges, no win no fee compensation lawyers and wage increases. Fragile economy with trillions in consumer debts.

 

Keep at them un1boy :)

Donate to keep this site open

 

Any help or advice is offered as just that, help and advice without any liability. If in doubt consult a legal expert or CAB.

 

Make Cash Flow Forecast

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...