Have you seen the new consumer health forums:

Thread moved to DCA forum

Hi Matt DCAs tend not to give too much time when asking for payment, but they do not generally seek to enforce payment so quickly. Its just one of their scare tactics. You can query your Experian report here if you already have the details of the report. There is a notice of correction form for Equifax here. The correction statement must be under 200 words. All the best Zoot

Write to the DCA telling them the account is in dispute. If they seek to enforce the debt you can raise the defence of penalty and unfair charges. Any claim they do make is then likely to be stayed. The likelihood is that the DCA will return the debt to Abbey as they would not wish to purchase a debt which they cannot enforce. Also check with the credit reference agencies to see if this has been registered. If so ask for a notice of correction to be placed on your file. Do also complain to FOS. I'm not sure if this is covered in the waiver, if so then complain to the FSA also. All the best Zoot

Be happy to receive a pm

Hi Becky, Its certainly worth getting your preliminary letter in at least so that you are in the system. As part of the FSA waiver the banks have agreed to waive the limitations where complaints have been made while the claims are on hold. All the best Zoot

There is no template to cover this specific situation. You would need to send them a letter setting out what happened and that you feel that you are entitled to be refunded as the payment was made by mistake. State that you will give them 28 days before commencing a court action if they do not comply. Send a reminder letter after 14 days. You can then file a claim once the 28 days has expired. If you draft a letter and put it up for comments before sending

Hi SoS, In order to find out what they have charged you you need to send of a SAR you will find a template here to use but you may need to adapt it to relate to a mortgage account. You will need to send off the £10 fee. Generally you can not claim back arrangement fees as these are fees for a service as oppose to charges consequent on breach of contract. You may be able to claim ppi provided you can show it was missold ie it was no use to you eg if you were self employed or in any other way ineligable to claim on it or if they told you you had to take out ppi when you did not have to. There is a forum here specifically for ppi for further details. All the best Zoot

The law of restitution is the law which is used for returning payments which would otherwise result in unjust enrichment. There are certain causes of actions which are referred to as the 'unjust factors'. One of these unjustfactors is where the payment was made as a result of a mistake.

Unfortunately your bank is right in this situation. You instructed them to make payment and they complied with your instructions. If the payment was not due you could claim it back from HM customs on the grounds that it was made by mistake under the law of restitution.

Well done Sharkie!!!! Congratulations! :D

Kleinwort Benson v Lincoln County Council involved a mistake of law and was able to succesfully use s.32 (1) ©

Why not post it on the forum so that others can share from your knowledge?

Hi Tony, We've had a few successes with Birmingham Midshires. You can see a couple here although they are quite old, I've not seen any claims recently: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/42809-birmingham-midshires-you-will.html http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/other-institutions-successes/16014-thunderpuss2k-birmingham-midshires-halifax.html They are linked to Halifax and have the same legal team so it might be worth checking up on their tactics too. Best of luck Zoot

Good luck Gertrude!

There was research available at the time I brought the hair dye that exposure to PPD over a period of time increases the risk of allergic reaction so therefore I believe a stronger warning could or should have been given in relation to this. Thanks for your comments

I posted my experience with this company on the new wonderful new Consumer Health Forum and was advised to come and discuss the legal implications under the Consumer Protection Act over here. So here I am! S2 Consumer Protection Act 1987 imposes liability on a producer of a product to pay damages for personal injury caused wholly or partly due to a defect in the product. Defect is defined in s.3 as ‘there is a defect in a product for the purposes of this Part if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect; and for those purposes “ safety ” , in relation to a product, shall include safety with respect to products comprised in that product and safety in the context of risks of damage to property, as well as in the context of risks of death or personal injury.’ There is a known risk of personal injury associated with PPD, although the fact that its use is permitted by EU law may demonstrate that the product is safe. Under s.4 it is a defence if the defect is attributable to compliance with any requirement imposed by or under any enactment or with any Community obligation. Under s.3(2) the defect may also relate to instructions or warnings. The instructions on the box stated: HAIR COLOURANTS CAN CAUSE ALLERGIC REACTIONS WHICH IN RARE CASES CAN BE SEVERE TATTOOS MAY INCREASE YOUR RISK OF ALLERGY TO THIS PRODUCT. CONDUCT A SKIN ALLERGY TEST 48 HOURS BEFORE EACH TIME YOU COLOUR, EVEN IF YOU HAVE ALREADY USED COLOURING PRODUCTS BEFORE. SO REMEMBER TO BUY THE PRODUCT 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE DO NOT USE THE PRODUCT AT ALL IF: · YOU HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED ANY REACTION TO HAIR COLOUR PRODUCTS · YOU HAVE SENSITIVE, IRRITATED OR DAMAGED SCALP In these cases consult a doctor before dyeing your hair with any colour product. CAUTION: CONTAINS PHENYLENEDIAMINES, RESORCINOL, HYDROGEN PEROXIDE. CAN CAUSE AN ALLERGIC REACTION. AVOID CONTACT WITH EYES. RINSE EYES IMMEDIATELY IF PRODUCT COMES INTO CONTACT WITH THEM. DO NOT USE TO DYE EYELASHES OR EYEBROWS. RINSE HAIR WELL AFTER APPLICATION. WEAR SUITABLE GLOVES. The instructions could be said to be defective in that even if I had done the patch test it is unlikely that I would have had a reaction to it given the time lapse between my application and reaction. Also the font size was quite small and the warning relating to risks where you have used the product before was inadequate. It failed to point out that risks increase where you have dyed your hair for longer than 15 years and also that there is a higher risk associated with darker dyes where concentration levels of PPD are higher. There is also no indication of what the reaction would be like other than it may be severe. If I had known that I was in a high risk category and known the possible consequences I would definitely have taken a skin test, which was unlikely to have given a positive result and would not have prevented my reaction The s.4 defence would not apply to the mention of skin testing as there is no requirement under EU law to recommend skin tests; this was lifted in 1992. EU law does require a warning to be given that it can cause an allergic reaction and that it should not be used on the eyes. It does not prescribe the content of such a warning or whether the warning need be adequate to prevent injury. So whether this aspect would be covered by the s.4 defence is debatable. There would also be a possible claim in negligence which would not be subject to the s.4 defence. There is clearly a duty of care owed (Donoghue v Stephenson) which has caused damage which is not too remote. The egg shell skull rule would apply so that it would not matter that a reasonable user would not have suffered damage as result of using the hair dye. The difficulty would be establishing a breach of duty and the same issues relating to compliance with EU law may be raised to try to negate a breach and demonstrate that they acted as a reasonable hair dye manufacturer would have. There is also the lower limit for personal injury claims of £1,000 to consider, although I have no idea what level of compensation would be reasonable. It may well be worth firing off a letter and seeing what response I get. I'd appreciate any thoughts or opinions.

I certainly am

Thread stuck and moved to general consumer forum. Thanks James

You will find guidance on filling out the N1 here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/681-4-particulars-claim-n1.html There are some more detailed Particulars of claims for credit cards here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/122528-credit-card-charges-poc.html Current court fees here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex50.pdf Details on exemption from court fees here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex160a.pdf Application form for exemption here: http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex160.pdf All the best Zoot

Congratulations

Bad luck, at least you showed them you won't go away without a fight. Take heart in thinking of all the interest racking up Well done for taking it so far

Thread moved to debt forum

Hi asatate, Welcome to CAG! I've moved your thread to the HSBC forum so that you can get some specialist help from fellow HSBC claimers.

I'm sure it will too!