Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Absolutely for the agreement they are referring to.... puts them on notice that this is going to be a uphill fight.   Andy 
    • Particular's of claim for reference only 1. the claim is for the sum of £6163.61due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for hsbc uk bank plc. Account (16 digits) 2. The defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s 87(1)  of the consumer credit act 1974 which as not been compiled with. 3. The debt was legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/08/23, notice on which as been given to the defendant.  4. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the county courts act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of £117.53 the Claimant claims the sum of £6281.14. Suggested defence 1. The Defendant contends the particulars of the claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.3 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre action protocol) failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st of October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification. 4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I have not been served with a default notice pursuant to the consumer credit act 1974. 5. Paragraph 3 is denied. i am unaware of any legal assignment or notice of assignment. A copy of assignment was sent by Overdales solicitors when acknowledgement of receipt of CPR request was received, but this was not the original.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied. Neither the original creditor or the assignee have served notice pursuant to sec86c of the Credit Consumer Act 1974 Notice of Sums in Arrears and therefore prevented from charging interest on debt regulated by the CCA1974. 7. The defendant submitted a request for a copy of the alleged agreement pursuant to s78 CCA 1974. The claimant has acknowledged receipt of request but has failed to comply. The claimant has failed to provide any evidence of balance or Default Notice requested by CPR 31.14 8. It is therefore denied with regards to defendant owing any monies to the claimant. therefore the claimant is put to strict proof to:  a.  Show how the defendant has entered into an agreement with HSBC. b.  Show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default notice pursuant to section 87 (1) CCA 1974. c.  Show and quantify how the defendant has reached the amount claimed for. d.  Show how the claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity  to issue a claim. 8.  As per civil procedure rule 16.5 (4) it is expected claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 9.  Until such time the claimant can comply to a section 78 request he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.     .
    • OK, well rereading the court orders from March, in the cold light of day rather than when knackered late at night, it is quite clear that on 25 June there will only be a preliminary hearing about Laura representing her son.  Nothing more. It's lazy DCBL who haven't read things properly and have stupidly sent their Witness Statement early. Laura & I had already been working on a WS, and here it is.  It needs tweaking now after reading the rubbish that DCBL sent and after all of LFI's comments.  But the "meat" is there. Defendant's WS - version 1.pdf
    • Morning, I purchased a car from Big Motoring World on 10th December 2023 for £14899.00. On the 15th December I had a problem with the auto start stop function of the car in which the car would stop in the middle of the road with a stop start error message. I called the big assist and the car was booked in for February. The BMW was with them for a week and it came back with the auto stop start feature all fine and all error codes cleared on the report from big motoring world. within 5 days I had the same issue. Warning light coming on and the car stopping. I called big assist again and the car was again booked in for an other repair in May. Car was taken back in may, they had the car for a week and returned with the report saying no issue with the auto stop start feature and blamed my driving. Within 5 days of having the car back it broke down again. This time undrivable. I had the rac pick my car up and take to Stephen James BMW for a full diagnostic. The diagnostic came back with the car needing a new fuel system as magnetic swarf was found.  I have sent big motoring world a letter stating all the issues and that under the consumer rights act 2015 I have asked for a replacement vehicle. all reports from Stephen James BMW have been sent over to big motoring world. Big motoring world have come back and said they will respond to my complaint within 14 days for the date of my complaint letter. I am not feeling confident on the response from them, what are my next steps?   Thanks in advance. 
    • That is really good is that a mistake last off "driver doesn't have a licence" I assume that should be keeper? The Court requested me to send the Court and applicant proof of my sons disability from their GP this clearly shows he has Severe Mental Impairement, he is also illiterate.  I naively assumed once the applicant received this that they would drop the claim.  It offends me that Bank has asked the Judge to throw the case out at the preliminary hearing and to make us pay up.
  • 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

T-Mobile debited money without permission


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6118 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

Hi, I have a problem with a phantom transaction (2 to be correct), which has occured on my bank account with LloydsTSB. This may sound strange so ill try best to explain....A few months ago i took a mobile phone out on contract for my sister...As i wanted no risk of becomming overdrawn (since the phone wasnt mine), the salesman in CarPhoneWarehouse advised me that after the first months bill had been debited i should cancel the direct debit and allow my sister to pay with her own card, and i have for some months now. The problem being that yesterday i check my account balance just out of interest and notice £80 has gone missing, without hesitation i call LlodysTSB and ask what's been taken. The person on the phone tells me 2 transactions have been made in the past 24 hours by T-Mobile, one £50.00 and another £30.00, and these are NOT direct debits. Naturally i call T-Mobile and they have absolutly no clue what im talking about....Although the bank is adament its T-Mobile that has taken it...What can i do? LloydsTSB say they taken it...T-Mobile say they havnt?? So what i just lose my £80?? Any help greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not clear whether this is a DD or a Card Mandate, but to get the contract you would have to agreed to one or the other. Your only recourse is to tell the bank you have not been advised of any pending debit by T-Mobile, but be prepared for them not to take your side without a fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not clear whether this is a DD or a Card Mandate, but to get the contract you would have to agreed to one or the other. Your only recourse is to tell the bank you have not been advised of any pending debit by T-Mobile, but be prepared for them not to take your side without a fight.

definatly not a DD as i cancelled it months ago, lloyds say it was a card transaction either using the card & pin or handing over the account number and sort code, im sure i didnt use the card & pin and i know t-mobile have my info from when i signed up...strange thing is t-mobile know nothing about the payment they have taken even through payment searches on my account number and card number - they have no record of it but lloyds say its definatly them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you check on internet banking (or just ask Lloyds) you should be able to see if it was a card transaction. This seems likely as just your account number and sort code is not enough to debit your account.

 

Did you use your debit card as ID when signing up as this is the only way I can think of that t-mobile could have the details needed if the DD was cancelled as you say. Bit sneaky and you should be able to argue the toss with Lloyds and say you never authorised the transaction.

 

If it is a card transaction and Lloyds don't play ball the easiest way to stop T-mobile doing it again is to report your card as lost and get a replacement with a new card number

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you call in to T mobile and give them the details of the payments, the dates, amount and (normally) the last 4 digits of your card number, their payment processing department will be able to tell you exactly what account(s) these debits from your card were allocated against. It does happen that if someone gets hold of your card details they can pay off phone bills or put credit onto payg phones using your card. you will then be armed with the neccesary details for Lloyds to claim those funds back if is proven to be a fraudulent charge (and a good reason to immediately cancel your existing cards!)

Anything I post is my own opinion and views based on experience. My posts may not represent the views of my Employer, work collegues, or my Mum, i thought them up all by myself!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if this will be of interest

T-Mobile hit by top up [problem]

Check your statements now

Monday 10 September 2007

 

AN IRATE INQ reader has discovered a fraudulent £40 payment to the UK's T-Mobile mobile network for topping up a pre-paid handset. The clue was that he's not even a T-Mobile customer. Our hapless reader noticed the dubious entry on his credit card bill and spotted it immediately as a fraud. So he quickly rang T-Mobile to complain.

Reputedly the agent in T-Mobile's help centre sounded very familiar with the situation and suggested that the company was currently experiencing problems with fraudulent top ups.

His advice was to cut up the credit card immediately and order a replacement. Presumably the hacker had been able to [problem] the three digit verification code on the back of the card.

One of the problems with pre-paid is that the networks don't actually know who the real owner of the handset is. It seems that T-Mobile's online sign up system for topping up doesn't even require a postal address.

So the INQ speculates that the system isn't checking credit card numbers against a postal address when adding top ups.

The INQ is waiting for T-Mobile to get back to us about this. Meanwhile, check your credit card bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...