Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Any stays applied for against Barclaycard claims due to OFT bank charge test case?


noomill060
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5086 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

Thanks guys for your comments. I think I might try ringing the court first to see what they say and if I have no joy with them I will be emailing you Peter for a copy of your letter.

I'll let you know how I get on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Decided that I am going to have to write to court to remove stay.

Just got off phone with court and they said that the judges at my court (Hitchin, Herts) have decided to put stays on all bank and credit card charge claims until after the test case. When I pointed out that it shouldn't apply to credit card cases I was told that they couldn't comment on individual claims and that was what the judges had decided.

So I think that a few letters need to be written!!

It seems very unfair that a judge in one area can do this and if you live somewhere else everything goes through ok.

One question though. If I apply for the stay to be lifted, (even though the judge has said that neither party can do this!) and the judge refuses, do I get my £35 back ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can check if your court is self funding if it is like Hull, they won't accept a letter to remove a stay and you need to pay the £35.00. You could try simply writing as a letter at least setting out the Human Rights angle.

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

Craftylady - I'm in much the same position as you..... just when I had my allocation hearing date sorted out and everything ready to go, they went and put a stay on my case. My court is in Bedford - which isn't far from you in Hitchin - I wonder if judges in particular areas have got together and decided on their course of action?

I'm going to my local court tomorrow morning to hand in my application for removal of the stay - I'll let you know what they say about it. We are very much the guinea pigs for this action. I find it all very frustrating. I was days away from getting my offer from Natwest for over £2000 when the OFT test case was announced, and now this....!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lesleyjane - Did the judge say you were allowed to apply for removal of the stay? Hitchin judges seem to have put a blanket stay on all charges cases - banks and credit cards, with no appeal.

It does look like a postcode lottery doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided that I am going to have to write to court to remove stay.

Just got off phone with court and they said that the judges at my court (Hitchin, Herts) have decided to put stays on all bank and credit card charge claims until after the test case. When I pointed out that it shouldn't apply to credit card cases I was told that they couldn't comment on individual claims and that was what the judges had decided.

So I think that a few letters need to be written!!

It seems very unfair that a judge in one area can do this and if you live somewhere else everything goes through ok.

One question though. If I apply for the stay to be lifted, (even though the judge has said that neither party can do this!) and the judge refuses, do I get my £35 back ?

 

I called this court this morning and asked if there had been any stays - the woman told me there hadn't been any yet and I should be fine with my claim - ass - elbow comes to mind!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS is still processing credit card claims though, wonder how long they will continue to do so if judges are staying claims off their own bat.

 

I have been considering taking this route, simply cos I cannot afford to go through the court at this point, particularly if the case ends up being "stayed" and my court fee ends up being lost for month,

I realise that this is straying off topic a bit, but can you still ask for CI, or even CCI if you take this route? or is it simply charges?

 

Thank you x

I won against MBNA, Nat West , Barclays, Barclaycard and PPI payments from Barclaycard

Abbey National still to go.... what will I do with my spare time?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an update -

 

I went along to Bedford County Court this morning, armed with my N244 and mountains of associated paperwork to back up my application. I spoke to a really helpful person on the desk - she said that it costs £65 per application to apply for a stay to be removed. She went on to say that the judges in Bedfordshire had made a decision to apply stays to all cases which involve bank charges. I reminded her that my claims were for a refund of credit card charges. She said that as far as she could see, the judges have grouped all penalty charges together, regardless of their origin.

She said that it depends where you live as to whether judges have decided to carry on regardless or put a stay on all claims. She agreed that it was unfair. She suggested that I write a letter to the judge outlining everything which is in my N244 package. It will save me £65 that I can ill afford. I intend to send him all my paperwork -including a copy of the OFT'S statement from their website (all 32 pages!), a tweaked version of Peter's objection letter andf a copy of the email I received from the FSA this morning. The email says that as far as the FSA are concerned, the test case refers only to bank accounts and not credit card accounts.

If anyone can think of anything else I should be including then please let me know.

This seems to be taking over my life.... I ended up taking a day off work today so that I could try and get things straight!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Photocopy the letters and include them in your complaint to the FSA for Barclaycard's abuse of the FSA's current account complaints waiver .

 

Its important that all complaints are put in.

 

I wrote to OFT/FSA and FOS yesterday, regarding barclays refusal to honour the hardship rule.

 

If they are true to their word, the FSA should lift the waiver, when it is revued next month.

[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

Quote:

Originally Posted by noomill060 viewpost.gif

The FOS is still processing credit card claims though, wonder how long they will continue to do so if judges are staying claims off their own bat

 

 

The FOS seem to have found their own way round this. They are now quoting 6 - 9 months to handle credit cards claims. Call me a cynic, but isn't this just after the test case is expected to end.

 

Spineless.

[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

Its important that all complaints are put in.

 

I wrote to OFT/FSA and FOS yesterday, regarding barclays refusal to honour the hardship rule.

 

If they are true to their word, the FSA should lift the waiver, when it is revued next month.

 

 

RE: The hardship rule.

 

My Barclaycard account has already been passed to Mercers. I would say the iminent threats of legal action against me would perhaps result in hardship if the case is not taken on promptly? I'm sure I'm also not the only one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i phoned up Southend court regarding them staying my case against Monument Credit Card and they said to post a letter to them explaining the reasons that I feel it shouldn't be stayed.

 

Apparently, this is a decision the judge has taken. Gonna have to try to get a letter sent off tonight GRRRRRR

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the arguements the bansk use to defend current account charges, is that it has nothing to do with a contract.

 

That has no defence for credit cards. There most certainly is a contract, and you have to pay a minimum amount every month, on time, and stay within an agreed limit.

 

Breaching this contract, results in a penalty for breach of contract, which is unlawful, if it is higher than the actual cost to the bank of the breach.

[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

can I put that in my letter to the court Tech? Sorry to be dim, but I've been so busy at work and haven't had a chance to look do too much reading

 

Cheers

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can quote what i say, but I think there is a section already for lifting stays.

 

Might be better to get the correct jargon for it from a Mod.

 

If it helps, i have spoken to the FOS last week, and the FSA today, and BOTH confirmed that credit cards are nothing to do with the test case.

 

UPDATE:- Lloyds TSB site acknowledges Credit cards NOT involved. Print that for your judge (go to bottom of page) :-

 

Lloyds TSB - Answers to questions on bank charges

[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

cheers Tech....caught up on my work....so gonna draft them a letter today. My initial claim was only for £116 + interest & charges, so I'm a little reluctant to pay a further £35 when the judge may not agree with it anyway. If that makes sense

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok...drafted a quick letter...can somebody have a quick check and let me know if I've omitted anything glaring please?

 

Cheers

Brad

 

16th August 2007

 

Ref: Claim 7QZ73518

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

 

 

With reference to the above claim, I respectfully request that the stay which was ordered on the 6th August be removed for the following reasons:

 

It has been ordered that the claim be stayed until the determination of the High Court proceedings on the legality of Bank Charges, however, as this is actually a credit card company I feel that it will bear no relevance to the above test case.

 

As credit card penalties have already been investigated by the Office of Fair Trading and have been confirmed as penalty charges for breach of contract these will fall under a different category. I have taken the following text from the OFT website: “A fair default charge should not exceed a reasonable estimate of certain limited administrative costs which the [issuer] reasonably expects to incur as a result of default”.

 

Furthermore, I also enclose a print out from the Lloyds TSB website; “Answers to questions on Bank Charges” where it also confirms that the test case and suspension of unauthorised overdraft claims apply only to bank accounts and not to credit cards.

 

I trust this information supplied is satisfactory, and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

Bradley Smith

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats great. Perhaps a line saying that both the FSA & FOS (use full names) have confiirmed that only current accounts will be looked at in this test case, and that credit card claims should continue as before.

[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

cheers techie...have done....just wait & see now i suppose

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

 

Give me strength.

 

As feared, a letter arrived today, saying that my Barclaycard case has been stayed until 29th February.

 

Spoke to court, and probably shouldn't have said that the judge has not got a clue what he's doing, but what the heck, i never gave my claim number.

 

Now i have to write a letter.

 

Will wait till i calm down though.

[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

soooo annoying isn't it? sent my letter off yesterday...just gotta wait now

 

if the judge decides it has to be stayed I'm not sure where we go from there, short of complaining to the FOS...who don't seem to care anyway!!!

"Banks are people that will lend you an umbrella when it's sunny, but demand it back the minute it starts raining"

 

Brad v Halifax

22/08/06 - Preliminary Letter sent requesting full repayment of charges

06/09/06 - LBA sent to bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used the FOS for my Lloyds TSB card. Lloyds failed to provide me with statements requested in February, despite being told to by the information commissioner. So in June, i applied to the FOS, who do not require a lits of charges.

 

I rang them last week, for an update, and was told that they had not looked at it yet. They are worse than the banks. I am going to write to them, asking who i complain to about THEM - the FOSOS?

 

You normally have to pay a fee to have a stay lifted, but we are being allowed to send a letter. I feel this may be a good sign, that maybe the judge knows that there may be problems with their blanket stays.

 

Fingers crossed, they will overturn them. If not, i can feel some angry letters coming on.

[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

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...