Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • I think they are trying to persuade the judge there have been a number of supreme court decisions which override a lot of the regulations we rely on here, they even say I rely on "out-dated legislation".   Their next main approach is to say the claim is statute barred and that I need to prove that I didn't know about this 6 years ago. My argument is that I couldn't have known since they concealed the statements from me until November 2020. After a GDPR request in 2018 they claimed for 2 years that they didn't have the statements over and over again. They finally produced them when I went to the courts. It was only at this stage that I saw I had the charges on the accounts. Since they repeatedly didn't give me the statements I would propose Kleinworth Benson is reinforced, as they may have tried to conceal the charges.
    • @Saints60 very sorry to hear about your story – but you've been asked to post your story on a new thread and you haven't done that. By joining into an existing thread, you confuse the issue, make people unsure as to whom they are responding and are probably likely to receive less help then you might otherwise do if your story was told as a completely new topic. Also – very importantly, if you post on a new thread, then it will tend to be recognised much more by Google so that people are more likely to come across these discussions if they also have experienced similar problems with this dealer. We are very interested in the fact that you say that you have identified this person – and I'm not sure why you haven't shared that information with us all here as well. As you are aware, one of the problems here is identifying the dealer and also where the dealer lives and what assets the dealer has because this would make it easier to get the police to take an interest and also to begin the necessary legal actions to obtain compensation. I'm not too sure why you haven't volunteered all of this information because the rest of your story has been pretty detailed. Please will you post a new thread and also give us all the details. It's important that all of this is shared. Thanks
    • letter of claim is 1st.   but that will never come whilst as they are your debt are still with the original creditors  years away from sale to DCA's if at all. so forget DCA's...please.    Just one point..   mail redirect does not always work nor is always allowed by royal mail for court documents i'e a claimform pack from northants bulk. many of these we have seen state do not forward on them.   now, stop panicking on the above for a moment and thinking this is bad... a claimform pack should be preceded by a letter of claim which you would get redirected... and ofcourse as above the wont be from an OC.  
    • and 10+ weeks before the second jab
    • So sorry to hear this do yo mind confirming his name for me .. I too plan on taking him to the small claims court ... 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Office Of Fair Trading Test Case


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4690 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

wanna giggle - subscribed.gifLatest OFT consultation

I'm not an expert so check everything I tell you, however click me scales if I've been useful.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

 

There is no freemasonry like the freemasonry of Golf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This letter is from OFT to an MP in response to a letter written on behalf of a constituant.

 

The most notable paragraph Iv'e highlighted in bold.

 

 

 

 

Thank you for your letter dated 28 august enclosing an email from your constituent, xxxxxx ,about the OFT test case.

 

By way of background, there has been widespread concern as to whether or not the personal current account market in the UK is competitive. There have also been specific concerns about the legality of charges relating to unauthorised overdrafts and returned item fees. Following an initial fact finding investigation, the OFT launched , in April , a market study into the personal current account market. This is designed to provide the OFT with an understanding of how well the market as a whole works for consumers. The OFT's view is that active informed consumers are the best drivers of efficient competitive markets so the study is focused particularly on transparency of costs to consumers, ease of switching and fairness of the pricing structure. The study is due to report in December.

 

In parrallel with the market study , the OFT is examining the "fairness" of the level of personal current account unauthorised overdraft charges and returned item fees under the unfair terms in consumer contracts regulations ( UTCCR's). The market study will help us to fully understand what impact any enforcement action taken by the OFT may have on the personal current account market.

 

One aspect of that investigation is considering whether the "unfairness test " contained within the UTCCRs applies to the charges. The OFT considers that the test applies, but the banks disagree. We believe that an early ruling on this point of principle will assist in securing a clear and orderly resolution to the fairness of these charges. We have therefore commenced proceedings in the high court for a declaration on the application of the law. An expedited hearing has been set for January 2008.

 

It is possible that we might in due course expand the scope of the proceedings to include a claim for an injunction to stop certain amounts being charged, if necessary and appropriate in light of our UTCCRs investigation.

 

Your constituent is concerned that consumer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges are being suspended pending the outcome of the test case,but banks are continuing to levy charges.His own claim for almost £5000 against the Co-operative bank has been suspended,however he continues to be charged monthly interest on the charges. His letter raises the important issue of the impact of unauthorised overdraft charges and returned item fees on consumers with low income. While the OFT's remit does not include social policy issues, our market study into personal current accounts will examine the economic impact of "free if in credit " current accounts and will examine the potential impact of any charges in this charging structure on consumers, including on financial inclusions.

 

Prior to the test case , the scale of consumer litigation for the return of bank charges was resulting in conflicting outcomes and significant costs to individual consumers. By bringing this action on behalf of the consumer we will gain the legal clarity necessary to achieve the fair and consistent handling of consumer complaints and, through the agreement with the banks and the FSA we are committed to ensuring this process is resolved in as efficient and expeditious a manner as possible.

 

As we have not yet completed our investigation into the fairness of the current levels of charges , it would not be appropriate for us to ask the banks to make changes to their charging structure at this time. Further , we have not yet completed our market study assessment of the potential impact of such changes. However , we have been working closely with FSA and FOS , who hold complaint handling responsibilities for the banking industry, to ensure that the test case process is as well co-ordinated as possible and that consumers will not be disadvantaged.

 

The test case does not mean that consumers are too late to complain. But until the outcome of this legal action is known, the FSA has allowed banks to suspend their work on complaints about the charges. Because the legal issues have not yet been determined , the FSA has not intervened in the levying of the charges , however it has set strict conditions that banks must follow , designed to ensure consumers ability to recoup charges levied prior to or during the test case , will be unaffected.

 

Firms with the waiver must : not take the period,during which the waiver is in place, into consideration in any decisions made about limitation periods or time limits for complaints

 

: Not make materially adverse changes to the level of charges during the waiver;

 

: So all they can to help account holders avoid incurring these charges in the first place;

 

: Apply the relevant principles established in the test case when dealing with complaints about charges :and

 

: Continue to deal with genuine hardship cases during the waiver period.

 

Your constituent is also concerned that the OFT did not consult bank charge action groups before taking this action. We have consulted with consumer representative bodies like Which? the NCC and the CAB in connection with our investigation into bank charges. And , we met with Which ? and other consumer bodies just prior to announcing the test case, to inform them about it. We have also welcomed evidence and submissions from other interested parties , including bank charge groups, relevant to the market study and current proceedings. We are committed to communicating with consumer advisory groups throughout the process and have agreed to keep those bank charge groups with whom we have corresponded updated at key stages. This includes the groups mentioned by your constituent in his email.

 

i hope this information is helpful

 

yours sincerely

 

John Fingleton

Chief Executive

Office of Fair Trading

Link to post
Share on other sites

our market study into personal current accounts will examine the economic impact of "free if in credit " current accounts and will examine the potential impact of any charges in this charging structure on consumers, including on financial inclusions.

 

Doesn't answer the question of banks being able to carry on charging.

Prior to the test case , the scale of consumer litigation for the return of bank charges was resulting in conflicting outcomes and significant costs to individual consumers.

 

Well, nearly everyone did get their court costs back as well as all the charges, consistently.

 

it would not be appropriate for us to ask the banks to make changes to their charging structure at this time. Further , we have not yet completed our market study assessment of the potential impact of such changes.

 

Yet we allow banks to stop having to pay out. Is that appropriate?

 

however it has set strict conditions that banks must follow , designed to ensure consumers ability to recoup charges levied prior to or during the test case , will be unaffected.

 

Yes, like stopping them from making any claim with the FOS and court.

: Not make materially adverse changes to the level of charges during the waiver;

 

Well, changing the whole charging structure is a pretty big material change.

 

: Continue to deal with genuine hardship cases during the waiver period.

 

Most just ignore customer requests.

 

We have consulted with consumer representative bodies like Which? the NCC and the CAB in connection with our investigation into bank charges.

 

Yet CAG, penalty charges site and Martin Lewis have helped more people than all the above put together.

 

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

my 1000th post !!!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn right Tifo,

 

As well as the FOS paying out on EVERY claim before the waiver.

 

and

 

"Yet CAG, penalty charges site and Martin Lewis have helped more people than all the above put together."

 

too true

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nic

 

Good to see you back! Best part of 16 million quid certainly is some conflict! I'd be VERY interested in the OFT's definitions of 'efficient' and 'expeditious', as used in the same paragraph as your quote. If history is anything to go by, they equate these terms with the phrase 'wading through treacle'!!!!!!!!

 

All the best - Adam.

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

The reply in CRFX250 post could be used to attach to a removal of a stay particularly where a person is experiencing hardship. An idea would be to attach to the removal,copies of any outstanding bills you are unable to pay easily and this could include any rent or mortgage arrears, utility bills, council tax, bailiff and warrant concerns, along with a letter referring to the hardship the OFT refer too. There will be other types of bills you can think of i.e maintenence payments.

 

Determind

Link to post
Share on other sites
The fee is the least of my concerns. The FSA will undoubtedly refuse to

release anything in question 6 which means I'll ask for an internal review

which will almost certainly uphold their decision. Then it's off to the Information Commissioner.

 

You can be sure no consumer groups were consulted and as Wild Billy

pointed out in a previous post, they probably wern't allowed to anyway.

 

CRFX, any update on this?

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

They are due to give me a decision on the release of the balance of the OFT/FSA correspondence by this friday once a board member decides on the balance of public interest issue. But with my threat of legal action and complaint about the honesty of 2 FSA staff I'm not holding my breath

 

Here's the correspondence to date - the last of which is the pdf attatched

Our ref: FOI0737

 

 

Dear Mr crfx

I refer to your request for information which was received on 2 August 2007, under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the Act"), for the following information:

      "1) On what date was it agreed that the OFT and banks would take a test case? Was the FSA involved in those discussions?
      2) On what date was it agreed that the FSA would introduce a waiver?
      3) On what date was your report entitled 'FSA grants waiver on complaints handling' agreed for publication'?
      4) On what date was it decided to publish the said report on 27 July?
      5) Please provide the advice supplied to senior management in regard to the date of publication.
      6) Please supply all correpondence [sic] (either letter or e-mail) between the OFT and the FSA between January 2007 and 27 July 2007 in relation to bank charges."

Points 1) to 4) of your request are being taken forward as business as usual and not under the Act. The responses to these questions are as follows:

1) On what date was it agreed that the OFT and banks would take a test case? Was the FSA involved in those discussions?

2) On what date was it agreed that the FSA would introduce a waiver?

      The FSA, by a decision taken by its Retail Regulatory Committee ("RRC") on 18 July, decided to make a waiver of the FSA complaints handling rules available to a number of banks and building societies that provide account services with overdraft facilities. The RRC decision to grant the waiver received FSA Board approval on 26 July.

3) On what date was your report entitled 'FSA grants waiver on complaints handling' agreed for publication?

      The press release entitled 'FSA grants waiver on complaints handling' was agreed for publication on the 26 July.

4) On what date was it decided to publish the said report on 27 July?

      Our press release was issued to the media on 26 July and was posted on our website on 27 July.
      The decision to publish our press release on 26 July was made on 26 July, following approval by the FSA Board to grant the waiver.
       

Questions 5) and 6) of your request are being taken forward under the Act.

5) Please provide the advice supplied to senior management in regard to the date of publication.

      I can confirm that we do not hold the information you have requested.

6) Please supply all correspondence (either letter or e-mail) between the OFT and the FSA between January 2007 and 27 July 2007 in relation to bank charges.

      With regard to the information we do hold, we are not able to disclose it to you because the following absolute exemptions apply:
      • Section 21 (Information accessible to you by other means)
         
        To the extent that we do hold publicly available information, we are not required to release this under the Section 21 exemption as it is information accessible to you by other means. Some of the information is available on the FSA website:

Deloitte Cost of Regulation Report

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/deloitte_cost_of_regulation_report.pdf

The other publicly available information that we have you can obtain from:

BBC (Lloyds TSB court case re overdraft penalty charges)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm

Birmingham Post

Financial Times

HM Courts Service

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/1440.htm

Office of Fair Trading

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/106-07

The Financial Ombudsman Service

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/news/updates/bank-charges-26-07-07.html

      • Section 44 (Prohibitions on disclosure)
         
        Section 44 provides that information is absolutely exempt if its disclosure (otherwise than under the Act) is prohibited by or under any enactment. Section 348 of FSMA restricts the FSA from disclosing "confidential information" it has received except in certain limited circumstances (not one of which apply here).
        Confidential information for these purposes is defined as information which relates to the business or other affairs of any person and was received by the FSA for the purposes of or in the discharge of its functions under FSMA which is not in the public domain.
        Disclosure of confidential information in breach of section 348 is a criminal offence.
        Consequently we are prohibited from disclosing to you any information that we have received which is not in the public domain.

In addition, I am writing to advise you that we consider that the information may also be exempt under the following qualified exemptions:

      • Section 31 (Law enforcement)
      • Section 36 (Prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs)
      • Section 42 (Legal professional privilege)
         

Section 31 of the Act will apply if the exercise by any public authority of its functions for any of the purposes specified in subsection (2), among others, the public body holding the information might be harmed by its public disclosure.

Section 36 of the Act will apply where disclosure of the information would be likely to prejudice the effective conduct of our public affairs.

Section 42 of the Act will apply where the information is subject to legal professional privilege.

The above three exemptions are qualified exemptions and the FSA is required to weigh the public interest in maintaining the exemptions against the public interest in disclosing the information. By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to consider the balance of the public interest in relation to a request, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. The FSA has not yet reached a decision on the balance of the public interest. Due to the need to consider, in all the circumstances of the case, where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to the information that you have requested, the FSA will not be able to respond to your request in full within 20 working days. In these circumstances, we should be in a position to respond to your request by 28 September 2007. If you do not receive my response or further information by then, please contact me and I will investigate the matter.

Yours sincerely

Shelley Spies (Mrs)

Information Access Team

 

 

*****************************************************************

If you have received this email in error please notify [email protected] immediately and delete the email from your computer. This email is not intended to nor should it be taken to create any legal relations or contractual relationships. This email has originated from:

The Financial Services Authority (FSA)

25 The North Colonnade,

Canary Wharf,

London

E14 5HS

United Kingdom

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

----- Original Message ----- From: crfx

To: Freedom of Information

Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:19 PM

Subject: FOI0737

 

 

 

Dear Mrs Spies

Thank you for your e-mail of 31 August.

I would be grateful if you would clarify the status of question 6 in your response.

You quote absolute exemptions s21 and s44 apply and then go on to say s31, 36 and 42 (qualified exemptions) may apply pending consideration of the balance of public interest. Would I be correct in assuming that s21 and s44 apply to some of the information requested and s31, 36 and 42 may apply to the balance? And if this is the case, why have you specifically chosen 28 September - the day after the waiver review - to respond?

As I am sure you are aware, section 36 can only be invoked if it holds in the view of a ''reasonable person'', which the DCA's guidance indicates is usually a minister. As the FSA is a non-ministerial department I assume you will seek the view of the Chairman or the Chief Executive. Will you?

With regard to the 3 qualified exemptions that may be invoked dependent on a decision on the balance of public interest issue, I am aware that dozens of Members of Parliament have now written to the FSA and OFT on behalf of their constituents questioning the reasons for and fairness of the waiver. I would suggest that the information I seek is overwhelmingly in the public interest and would be very difficult for the FSA to argue otherwise.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Your sincerely

crfx

FOI0737 Query response requester 20070913.pdf

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

we have been working closely with FSA and FOS , who hold complaint handling responsibilities for the banking industry, to ensure that the test case process is as well co-ordinated as possible and that consumers will not be disadvantaged.....absolute cr*p FSA SPIN DOCTORS

gggrrr

FOIA s.36 allows a request for information to be refused where, in the reasonable opinion of a Qualified Person,(would nt happen to be an ex bank director would it ) disclosure of the information would be likely to

  • inhibit the free and frank provision of advice or
  • the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation or
  • would otherwise prejudice or
  • would be likely otherwise to prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs
  • bowlarks , the FSA who are being questioned seem to be in denial of the truth about their part in this whole affair nor is anything they say or do acceptable,they seem to write their own rules and interpret them to suit themselves
  • i have to be carefull my teeth will end up snappin lol
  • well done cfrx

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

Hi I am just about to put an appeal in against a stay. I am appealing on the grounds of hardship and would have liked to include a copy of the letter posted by crfx250, but I can't get it to print centrally in the page. Am I being thick!?

 

Also any other help or advice about what to include would be very much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi mouse.. how are you printing it love?? if you copy and paste into word you should be able to set the page up and make any alterations you need to do!!! try this link for info on removal of stay

Application for removal of a stay - UPDATED TO ACCOUNT FOR OFT TEST CASE

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
No business as ususual for business claims :)

 

Since when? Ive got 3 claims to file, but could not see the point.

[COLOR=#2e8b57][B][SIZE=1][U]Claimed & won so far[/U]:-[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][SIZE=1][COLOR=seagreen][U]Banks[/U]:- NatWest Personal £1000, Natwest Business £2000, Lloyds TSB Personal £1500, [U]Mortgages[/U]:-Central Capital (PPI) £500, Natwest MEAF £140 [/COLOR][COLOR=#2e8b57][U]Credit cards[/U]:- HSBC Gold card £365, Capital One £599.55 Barclaycard £1070 ( i only aske for £700) , Lloyds £500 [U]Catalogues[/U]:- Littlewoods Direct Flex Account £60 :D [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][SIZE=1][B][U]For Friends[/U][/B]:- Natwest £1500, £1800 & £500, Cap One £600, Barclaycard £400, Solutions £100, Aqua, £105.[/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][B][U][SIZE=1][COLOR=seagreen]Pending:-[/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/B] [COLOR=seagreen][SIZE=1]Barclays Bank Personal (On hold - Thanks a lot OFT) :mad:.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when? Ive got 3 claims to file, but could not see the point.

 

Since always :)

 

The test case is on the applicability of UTCCRs and since business claims can not use UTCCRs then the test case is irrelevant to the claims.

 

Natwest and RBS have been applying to have stays lifed where the courts have imposed stays on business claims

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would the banks want them lifting?

 

I kept an eye on business accounts after the OFT action, and they were all being stayed. I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise, and the FOS and money claim both say the cannot process claims. So what have i missed?

[COLOR=#2e8b57][B][SIZE=1][U]Claimed & won so far[/U]:-[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][SIZE=1][COLOR=seagreen][U]Banks[/U]:- NatWest Personal £1000, Natwest Business £2000, Lloyds TSB Personal £1500, [U]Mortgages[/U]:-Central Capital (PPI) £500, Natwest MEAF £140 [/COLOR][COLOR=#2e8b57][U]Credit cards[/U]:- HSBC Gold card £365, Capital One £599.55 Barclaycard £1070 ( i only aske for £700) , Lloyds £500 [U]Catalogues[/U]:- Littlewoods Direct Flex Account £60 :D [/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][SIZE=1][B][U]For Friends[/U][/B]:- Natwest £1500, £1800 & £500, Cap One £600, Barclaycard £400, Solutions £100, Aqua, £105.[/SIZE][/COLOR] [COLOR=#2e8b57][B][U][SIZE=1][COLOR=seagreen]Pending:-[/COLOR][/SIZE][/U][/B] [COLOR=seagreen][SIZE=1]Barclays Bank Personal (On hold - Thanks a lot OFT) :mad:.[/SIZE][/COLOR][/COLOR]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Since always :)

 

The test case is on the applicability of UTCCRs and since business claims can not use UTCCRs then the test case is irrelevant to the claims.

 

NatWest and RBS have been applying to have stays lifed where the courts have imposed stays on business claims

 

Zoot, my aunty put a request to have her claim unstayed as a financial hardhsip case - they bring in less than 10k a year and my uncle has been diagnosed with cancer, so she has had to stop work for a while. Their claim is 6k just with the charges.

 

Are the courts right to decline the lift?

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
Zoot, my aunty put a request to have her claim unstayed as a financial hardhsip case - they bring in less than 10k a year and my uncle has been diagnosed with cancer, so she has had to stop work for a while. Their claim is 6k just with the charges.

 

Are the courts right to decline the lift?

 

un1boy,

 

There is a certain 'nervousness' across these cases from all sides.

 

I agree with Zoot that it doesn't apply to business accounts, however, this could still be at the discretion of the Judge.

 

Mine shouldn't be subject to a stay but will be - the Judge has stated it will.

 

Don't know about hardship cases, but if you don't try, you don't get.

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zoot, my aunty put a request to have her claim unstayed as a financial hardhsip case - they bring in less than 10k a year and my uncle has been diagnosed with cancer, so she has had to stop work for a while. Their claim is 6k just with the charges.

 

Are the courts right to decline the lift?

 

This looks a case of demonstrable hardship.

 

Apart from the inflexible court system there is also the court of public opinion guided by fairness and common sense. Have you considered contacting the Financial Agony Uncle columns of the broadsheets while making it clear to the bank's bigwigs you are making such contact. In the face of adverse publicity the bloodsuckers may decide it is less trouble for them to offer an ex gratia settlement out of court.

 

Best if luck.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
This looks a case of demonstrable hardship.

 

Apart from the inflexible court system there is also the court of public opinion guided by fairness and common sense. Have you considered contacting the Financial Agony Uncle columns of the broadsheets while making it clear to the bank's bigwigs you are making such contact. In the face of adverse publicity the bloodsuckers may decide it is less trouble for them to offer an ex gratia settlement out of court.

 

Best if luck.

 

Hi Mistermind,

 

Yep, done all that. And told the court the same thign, but no one is budging - it's absoutely disgusting!!

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...