Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have recently found myself in financial difficulties and with the help of forum members in another thread regarding this, I think I can get myself sorted. My query here is how to deal with a Cifas marker that has been logged against me by one of my creditors for "evasion of payment". Admittedly yes I did get a £5000 loan with them and have not paid any payment but at the start of the year, which is when the loan landed, I realised I was going to be struggling to repay that and other debts and I contacted MCB to ask if there was any way I could extend the loan from 24 months to 36 months. I explained my situation and that I was going with a DMP and asked them if they could help me with this. They did not reply. I then emailed them again a month later explaining that my DMP was going ahead and could they confirm that the direct debit was indeed cancelled. Again, they did not reply. The DMP fell apart and so did everything else thereafter. My bank withdrew my overdraft and said I could not stay with them (I thought initially that it was because of the DMP) so I opened another account (Starling) and set up all my direct debits etc with the new bank. A month into being with the new bank, they contacted me and said they were closing my account in three months. So I started applying for other basic accounts and every single one of them either refused or revoked.  Through the help in the other thread, I requested a SAR from Cifas and discovered that I have this marker against my name for "evasion of payment". I have logged a complaint with MCB on the advice of other forum members, but my query really is do you think the marker is fair given that I did ask them for help and I did explain that I was going to be struggling financially to repay the loan over the original two years, and is there any way that I can get it removed? I fully admit that I have yet to make a payment to them and I suppose in my naivety and panic I thought if I emailed them early on they could extend the loan and help me out, but they didn't even reply  I did manage to open an account with Monzo before the marker was in place, but I am very concerned that if Monzo do what Starling did, I will have no bank account to pay my bills or get my wages paid into.  Realistically based on the information I have given here, what do you think my chances are of getting this marker removed? Any help/advice on this would be greatly appreciated x
    • Thank you dx, that is what I intend to do now. I have gone through all the SAR documents, a lot of which I am seeing for the first time! As per my previous post #116 letters and statements alleged to have been sent to me, as recorded on their system notes I have not received. Letters I have sent requesting information and account statements have not been recorded as being received by them, all were sent either by Recorded or Special Delivery. I have all the proof you menrtioned from my files for payments and from their SAR info for fees added. Thanks t
    • In my experience (not with car payments) but with many other things, my partner has been ill and signed off in the past and we have been unable to meet various commitments.  Naturally if you ring the call centre they are going to fob you off and tell you you must pay, that's why that never ever works. I would obtain a note from her GP listing all her health issues plus medications plus side effects, then write to the finance company with a copy of it, explaining the situation, as you have here, asking for a payment holiday. Perhaps mention that the car is very much needed for hospital appointments etc. It's likely the finance company would rather you pay till term end than, chase you for money they will never see, and sell the car at auction for a loss,  You can search some of my threads going back years, advising people to do this for Council Tax, Tax Credits, HMRC, Even a solicitors company and it always works, because contrary to popular belief people are reasonable.
    • Sorry, I haven't ever seen one of these agreements. Read it all and look out for anything that says when she can withdraw and when she is committed to go ahead. If it isn't clear she may need to call the housing provider and simply say what you posted here, she doesn't want to go ahead and how does she withdraw her swap application?
    • Thank you! Your head is like a power bank of knowledge.  Her health issues are short term, due to a relationship breakdown she took it pretty hard and has been signed off work on medication for 3 months. She only started her job in February 24 so does not qualify for any occupational sick benefits, which is where the ssp only comes in. (You will see me posting a few things over the coming days, whilst I try and sort some things for her)  I sat with her last night relaying all this back and she does want to work out a plan, she was ready to propose £100 for the next 3 months and then an additional £70 per month onto of her contractual to "catch up" but Money247 rejecting the payment holiday and demanding £200 thew her, which is why I came on here.   
  • 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 6070 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

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

IF and I repeat IF this is true...(misinformation is rife) we have won!!!!!!!:eek: :):D

 

 

IF we have won...it will only be a short term thing while banks come up with other, more ingenious ways of getting money out of us!

 

Mailman

Link to post
Share on other sites

The more I think about this - the more I think its an excellent idea of Lloyds. They can draw a line under the issue, get LOADS of new customers and be seen to be the 'better' bank. The 3.5 billion they may have to pay out can be seen as a kind of advertising budget - and they would have had to pay it eventually anyway. I may well switch over to lloyds if this is true.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again - the more you think about it......it could be true....does any bank really want its dirty laundry dragged through the court by the OFT. The would have to disclose internal notes, costings (e.g how much it actually costs the bank to process the charges - very embarressing if the real cost is something like £1 haha) - The question really is - do they want this info plastered over the evening news - constantly - for a month - with their logo clearly visable behind a newsreader - with the caption "OFT finds that charges only cost £1 to process"

 

I think if I ran Lloyds - faced with that senario - I would digg deep - put aside the 3.5 billion - call the PR team and ad agency and sit back while I incur the wrath of the other banks for breaking ranks.

 

Go Lloyds...

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt this rumour is true.

 

The OFT and the banks have a signed agreement for the test case and I

don't know if it would be legally possible for Lloyds to simply pull out. Also

I doubt if any bank would have the nerve to break rank.

 

I just called a contact at the OFT and he knows nothing about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but they could pull out of the test case - break ranks - and then just start paying customers back. Its legally possible if they simply admit guilt.

 

At this point the OFT would not necessarily have been informed.

 

But - OK - its pretty unlikely - sigh

 

But still.......there is a compelling argument for doing it......

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason for just pulling out of the test case, breaking ranks, and paying out. The banks have ALL been flooded with people applying for refunds claiming hardship. These claims are apparently more difficult to process than normal as they can be much more complex -and require senior managers.

 

They are being sent in in the 1000's.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks have ALL been flooded with people applying for refunds claiming hardship.

 

Yes, and sometimes they have to pay out, especially with benefits.

 

But, talking to the FOS today, i was told hardship is only assessed as 'current' and not years ago. So if you are claiming charges from benefits from a few years ago, that does not count. If you are claiming charges from benefits within the last few months, that needs looking at as it is 'current' hardship.

 

The guy made it clear that hardship cannot be used to help you pay your debts, e.g. mortgage arrears, bill arrears etc. despite me asking why the FSA say this is so.

 

He said they assess the banking code just as the bank does. I guess some crap was mentioned here ....

 

But, i had Lloyds pay out £817 to my partner this week, without any statements or a schedule sent as i asked 'send me what you charged' and by asking for hardship to be considered after they sent a 'stay' letter. Maybe cos they're thinking of pulling out of the case soon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS does not know what its talking about. Fair enough - a lot of the hardship claims all use different arguments - but a good argument can be made that a persons current financial position can have been impacted as a result of cumulative charges over the years (e.g bank charges make you increase overdraft - bank increase overdraft to let you handle the charges- charges keep coming in - you default on OD - bank gives you loan to clear overdraft - cycle repeats until customer is insolvent.)

 

I have spoken to FOS on numerous occasions - you actually get better advice by speaking to the banks - FOS are terrible at giving advice and keep changing their minds. You are (sadly) much better going to court and arguing your case. If anything the FOS are even more in the pocket of banks than the FSA.

 

The FOS could have continued to process bank charge claims. They CHOSE not to. In fact it is a condition of the FSA wavier that the FOS STOPS processing complaints. Had the FOS refused then the FSA would have been unable to put the wavier in place. No one ordered them to do anything. Yes the OFT is taking banks to court. But there are many, many other issues that the FOS could have looked at to determine whether the charges were fair other than The Unfair Terms and Contracts Act. The conduct of the FOS is shocking really.......and should also be investigated in due course.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is basically why I think this story might have a ring of truth to it...

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/113285-banks-oft-rock-hard.html

 

It really no longer matters if the banks 'win' in court. Dragging the appeal out helps no one either. The bottom line is that public opinion has already ruled that charges are unfair. And in a retail market that is all that matters.

 

Legal opinion is now neither here nor there.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

tifo vbmenu_register("postmenu_1116533", true); - why can't they back out...if they simply say 'we have spoken to our legal chaps and we agree with the oft' then what would the court case be about? Tom Brennan found out what the judges think about taking someone to court who has given in to virtually all your demands except for a few legally tenuous points! what would the oft gain by pushing it? The other banks would surely follow and the oft would risk a chance they may lose and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for the consumer.

 

I don't know if this is true or if the timescale is accurate. What I do know is the more I think about it the better sense it would make for LLoyds. They are one of the richest banks. They can if anyone afford it. The publicity would be good, they may gain customers and they could re-employ there staff from dealing with our complaints to selling to us. If their lawyers have said 'you can't win' then why not give in and be seen to be genorous and honest instead of dragged kicking and screaming into a court?

 

up to now lloyds seem to have been the most independant bank. They didn't rely on the penalty charge reflects our cost defence. They went for service charge and on several occassions won. The other banks were quoting them. They seem to have a legal team who know how to confuse. imagine them now agreeing to refund the money when everyone knows they won against Mr Berwick. they would look generous! how clever would that be?

 

As I said I'm not holding my breath but I really really wont be surprised if this happens in the near future....;)

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

they can say 'you win - we agree with you'.

 

so what would the OFT do then?:confused:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

and when we say 'we are taking you to court'

 

they do say 'no thanks' and pay us...

 

this is just bigger...whats more the banks asked for the case and weren't dragged there by the oft... Which would make the OFT look wasteful if they pursued a bank who had just said 'ok you win we agree with you!'

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'ts a civil matter not a criminal one...how can you drag someone to court who has decided to agree with you?.. what would you say to the judge?

 

'we want these people who now agree with us to still agree with us?'

 

 

:confused:

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.Thus, what is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy. What is essential in war is victory, not prolonged operations.

 

Sun Tzu 'The art of war'

POST THE LETTER AND SIGN THE PETITION AT POST 88 ON THE LINK BELOW TO GET THE OFT TO INVESTIGATE THE CRA'S

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/153512-campaign-oft-against-unfair.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt this rumour is true.

 

The OFT and the banks have a signed agreement for the test case and I

don't know if it would be legally possible for Lloyds to simply pull out. Also

I doubt if any bank would have the nerve to break rank.

 

I just called a contact at the OFT and he knows nothing about it.

 

I don't personally think this is true but if it were why would your contact at the OFT know anything about it anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...