OK, this thread would have been better asked in the insurance forum but since it's here I'll answer it with my motor claims handler head on. You the driver, whilst in charge of a motor vehicle reversed it into a stationary object, you failed in your responsibility and duty as a driver to ensure that it was safe to reverse. As someone else has pointed out 'What if it had been a small child, ie one the same height as the post', would you be writing to the mother of the child holding her responsible for your inability to see what was there? If a driver of car is in any doubt that it is unsafe to reverse they should get out and check. Sainsbury's have no liability here, their offer of vouchers is purely and simply a goodwill gesture and under the circumstances is more than generous and more than most other Companies would do. There is a phrase used quite often in insurance, 'You are the author of your own misfortune' which in this case is most apt. I'm sorry if you feel this post is not constructive because it's not sympathetic to your position or it's not what you wanted to hear, but you asked for advice and that's what you have got. If I was the claims handler dealing with this I'd refute it and tell you to drive more carefully in future You asked in your earlier thread what your rights were, you have the right to write to them and attempt a claim, they have the right to deny liability, ultimately you have the right to take them to Court if they do not accept liability and the Court has the right to decide on liability. Courts usually apply common sense, and as many others have pointed out (even those who don't work in claims handling), you hit a stationary object that was there for all to see, it was there before you got in your car, it never moved and you drove into it, for that reason you are highly unlikely to win. As an aside Sainsburys have the right to attempt to recover from you the cost of any repairs needed as a result of your negligence (which they probably won't do, unless it does go to Court in which case it will form the basis of their counter-claim and I think that you would end up paying them). My advice (based on 20 years claims handling) is 1) Accept the vouchers 2) Pay more attention when you are in charge of a car 3) Be thankful it wasn't a small child you hit Mossy

This has just over 1 month to run and with only 68 signatures it is not going to suceed in changing anything. The petition closes on 25th October and if before then we can secure a minimum of 200 signatures then it will at least get passed to the relevant governement department for a response. Please can I ask that if you believe that the current use of charging orders at the earliest opportunity by many creditors and DCA's needs to be more closely regulated that you both sign the petition yourself and pass the message on to as many people as you can. I feel it would be a real shame if out of 200,000 members on CAG we couldn't get 200 signatures. If you are members of other forums why not mention it on there and send an email to your friends and family. Every little bit helps. Thanks,FF

Ok, we all get calls from DCA's. They intimidate you and use that fear to make you pay more than you can afford to pay, or make you pay something you don't actually owe them. Or be like me and use the power of a non enforceable CCA as a legal right not to pay them...... When I get a DCA call or I call them, here's what usually happens.... Big thanks to Locutus for doing the video for this one. Frederickson International get Fuzzybobbled..........

MOD NOTE The first 4 posts have been moved to this new thread as they were more in-depth than was necessary to answer the OPs original post. That thread may be found here.http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/160591-wrong-address-bank-time.html#post1719800 for anyone wants to put this thread into context and see posts leading to this discussion. Yes, but this is a discussion forum, and even though the initial question has been answered, it has opened up other questions for debate. I'm sure that the original post is happy in knowing that they need'nt worry because it was just an accident. But what about, in other circumstances, where it might be of concequence to anyone else ? Sorry, I don't mean to be rude. But I thought this site, was for open discussion, so why try to end the discussion (even though it's going on a bit), when there are still issues that need addressing ? (no pun intended !) I think that a letter etc is private, and if it opened by anyone else not bearing their name, without permission or authority, then they must commit an offence. It's contents are confidential and private, and probably, (even if not marked Private and confidential), if you knowingly open it, then that must be intent to do something wrong ? What if it is marked - For the Addressee Only - ? There must be some laws protecting this, Privacy, Fraud, Human Rights Act. etc - if a business involved, then, Data protection Act. may be ? But, proving intent would be difficult though, because they could claim, it was just opened by accident. :wink:But what if it was signed for, and then opened by someone without permission of authority ? How could they then, claim it was an accident, that must be intent surely. I think some of this might be a grey area, but it needs to be cleared up, as MrShed said - 'it clearly a potential concequence'. Any ideas anyone ?

Please do - don't forget to send any correspondence by 'recorded delivery' - so someone has to sign for it .....

Hope this helps - the quicker you get this off the ground and heading for court the better - stick to the timetable and don't let them waffle you off course. Best of luck

Sounds about right for Egg Bobo - they don't like sending out full info on their loans for some reason. From what I've read on the Egg forum on CAG, they are extremely short staffed so that could be the reason but I doubt it somehow However, S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s should be chased up with CAG non-compliance letters after the 40 days are up:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/6986-data-protection-act-non.html A Subject Access Request is a legal request for all information the company has on their files regarding any account information they hold on you eg statements, transcripts of telephone calls, etc Bo

Also, while we're on the subject, many people seem unaware that connected institutions such as Barclays and BC will transfer money between your a/c's without your authority. Eg, if you owed money on your BC a/c and hadn't paid them for a month or two, when you get money paid into your bank a/c, they'll transfer what they want to the BC a/c and there's precious little you can do about it.

Hi Mac This is looking very extremely good to me - not that I understand everything but I am sure the Judge will understand it. Keeping my fingers crossed. Good Luck Tuttsi xx

Such signs are meaningless, if a wall fell on the car a sign would not remove the store of liability.

as you drove into the post I can't see how Sainsbury's can be liable for anything. especially as you drove in okay.

A switch transaction via a solo card(NatWest are due to go to Visa debit card towards the end of next year) work the same as a cheque. They are valid for 6 months from the date of authorisation. I have never relied on a cash machine or a balance to tell me what I have to spend. I had merely read up to the paragraph ending with the phrase "co-op barely seem interested in speaking to me about it." And then I read the rest of it which kinda said what I was about post. I agree with you about CHIP and PIN terminals but there are occasion where a transaction is not fully completed and therefore will debit the account at a later date. I think you need to start the process of reclaiming bank charges.

???? If something is retrospective, it means it applies to events before hand.... As 2004 is AFTER 1995/1996.... The question in relation to the act being retrospective is a little confusing...

A Murmuration of Starlings

Hi tosh, It is the link posted by Funky fox in his post. I really dont want to spoil this thread by even broaching the subject any further than I already have.

there is actaully a very funny thread on money savings expert regarding a person who was pursue for a debt whcih he did not owed Having fun with Debitas - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums it is really funny although a lengthy thread i must warned ....

Thank you both! That helps. I always like to give links so that people can get to grips with stuff themselves and understand what they're doing and why. As for the non compliance letter, i will be sending my own version to my / our old pals BCW, as surprisingly (not) they haven't complied with my request for a copy of the agreement relating to the account they have sent me a payment card for - te hee

Hello Hopeful1! I believe the Criminal Offence part was abolished in... The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 See Page 9: Just to help anyone that needs to check what the Sections were in the 1974 Act: Consumer Credit Act 1974 I hope this helps. Cheers, BRW

hiya Tetsuo am subscribing, and can i pls reassure you that banker and hopeful have been helping me out with the likes of MBNA and its thanks to them that ive got myself sorted and ONLY in writing is my mantra now - lol believe us and i think you do really, but mbna are just muppets i have my own threads started on my journeys with them and they have already sent me current terms and conditions with a supposed illegible cca, so this week, will be writing to them this is not acceptable ive had a call this week and was told they are a telephone banking as i well know, i replied already told you in writing only, and she told me they would continue to call me, and i replied "well no one will answer the phone" and surprising since wed no one has called me from mbna maybe they found my letter,,,,so you see all in writing gives you the papertrail and also the legal duties they have to endure, otherwise down the line a harrasment claim will be processed by me once i have all the recordings and calls made by them documented. Good luck and keep updating and im sure we will get through this madness ciao for now - laters MAZ

Letter N is not an acknowledgement of any alleged debt. It depends what these alleged debts refer to as to whether its worthwhile sending letter N. Lowells will prbably sell this debt on to their Scottish paramiltary wing of Muck Hall in Kilmarnock. When this happens you will know you have won

Hi Fred, I'll be very interested in what answer you get. In case you haven't already read it elsewhere, check what type of account it's described as on your credit reference file. On mine, it's quite clearly described as a credit card, and Bank of Scotland also referred to it as a credit card in correspondence with the FOS. If it is a credit card (or actually anything other than a straightforward current account) then of course it should be regulated by the CCA, but I'm not sure what effect it has if it isn't.

I thought i'd create a blog - lets see if anyone out there is aware of these "router accounts" RBS Book Debt "Router Account"

Unless instructed by a court....you ve got more chance of Lord Lucan turning up at your home to remove stuff than anyone from a DCA. I ll tell you exactly what will happen if you ignore them totally - sweet FA. So expect more threatograms, maybe even phone calls (if so refuse to answer their security questions) & apart from that....errrrrr nothing

mich7k - this is the address for written complaints: The correct address for complaints about the tax credit office should be addressed to Tax Credit Office Customer Support Unit PO Box 145 Preston Lancs PR1 0SB 01516767003 But they have 8 weeks to deal with it. The will send you an acknowledgement with a phone number - ring and explain the circumstances and they may fast track your complaint. However it seems the intervention from my MP was the catalyst for getting my claim sorted - email your MP and explain the situation, tell them about the escalations that don't work and ask them to intervene - they seem to respond more quickly to MP complaints.

lol, look at this very funny YouTube - angry ANGRY BT customer! Very Funny!

Why don't you ask them - very politely but very firmly. See what they say. If yes then all is well. If no then wheel out the big guns.

They're this colour...............

How about this as a reply: Thank you for your letter dated (date). For the avoidance of doubt, I maintain the bank has an obligation to provide a true copy of the agreement within the meaning of Regulation 3 of Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 and which obliges your client to provide a ‘true’ copy of the executed agreement to me. I accept that there are savings in regard to this obligation and of the kind set out in Regulation 3(2) to include under regulation 3(2)(b) an ability to provide a true copy without the same bearing signatures.. However, it is clear from the evidence given by your client’s witness, that the witness would be unable to say under cross examination that the document purporting to be a true copy minus signatures has ever been compared with the original and is in consequence a true copy of it. On the contrary, it is clear that the witness seeks to comply with the obligation imposed under regulation 3 by means of a re-construction exercise without any first hand, direct knowledge of the appearance of the original agreement. The witness merely surmises. Further it is evident that for reasons which have not been explained, the original document is and has for some time, been unavailable for comparison purposes and it is therefore perverse to maintain as fact that a document is a true copy of another document if neither the original nor a genuine reproduction of that other document can be produced to substantiate the evidence of the witness. Moreover, the savings under regulation 3(2)(b) in relation to the production to me of a true copy relate only to my request under section 78(1) of The Consumer Credit Act 1974. They have no wider application. The savings could not for example, be relied upon to excuse a failure to bring the original agreement into court. I am well aware that in Woodchester v Swayne the court limited the claimant’s recovery to just the correct amount of arrears set out in the default notice. However, I beg to differ with your suggestion that my comments in relation to the default notice do not operate as a defence. The delivery of the default notice in circumstances where your client was in breach of its obligation to deliver a true copy of the agreement following a request under section 78(1) of the Act served to prohibit your client from enforcing the agreement for so long as it neglected to comply with the request. Your client can not rely on the default notice if, as was the case, your client was in default of its obligation to comply with my request under section 78(1). The default notice was clearly a step taken to enforce the agreement. It incorporated the words ‘enforce’ and informed me that if I failed to comply ‘further enforcement’ would follow. I further beg to differ with your suggestion that your client might subsequently deliver a second default notice. Apart from its continuing failure to comply with my section 78(1) request, your client has now terminated the agreement and it is evident from both the default notice leading to termination and the proceedings that your client has already evinced an intention to recover what it says is the full outstanding balance. Your client may not serve a second effective default notice in prescribed form post-termination of the agreement. Any such second default notice will necessarily state a date by when I would be required to comply after which in default the agreement would terminate. The second default notice would therefore contain the fiction that the agreement endured when as we both know, it was terminated by your client long ago. You appear to recognize that within the current proceedings your client’s position at best is that it will recover only arrears stated on the default notice. That best case scenario is advanced without regard for the provisions of section 78(6) of the Act. Rather than demonstrating the existence of a valid claim, your letter serves only to reinforce that at the date of the commencement of this case your client had no immediate right to be paid any of the sums it now claims. y/f x20

Rubles - I have replied to your PM For the sake of openess for the Forum, I can confirm that the enhanced CRB check for the case I described showed nothing untoward whatsoever and I do not believe that it was anything more than a 'pocketbook' entry as far as the Police were concerned, signed off as 'no further action'. I believe that Rubles' case would have been similarly treated and most unlikely to have been recorded on the PNC.

Try the following (edit as appropriate) Dear XXXX Thank you for your letter dated xx/xx/xxxx the contents of which have been noted I draw your attention to your request for me to prove my identity and address to you. I might remind You that you have previously sent numerous documents of a sensitive and confidential nature to this address, So I assume that you have already clarified my identity and address at a much earlier date and can only surmise that your request is an administrative error. In your letter I was instructed to send you an original bank or credit/store card statement or utility bill. I have since been advised that I am not obliged to send you these documents nor should you be asking me for them. The government and numerous consumer organisations regularly advise against sending copies of any of the requested documents due to the risk of identity theft. If you do still have queries regarding my identity I would then question why have you previously sent sensitive and confidential information addressed to me at the address provided to you when you have doubts about my address and/or identity? I trust this resolves any quesries you may have and look forward to receiving your response to my original CCA request dated xx/xx/xx in line with the timescales as laid out in current statutes yours (unsigned)

Send the SAR (by recorded delivery)....see what they send back...but use this letter... Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request Dear Sir/Madam ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxx (or multiple numbers if more than one account) Please supply me with all data that you hold on me. This includes in particular, but is not limited to, the following:- 1. The original signed, executed credit agreement and any terms and conditions that applied to the account at the time of default and at the time the account was opened. 2. Transcriptions of all telephone conversations recorded and any notes made in relation to telephone conversations by your company, or by any previous creditor 3. Where there has been any event in my account history over this period which has required manual intervention by any person, I require disclosure of any indication or notes which have either caused or resulted in that manual intervention, or other evidence of that manual intervention in relation to my account formerly held with ORIGINAL CREDITOR. 4. True copies of any notice of assignment and/or default notice or enforcement notice that you or the original creditor sent me, with a copy of any proof of postage that you hold. 5. Documents relating to any insurance added to the account, including the insurance contract and terms and conditions, date it was added and deleted (if applicable). 6. Details of any collection charges added to the account; specifically, the date it was levied, the amount of the charge, a detailed financial breakdown of how the charge was calculated, and what the charge covers. 7. Specific details of the fees/charges levied by any other agency in respect of this account and a detailed breakdown of said fees/charges and what each charge relates to and on what date said fees/charges were levied. 8. A genuine copy of any notice of fair use of my data as required by the Data Protection Act 1998 9. A list of third party agencies to whom you have disclosed my personal data and a summary of the nature of the information you have disclosed. 10. Copies of statements for the entire duration of the credit agreement. I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. If there is specific information which you require in order to satisfy yourself as to my identity, please let me know by return. However, please note that the above address is the one which you normally use to communicate my private business to me and which you have hitherto found to be acceptable. Yours faithfully, print but don't sign your name

Why I requested the court details is they have a 100% feedback on ebay and there are only 3 mentions of them not doing refunds that come up in searches on various engines. They are breaking so many laws, no terms and conditions (T&Cs of using the website do not count), distance selling regulations, no email address, using a PO Box number and not a geographic address and countless others. You could also send details of the court ruling along with the breaches in the companies act to the domain they are registered with: Domain name registration from 123-reg and ask them to take their site down. There are also a lot of very legitimate companies that have websites that do not comply with the companies act, but it has not been widely advertised and no doubt will be changed when they are made aware of it.

If you have not already done so, you must get a CCA Request off to them, and back that up with a full S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) as well, to get the whole picture. The MBNA threaten all sorts of things, defaults, life-time unemployment, defaults, pound of flesh, defaults, plague of ants in your pants, defaults... ...did I mention defaults? The problem is, if they want to default, they will, and they may not even tell you when they do, no Default Notice, nothing. So, there's no point fearing what you cannot really control. I suspect they will come over all nice once you start talking money. Ignore the Call Centre minnions, and get that message to the clowns at MBNA who can actually make a decision. The minnions just want money, offer them 6.5k and they'll want 7.5k, offer them 7.5k and they'll want 9k, offer them £10,999.99 and they'll want all 11k. They can't be reasoned with, you need to go further up the MBNA food chain. Start at 4k and negotiate up from there...but only if they have an Enforceable Agreement that is! Thus, you need some ammunition, so a CCA and S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) are vital to let you see exactly where you stand with them. Having 7.5k to play with does put you in a very strong position. By comparison, the rest of us are fighting the MBNA with just a tin of beans and a prayer! Cheers, BRW