Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Participants can get £50 - but must permanently consent to the retailer using their personal data.View the full article
    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

OFT/FSA/FOS Links to info on test case


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5270 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

  • 3 weeks later...

Extract from an HSBC application for a stay received by a CAG member from the court. Where dose this leave us with the replies Martin Lewis got from the MoR's office just after the test case was announced?

 

In a response to a message sent to Designated Civil Judges earlier on the 27th July 2007(after the story had appeared in the press, but before the OFT Proceedings had been issued). we understand that Judge Holman had suggested that it might be sensible for the County Court proceedings to be stayed pending a decision in the OFT Proceedings.

 

In accordance with this suggestion since the OFT proceedings were commenced many County Courts have stayed bank charges cases before them. For example, we understand that on 30 July 2007, both Shrewsbury and Cambridge County Courts ordered stays on all bank charges claims until such time as the OFT Proceedings have been resolved. Further more, the judge in Cambridge County Court said that he would ensure the same result in Luton,Huntingdon,Bedford and Peterborough County Courts.

 

In the light of the above, we respectfully suggest that the finals hearings and preliminary hearing dues to take place in your Court in the cases listed in the schedule to this letter, and indeed all other bank charges cases against HSBC pending before your Court, should be stayed until such time as there is a final determination in the OFT Proceedings.

We should be grateful if you would place a copy of this letter before the judge or judges responsible for those cases.

 

If you have any queries in relation to the above, please contact Jason Newbold on 0121 455 2659.

 

I'm sure Jason Newbold of DG Solicitors wont mind his phone number being left in :rolleyes:

 

pete

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Zoots, trying to file an application to have stay removed v YB at Leeds court. Have done witness statement but says I need to include OFT test case POC and list of settled cases. Could you possibly give me links. Need to get this in post urgently. Thankyou.

Barnett.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi folks,

Does anyone have any idea whether the OFT is likely to continue its UTCCRs investigation (into whether the level of charges is fair) through the end of '07 (when I believe it was supposed to be finished)? There only appears to be a couple of 'wooly' references to the study being 'ongoing' on the OFT site (this is the Civil Service at its dubious, finest).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi there,

 

As I have just been on the phone to the FSA - I thought it would be useful to publish the link, which expressly states that business accounts are not included within the waiver as barclays have been trying to fob me off with that on my business account.

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

 

Danny

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link does'nt work Danny .. .

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

hello, i m christian i woulk like have informations regarding bank charges i has make claim to my Bank from april this year but the court had hold my case until hight court will decide. i would like know if there,re not any more way to recover my money i had be charges by nationwide.

Thank you for your undrestanding

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately not Akamba......not until the House of Lords have handed down their Judgement which is expected in the next few weeks.

 

Until then stays in the Courts won't be lifted unless you are unemployed or suffering real financial hardship.

 

The only thing I can say is patience my friend......just a few more weeks to go before we all get a clear idea on what we can do next :D

srfrench :eek:

 

Fight incompetance, stupidity, greed and unfairness......There's no excuse and no place for it in society, unless they really are! :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately not Akamba......not until the House of Lords have handed down their Judgement which is expected in the next few weeks.

 

Until then stays in the Courts won't be lifted unless you are unemployed or suffering real financial hardship.

 

The only thing I can say is patience my friend......just a few more weeks to go before we all get a clear idea on what we can do next :D

 

The courts are not ruling if the charges are unfair. They are ruling if the terms that cause the charges are applicable to UTCCR 1999. It will not result in automatic refunds or any refunds for that matter. Secondary litigation will decide on fairness and furthermore on how far back you can go(cos UTCCR 1999 leaves it to national courts on how far back), what is a fair term, etc,etc,etc,

Any other issues may be dealt with by Group Litigation Orders but the first decision will decide whether there is further litigation or not.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...