Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Wrongly convicted Horizon victims in Scotland to be exonerated NEWS.STV.TV Victims who faced wrongful convictions are to be exonerated the day after Royal Assent is granted.  
    • If anybody has any advice here, it would be greatly appreciated, I already suffer with pre-existing disabilities & have struggled with this so far. 
    • so return of goods order etc etc read upload  scan pages to jpg, redact in mspaint. the convert to and merge to one mass PDF  read upload and use the online listed sites for all 3 stages. do you want to keep the car? i will guess this was a manual paper claimform direct from the co.court or was it org sent from salford bulk processing and has just got reaq ssigned?      
    • Speaking of the reformatory boys, here they are with all of their supporters, some of whom traveled with them from miles away, all carefully crammed together and photographed to look like there were more than about 80 .. rather like Farages last rally with even fewer people crammed around what looked like an ice cream van or mobile tea bar ... Although a number in the crowd apparently thought they were at a vintage car rally as they appeared to be chanting 'crank-her'. A vintage Bentley must be out of view.   Is this all there is? Its less than the Tory candidate. - shut up and smile while they get a camera angle that looks better
    • in order for us to help you we require the following information:- Which Court have you received the claim from ? Canterbury Name of the Claimant ? Moneybarn No 1   How many defendant's  joint or self ? One Date of issue –  29/05/24 Acknowledged by 14/06/24  Defence by 29/06/24  Particulars of Claim PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1.  By a Conditional Sale Agreement in writing made on 25th August 2022. Between the Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant let to the Defendant on Conditional Sale. A Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi (200 P S) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200cc (Sep.2015) Registration No, ******* Chassis number ***************** (“The Vehicle”).  A copy of the agreement is attached  2.  The price of the goods was £15,995.00. The Initial Rental was £8500.00.  The total charge for credit was £3575.;17 And the balance of £11,070.17 was payable by 59 equal consecutive monthly instalments of £187 63. payable on the 25th of each month. 3.  The following were expressed conditions of the set agreement, Clause 8: Our Right to End this Agreement  8.1   Subject to sending you the notice as required by law, any of the following events will entitle us to end this Agreement: 8.1.2  You fail to pay the advance payment (if any) or any of the payments as specified on the front page of this agreement or any other sum payable under this Agreement. 8.1.3 If any of the information you have given us before entering into this Agreement or during the term of this Agreement was false 8.1.4 We consider, acting reasonably, that the goods may be in jeopardy or that our rights in the goods may otherwise be prejudiced. 8.1.5 If you die 8.1.6 If a bankruptcy petition is presented against you; if you petition for your own bankruptcy, or make a live arrangement with your creditors or call a meeting of them. 8. 1.7 If in Scotland, you become insolvent or sequestration or a receiver, judicial factor or trustee to be appointed over any of your estate, or effects or suffer an arrestment, charge attachment or other diligence to be issued or levied on any of your estate or effects or suffer any exercise, or threatened exercise of landlords hype hypothec 8.1.8 If you are a partnership, you are dissolved 8.1.9 If the goods are destroyed, lost, stolen and/or treated by the insurer as a total loss in response to an insurance claim. 8.1.10 If we reasonably believe any payment made to us in respect of this Agreement is a proceed of crime. 8.1.11 If steps are taken by us to terminate any other agreement which you have entered into with us. Clause 9.  Effect of Us Terminating Agreement 9.1 If this Agreement terminates under clause 8 the following will apply 9.1.1 Subject to the rights given to you by law, you will no longer be entitled to possession of the goods and must return them to us to an address as we may reasonably specify, (removing or commencing the removal of any cherished plates) together with a V5 registration certificate, both sets of keys and a service record book. If you are unable or unwilling to return the goods to us then we shall collect the goods and we'll charge you in accordance with clause 10.3 9.1.2 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you for all payments and all other sums do under this agreement at the date of termination 9.1.3 We will sell the goods or public sale at the earliest opportunity once the goods are in a reasonable condition which includes a return of the items listed in clause 7.1.4 9.1.4 We will be entitled to immediate payment from you of the rest of the Total Amount Payable under this agreement less: ( a) A rebate for early settlement ias required by law which will be calculated and notified to you at the time of payment (b) The proceeds of sale of the goods (if any) after deduction of all costs associated with finding you and/or the goods, recovery, refurbishment and repair. Insurance, storage, sale, agents fees, cherished plate removal, replacement keys, costs associated with obtaining service history for the goods and in relation to obtaining a duplicate V5 registration certificate 4, The following are particulars required by Civil Procedure Rules. Rule 7.9 as set out in 7.1 and 7.2 of the associated Practice Direction entitled Hire Purchase Claims:- a)     The agreement is dated 25 August 2022. And is between Moneybarn No1 Limited  and xxxxxxxxx under agreement  number xxxxxx. b)    The claimant was one of the original parties to the agreement. c)    The agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. d)    The goods claimed Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCi ( 200 PS) 4x4 Wildtrack Double Cab Pickup 3200 cc (Sep2015} Registration No ^^^^^^^ Chassis number ***************** e)     The total price of the goods £19570 f)     The paid up sum £1206 5 g)    The unpaid balance of the total price £7505 (to include charges) h)    A default notice was sent to the defendant on 20th February 2024 by First class post i)      The date when the right to demand delivery of the goods accrued 14 March 2024 j)      The amount if any claimed as an alternative to delivery of the goods 7505 22 include charges 5.  At the date of service of the notice the instalments were £562.89 in arrears. 6. By reason of the Termination of the Agreement by the notice, defendant became liable to pay the sum of £7502 7. The date of maturity the agreement is 24th August 2027. 8. Further or alternative by reasons of  the Defendant breaches of the agreement by failing to pay the said instalments, the Defendant evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the Agreement and repudiated it by the said Notice the claimant accepted that repudiation 9. By reason of such repudiation the claimant has suffered loss and damage. Total amount payable £19570 Less sum paid or in arrears by the date of repudiation £12064 97 Balance £7505 (to include charges.) ( The claimant will give credit if necessary for the value of the vehicle if recovered.)  The claimant therefore claims 1.    An order for delivery up of the vehicle 2.    The MoneyClaim to be adjourned generally with liberty to restore,  Upon restoration of the MoneyClaim following return or loss of the vehicle. the Claimant will ensure the pre action protocol for debt claims is followed. 3.    Pursuant to s 90 (1)  of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An order that the Claimant and/or its agents may enter any premises in which the vehicle is situated in order to recover the vehicle should it not be returned by the Defendant 4.    further or alternatively damages 5.    costs Statement of truth The Claimant believes that the facts stated in these Particulars of Claim are true. The Claimant understands that the proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes or causes to be made a false statement in the document for verified by statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth. I am duly Authorised by the Claimant to sign these Particulars of Claim signed Dated 17th of April 2024  What is the total value of the claim? 7502   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? No   Never heard of this   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? n/a Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? No   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After  Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? In a garage  Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes  Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Original Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? n/a   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? They said sent but nor received   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? None seen   Why did you cease payments? Still Paying,   What was the date of your last payment? Yesterday  31st May 2024   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes on 12 Feb 2024   What you need to do now.   Can't scan, will do via another means as you cant have jpg  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

Urgent Info Needed To Confirm A Bank Leak


finlander
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6099 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

Two things occur to me at this point: Firstly Lloyds reduction in their charges means that the original subject of the thread - that Lloyds are about to run up the white flag in the OFT case- is not likely to be true, because the new charge structure would then be found unlawful like the original one in a week or two.

Secondly, it is a good thing because it means that the banks have broken rank on charges and will now have to compete with one another; if the OFT case drags on for years, at least there will be a genuine choice, with some pressure on the banks to be seen to be the one that rips us off the least instead of the current cartel approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

hi,i dont know but it appears that they are testing the water, adding more labour and admin to charges.this would give them better argument as to actual cost of charges,disclosure,which must be their priority to prevent all this kicking of again.

tez

Link to post
Share on other sites

tifo reclaiming benefits has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the charges are unlawful. The taking of benefits by the banks is unlawful under statute namely The Social Security Act amongst others

 

 

It has been discussed somewhere that the 'charge' part of the Act refers to a charge the same way a mortgage company has a charge on your property, and not to a charge as the bank makes.

 

The FOS made it clear that hardship would mean immediate loss and not that you suffered hardship many months (or years) ago because of the charges.

 

Immediate loss would mean that you have to pay your rent etc and they take the money out of your benefits so you cannot do this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't buy the FOS argument. I have spoken to them on a number of occasions and when I do bring up the issue of hardship cases they seem to display a startling lack of clarity on the issue. Much spluttering occurs.

 

If a someone has had money taken from their account (possibly illegally), are on benefits, cant pay essential bills etc....If said charges have been in the hundreds of pounds per month - and have essentially put that person in a position of extreme financial hardship then the money should be returned in full, test case or no test case.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

and have essentially put that person in a position of extreme financial hardship then the money should be returned in full, test case or no test case.

 

Yes, the FOS mean hardship NOW, as in charges from the last few months max.

 

If you are claiming charges back from 5 years ago and are saying they were from benefits etc and you are suffering hardship NOW you cannot ask for these charges. So the FOS is saying it's OK for the banks to charge benefits that long ago, just not if it causes you hardship NOW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that official policy yet?

 

 

no idea, it's what i've been told.

 

FOS stayed a business claim and i said hardship, they said, nope, can't use it, charges were 6 years ago, hardship is now, charges must also be from now to claim hardship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it LTD or Sole Trader/Partnership?

 

I've spoken to FOS on many occasions over the past 6 weeks about this following the FSA wavier announcement. As yet I do not think they have made a definate decision on this as yet.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things occur to me at this point: Firstly Lloyds reduction in their charges means that the original subject of the thread - that Lloyds are about to run up the white flag in the OFT case- is not likely to be true, because the new charge structure would then be found unlawful like the original one in a week or two.

Secondly, it is a good thing because it means that the banks have broken rank on charges and will now have to compete with one another; if the OFT case drags on for years, at least there will be a genuine choice, with some pressure on the banks to be seen to be the one that rips us off the least instead of the current cartel approach.

 

Hi there A couple of points you made here the new structure of charges would indeed be unlawful, this would end up much greater penalties tha n before wouldn't it? To make any new 'friends', (I for one will certainly be changing banks to whoever is the cheapest of course,) they should come clean the true charge is £2/£2.50. and in Martin Lewis Charter which we have all signed £5, While I did not agree with this figure, I signed the petition. Also I am glad you mentioned about breaking ranks, in one of my first letters I asked the question, "when did all the banks collude in fixing the price of the penalty charges at £30, £35. This is something which I consider to have been overlooked, isn't it an illegal practice??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it LTD or Sole Trader/Partnership?

 

I've spoken to FOS on many occasions over the past 6 weeks about this following the FSA wavier announcement. As yet I do not think they have made a definate decision on this as yet.

 

It was a sole trader account and they made a decision to hold all current account claims (personal and business) as soon as the OFT announcement of 27 July. I got my letter on 6 August telling me test case, on hold, blah blah.

 

I had to get them to go back and take a look at the default part of my complaint as that has nothing to do with the charges, which they assumed.

 

They said all cases will be looked at again after 2 months and a decision made to carry on the hold or look at them again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here's some interesting stuff:

 

FOS have told me that each hardship complaint under the banking code needs to be sent back to the bank as a seperate complaint (e.g another 8 weeks). If you are then not satisfied with the response then FOS can have a look at it. As yet I do not think that they have any guidelines on this.

 

But here's the really interesting stuff: The FSA wavier is up for review at the end of the month and the following banks have told me that they will have a response to hardship cases at the end of the month:

 

Barclays, Halifax & NatWest

 

So what the hell is going to happen at the end of the month?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

the following banks have told me that they will have a response to hardship cases at the end of the month:

 

Barclays, Halifax & NatWest

 

Well, mine are Barclays (business account through FOS now), HSBC (1 personal account, 1 business account), Natwest (1 business account) and RBS (1 personal account).

 

Surprisingly, Lloyds paid over £800 last week after looking at 'financial position'. Got letter one day, money was in account the next day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just subscribing......:)

 

But I also just wanted to mention that my claim against Barclays was heard in court on 23rd August, & a Judge Moon, apologised for the behaviour of the Banks & advised that he had no choice but to make a stay & that unfortunately I would have to wait a little longer, but should be getting my money (claim is for £7000) around Feb 2008.

 

That would correlate with some other information there is on this thread.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm, very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just subscribing......:)

 

But I also just wanted to mention that my claim against Barclays was heard in court on 23rd August, & a Judge Moon, apologised for the behaviour of the Banks & advised that he had no choice but to make a stay & that unfortunately I would have to wait a little longer, but should be getting my money (claim is for £7000) around Feb 2008.

 

That would correlate with some other information there is on this thread.

 

Hmmmmmmmmm, very interesting.

 

Tell us more, did he actually say you WILL be getting your money?? we wait with baited breath mind you I was hoping it would be before that:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have certainly noticed a softening of attitude from lloyds in the last couple of weeks. They have agreed a deb t management plan and i am no longer being hassled on a daily basis, further charges dont seem to have been added AND yesterday i received some new leaflets with new t and c from nov 2008 ( not had chance to scan them yet) AND they now say they will not automatically be charging when i go overdrawn as therewill be a grace and favour period until 3.30 that day!!!!!! not a lot i know but every little helps so there is obviously a great deal of scurrying about behind the scenes at the moment!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ladyinred, Lloyds are not changing for the better I am afraid, you could end up paying a lot more in one month than ever before. If you went over £100. in one month that would cost you £250 read back over on a few other sites, for example Cardiff Directions Hearing, and Letters to MPs etc. also I wil try and paste some newspaper articles here.

 

 

 

LLOYDS BITES BULLET IN WAR ON HIGH FEES

 

Wednesday September 12,2007

 

 

Lloyds TSB has become the first high street bank to cut overdraft rates after criticism about excessive bank charges and a fees investigation by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

 

 

Lloyds’ new policy includes reducing interest rates on unauthorised borrowing and a text-message service warning customers when they are close to their overdraft limit. The bank said the measures had been taken after “talking to thousands of customers”.

 

 

But campaigners believe it is an attempt to pre-empt the results of the OFT’s charges probe, which includes a test case brought against several leading banks to establish whether it is fair to charge penalties of up to £39 for unauthorised borrowing.

 

 

“Lloyds is doing now what it will probably be forced to do next year anyway, after the OFT’s test case,” said Lisa Taylor from Moneyfacts.co.uk “It’s great that banks are warning customers in advance with text messages, but Lloyds’ charges are still expensive — particularly if you go more than £100 into unauthorised borrowing. You could be charged up to £215 a month.”

 

 

Mike Naylor from uSwitch.com said: “It does finally seem that the looming test case is having some impact on the banks’ attitudes to levels of charges. We hope the other big banks will follow Lloyds’ example in the coming months.”

 

 

Lloyds refunded £36million- worth of overdraft charges in the first half of this year but all refund claims have now been frozen until the outcome of the OFT investigation, expected early next year.

 

 

The new Lloyds measures, which come into effect on November 2, will see unauthorised interest rates for a Classic account slashed from 29 per cent to 19 per cent.

 

 

Customers who go over their overdraft limit will also be given a “period of grace” — until 3.30pm that day — to correct things without incurring any fees. Instead of penalising customers £30 a day should they go into the red without permission the bank will now charge £15 a month, then between £6 and £20 a day, according to the amount borrowed. The penalty for bouncing a cheque, standing order or direct debit will fall by £15 to £20. The text-message warning service will cost £2.50 per month.

 

 

Lloyds TSB’s Ian Larkin said: “We want to help our customers avoid accidentally slipping into the red and are giving them the tools to do just that. We understand it can sometimes be difficult to keep tabs on an account and we want to make it easier to do so.”

 

 

In a different move to tackle unauthorised borrowing, the cash machines of HSBC are to alert customers when a withdrawal is about to take them over their overdraft limit. The warning messages will start appearing at the 3,500 cash machines operated by the bank on October 1, although warnings will not be displayed on non-HSBC machines.

 

 

NatWest is also expected to provide a “new option” later this year for customers who go over their authorised overdraft limit.

 

 

Anna Bowes from independent financial adviser AWD Chase de Vere said: “People must budget carefully and take some responsibility for going overdrawn. Banks are not charities and everyone knows they will incur high charges if they dip into money that is not theirs.

 

 

“Should you find yourself going into an unauthorised overdraft, talk to your bank and try to arrange a solution. If you are getting into a spiral of debt, do not bury your head in the sand — talk to a debt counsellor immediately.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

YourMoney Homepage

 

Pos:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow,

 

did anyone notice in the above article that it actually lists what the official monthly interest rate was in the past and what it will be after november?

 

This would be of interest I suspect to anyone trying to claim back Contractual Interest on their particular claim.

 

Laters

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow,

 

did anyone notice in the above article that it actually lists what the official monthly interest rate was in the past and what it will be after november?

 

This would be of interest I suspect to anyone trying to claim back Contractual Interest on their particular claim.

 

Laters

Yes it would but only after that date, is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...