And for the person who asked, here is a copy of my N1. I nicked from someone else on this site, so I dont take any credit for it. Obviously changed a few bits to fit my situation and added/deleted bits. PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 1. The Claimant had a credit agreement xxxxxxxxxxx ("the Agreement") with the Defendant which was opened on or around January 1998 and closed on or around September 2006. 2. At the time of undertaking the credit agreement, the agent acting on behalf of the Defendant misled the Claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance ("the Insurance") as part of the overall credit bargain. 3. The Claimant contends that: a) Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 the Claimant was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made; i) The Insurances sold to the Claimant were not defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreement, the Claimant was informed that The Insurance was part and parcel of having a credit card. The Defendants agent misrepresented the fact that the insurance was compulsory, due to inexperience in financial matters at the time of the Claimant, this was taken at face value; the Claimant felt that there was no choice but to agree to the credit bargain. ii) The Insurance was mis-sold, as the Claimant was employed at the time in an industry where redundancy is unheard of, the Claimant’s employers operated a policy of death in service benefits and sickness policy of such a generosity that any insurance would have been wholly unnecessary; iii) Furthermore the Claimant in February 2002 commenced self employment and the Defendant was made aware of this, no attempt was made by the Defendant to ascertain whether The Insurance remained valid or indeed appropriate to the Claimant’s circumstances. b) The Claimant contends that the agent for the Defendant was fully aware of the Claimants circumstances and fraudulently passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The Claimant believes this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing. c) If the Court finds that incorrect details were not passed as a result of fraudulent behaviour then the Claimant contends that incorrect details were passed to the insurer through the Defendants’ agents’ mistake as to facts. d) The Claimant further contends that if the Insurance was applied correctly, that the Agreement was not executed in accordance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974; i) As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments ii) If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit iii) For the reasons stated in either (i) or (ii) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit iv) The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA. 4. Accordingly the Claimant asks: a) The Court finds that the Defendant acted in a way grossly contravening ordinary principles of fair dealing and reopens the credit bargain to perform restitution to rectify the unjust enrichment performed, to the detriment of the Claimant by the sum of £xxxxx by conferring a benefit under an ineffective transaction. b) If the Court is unable to perform restitution, then the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxxx by virtue of the Defendants agents’ actions, be they fraudulently or mistakenly, in obtaining the Insurances which offered no benefit to the Claimant. c) Alternatively, the Claimant seeks damages of £xxxxx in regards to the Defendants clear breach of the Claimants human rights as prescribed by Article 1 of the first protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 whereby the Defendants actions did cause the Claimant to suffer personal loss to the sum of £xxxxx. d) Court costs; e) The Claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from various charging dates to 16 November 2006 of £xxxxx and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxx per day.

Fingers are very much crossed!! Issued a judgement yesterday but due to backlog, bloody charges grabbers it wont be processed for another few days, giving LTSB a chance to acknowledge. I have a mate in LTSB management he tells me they have a large dept for charges now and they are getting literally 1000's per week in claims. And BBC current affairs prog (dont remember which 1) are doing a entire program on charges this week. I think its the 1 with scottish woman off Newsnight.

Another small update. Turns out I am having postal issues (moved house and royal mail seem to be getting confused) LTSB did reply, standard fob off. I particularly liked the "all our staff are instructed to fully explain all our products and answer any questions you may have, but given the time elapsed this would impossible to substantiate" Kind of my point, it wasnt explained. I aint thick, if it was explained or even mentioned I would have said NO THANKS. I had no need of the policy, never had a policy document or insurance certificate. Well claim issued, 7 days to first judgement opportunity, will they defend, who knows?

I think they are getting bored possibly. As they are under no obligation to file a full defence at this stage, why not just put in 1 line which sums up their position. Saves them time, money and having to look at your record to figure out the intrincasies (spl?) of your case. Sit back wait for allocation q just like everyone else. I havent even started with Egg and probably wont until summer, as I want some solid results so I dont have to go to all of hassle. I have won 8 on the bounce so far over £10k and its never taken more than 1 day of my time for each. I dont wish to get bogged down for the smallest sum which is these stubborn b***ards!!

Is this normal? Issued my N1 by post coz the particulars ran to 3 pages so way too big for MCOL I phoned court a couple of days after sending and was told they got it fine, but it wouldnt be issued immediately it could take 2 weeks. They have cashed fee back end of last week. Still no sign of my copy of the serving notification.

i have done this in the past, basically rinsing money through a variety of accounts, banks all use statisical analysis and one of their major indicators is the amount of money deposited monthly. It can get you better rates, more offers etc and i have to recommend it, and with internet banking and moving money reasonably quickly (and maybe even quicker in near future) then it is a pretty easy technique.

Its pretty unlikely that Egg will go under, considerably more likely that if its looking like curtains they will go get bought out for £1 and agreement to take on debts by some other institution that wants its market share. They will then amalgamate products etc, get rid of staff, make cost savings, see if they can squeeze a bit more out of the customers etc. If you are hoping to borrow money from then and not have to pay it back, not a chance realistically.

Just a quick update on this one. Unsurpursingly after 3 attempts to even get LTSB to acknowledge me I have issued a claim today. Had to do it by post though as MCOL couldnt handle the length of the particulars which ran to 3 pages. I am pretty much expect LTSB to default on this, for 1 SCM are probably too busy dealing with charges claims, I wouldnt be entirely surprised if they put in a charges defence. Which is an interesting question, if they put in a defence which is totally off topic and has nothing to do with the claim can the defence be struck out and a default issued. eg, if someone claimed against me and i filed a defence which said "they smell of blue cheese and they believe in the devil" would that be accepted as a defence and allocation questionaires be issued, or could the claimant point out the defendants failure to take the court process seriously or make a reasonable attempt to defend the claim.

This is a total warden free zone, as the line painting was for the restricted areas in theory no notices would be necessary as no one should have been parked on them after 8am. It was purely an exercise in making sure the road was clear before the workmen turned up. This in itself calls the motive into question. But I am planning to challenge the validity of the restriction due to condition of the lining and dubious positioning of the signs. Perversely the reason i got towed, doing the line might be the exact reason why i get the money back. Couple of letters wont hurt, if it gets nowhere I will live, its not a huge amount of money.

Loading is not prohibted but what are the rules on loading, can you park on a single yellow if you are loading. If I was loading then it would have been unloading, is this the same. The car was full of personal effects yet to be moved into the flat. I havent got round to challenging it yet. I will, but right now its finding the time. It is now having lived there for a week very apparent it was a sting operation due to line painting, the majority of the street is either 1 hour parking, single yellow or double yellow. And no one gives a stuff, day or night cars all over the place. My neighbour has had his car in a 1 hour bay for at least 3 days.

Can I just say ta. Been looking for claim particulars for a PPI for a little while now, not that I am lazy but I didnt fancy diggin out the relevant legislation mytself, spend all day in law books already, evening and weekends no chance. Will of course double check and tailor that it fits my particular circumstances. Ta much

Can someone point me in direction of the necessary wording for a N1 in relation to PPI on a credit card. It is the pretty much standard case of mis selling, the stuff was expensive, useless (i am self employed and have private medical/sick cover), and far as i can remember bunged on the card without my knowledge/consent. I have written to LTSB, givng 14 days for refund/reply but that failed to even get a phonecall or standard fob off letter, I will give them a further 7 to at least acknowlegde me, then I am going for the claim. Ta in advance

I was wondering about this recently. ERC's are part and parcel of lots of mortgage, the banks etc openly call them penalties for early termination. So are they claimable. My thoughts are probably not, as there is a intrincst cost to the bank involved. The bank has expended time setting up the mortgage, possibly funding valuation and survey fees. And in a lot of cases have paid a commission to a mortgage advisor, this is a cost obviously more than covered by the interest over a period of the mortgage but if you terminate within the frst few years, the bank may actually make a loss, hence the fee to cover this loss. Of course there is nothing to say some of it may be excessive.

As for cliimbing in, I will know in future. Though seems a little bit of an extreme measure. I dont expect this to happen again. As I had literally moved in the day before if there were notices then I did not receive one, as as the section they were repainting was a 8am -6pm restriction, then there shouldnt have been anyone parking there, so I would guess notices were not required. I dont know if anyone else was towed, I was too busy getting ready for work and cursing a lot to notice.

Bristol CC doesnt clamp at all. They ticket and tow only. The car was placed on the towing section not lifted, the front wheels were up by the time I realised. I believe BCC policy is that once the lifting gear is one the car its tough ****, this may not of course be legal but i guess they rely on the fact mst people wont challenge it.

Wouldn't it always be the case that the ticket was issued before the goods were purchased. You leave the car, at some point during shopping you receive a ticket, you pay for goods (time stamped) and then most people would return immediately to car to deposit goods. It would be illogical for the ticket to be timed after your shopping, as you would have left. Someone obviously spotted you leaving the car park on foot prior to entering BnQ. Was the purpose of your visit to shop at B&Q, or did you merely nip in to buy a screw after spotting the ticket. If you reasonably bought items with B&Q I would take it up with their customer services dept, see if they can lean on parking firm.

Grumble moan, I got towed from outside my new flat yesterday, been in it 2 days. I was parked in a single yellow 8am - 6pm Mon -Fri exclusion. I know I was but suppose everyone takes risks. But I have 2 issues with it. 1, I was ticketed at 8.05am, residential city street in Bristol. Not the kind of area you ever see wardens. The tow lorry turned up 5 - 10 mintues later, I charged out of flat at 8.20 but it was too late. I am right in that wardens are not in touch with tow lorry or at least shouldnt be, thus allowing you a reasonable time to shift the car after the ticket but before expense of towing. I now know I was the unwitting victim of a street cleaning operation, as 20 minutes later a bunch of council workmen turned up to, guess what, re do all the lines in the street. Is this fair. 2, Having studied the scene a bit better, the parking moves from unrestricted to double yellow (covering a housing development entrance) to single restricted in a matter of 10 - 15 yards, the only sign points out the double yellow. The first sign noting the single restriction is a further 20 yards down the road. This also taken with the fact that the lines were very old and in parts pretty much non eixstent. Would it be reasonable to say i was justifiably unaware i was in restricted area and that given the lack of adequate signs and lines that the restriction was not valid. In my experience shouldnt restrictions be marked at either end and at strategic points throughout, after all a yellow line means nothing without the sign to tell you the times etc of the restriction. I managed to get some pics of guys redoing lines and lines before work, I will be appealling first to council but I understand there is an independant body also. Anyway any advice to whether I have a reasonable chance and point of law regarding proper signage.

I have to say this is only gut feeling I have but I am fairly sure there is no statutory right to a cooling off period for businesses, as the right is enshrined in the Consumer Credit Act which doesnt apply to businesses. It may well be the case that the banks choose to give a cooling off period. I guess overall, if you decide to play them, make sure you read the T&C's first.

WHOA SLOW DOWN I just re read your post regarding loan insurance. I did not realise it was a business account, as a business you are not covered by the same consumer protection laws that give average joe a cooling off period. If you are a soletrader/partnership you may still be covered, on that I am not sure, but if you are a ltd co then I know you dont have that protection.

LTSB settled with me 3 days prior to court date. Write SCM a letter now, pointing out they have 7 days (14 days prior to hearing) in which to provide you and court with evidence they intend to rely on. Point out you you are willing to come to an amicable arrangement to save all parties exp of hearing, etc. Be sure to mark it confidential and without prejudice (dont want a judge seeing you applying pressure even if the banks do) Call them a couple of times. Hey presto, amazing how quickly an offer falls through the door.

Play them!! You have a statutory notice period (err 28 days) in which you may cancel any financial product. Take the insurance, leave it a few weeks then cancel it. But cancel it through customer service or some other method. It will likely never get back to the manager. And if it does and he tries to stick in the arrangement fee retrospectively, kick up an almighty fuss.

I am afraid I dont do negotiation with these muppets. I to attempted to cancel my insurance on several occassions with no success. I have been totally ignored during my previous claims by the bank and there solicitors only to receive full settlement a matter of days before court hearing. This would appear to be there only technique, if we ignore it, it might just go away, I guess there are a certain portion of people who get nervous and back out. Not me, I deal with big business/government every day of my life and bully tactics dont bother me. So when I dont get a reply, and I wont, then a claim goes in. Then the real ignoring starts, i dont care if it takes until easter to get the money, I know I will get it. If no one is able to direct me to legislation on mis selling of insurance products, I guess LTSB will have a few days grace while I go find it myself. So please if you know what acts cover this, please point me in right direction.

bump

I could do with a little assistance. I am attempting a claim for missold PPI on my 1st ever credit card. Basis of claim is that at time I was not given option about taking out PPI, i was told it was a necessary part of having a credit card. Hey I was young and it was years ago. Plus the policy would have been of no practical use to me in my circumstances. Anyway on this basis I have written a lovely letter to LTSB requesting back the premiums from day 1 until i cancelled insurance 3 years ago plus interest giving them 14 days to reply. Which I know they wont or I will receive a standard fob off. They will already know I am serious as I have successfully claimed twice against them for charges. So can anyone direct me to the pieces of leglislation I should be referring to in my "particulars of claim" when it invetably has to be done in about a week. Ta in advance

I am sure most folks round here check their credit report at least occassionally. It has become a obessional habit of mine since having some difficulties which are now thankfully sorted with a little help from the banks own money tee hee. Anyway to my point, LTSB have only recently started supplying credit information to Experian etc but they seem to be finding the concept a little difficult. My credit file contains 3 entries for LTSB products, none of which bear anywhere near resemblance to the truth. 2 entries are for cards which are paid off and closed, they show a total balance of 7k while i owe them nada. The 3rd is for a loan, and the balance they show is 3 months out of date. I have phoned and wrote to them on numerous occassions since noticing with no avail, now gone direct to Experian and Equifax to complain. They said "oh thats not right, they are meant to update monthly. We will contact on your behalf and see what they say." So I wait... Just a cautionary tale, if you have LTSB debts make sure they arent impacting your credit file/score by them being lazy.