try this it follows on from what you are looking for also if they cannot produce the cca then their is no reality of consent to them processing your data

s.10

Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress.

which rufus lumley or thomas

hi peter wonder if you have ever looked at (reality of consent) i am looking at it with regards to cpw (carphone warehouse)trying to tell everyone they can dd your acount over the phone yes of course they can provided you receive the contract within your seven day period also i found out by accident they were charging me insurance seperately through another account by didrect debit but i have now set the argument with them that it was by deception and i was duped also the insurance is for theft i am housebound and only just started getting around my home and garden due to disablement so i think any telesales should be much more stricter in rules ...i am also asking my bank now to remove the offensive t&c of divulging information to a third party otherwise it will be deemed a null and void contract until the offending material is removed i do accept that the data protection act will allow for the police taxman and local courts havin the information on request but no other i have also asked the banks that any dd renewals for me to be informed first and any dd not personally signed and endorsed by me is not acceptable as i will tell all companies i deal with with regards to dd and also their t&c to remove the offending rule of sharing data i think if everyone did this it would create an example to the companies banks etc and also stop these dca from ruling the roost and thinking they are beyond the rule of law it also alows you time then to defend any type of claim lawfully

hoagy lands_ the next in line pure soul

is rhere a reality of consent a meeting of minds no contract was posted to me all i got from them was a ficticious and supercharged bill following my complaint to them concerning this bill i then reilised im in trouble i cant really afford the bill so they gave me the option of accepting a couple of months credit they will charge the normal,i found this acceptable at the time cause it meant i did nt have to find all that money and i had accepted their origional excuse that i was now on a new contract and they must have made a mistake..during my conversation with them at that time i also asked what about the new phone you had promised ...he offered a lower rated phone than what i had..so i refused to accept this offer and keep the phone i have..then a few weeks later the penny dropped what new contract gggrrrr was i angry you bet so i phoned them temper gettin the best of me i then got my bill at the normal cept they were adding vat on the top making it approx 3.49 more expensive monthly and i also noticed a little statement on my visa and it said insurance (due to a long illness)i never checked these statements my wife did ,so when i seen it i phoned visa asked them what it was they informed me it was carphone gggrrrrr and it had been going out of my account since 2004 ggggrrr and ive been disabled since round about that time and did nt know i was insured...then it was nt insurance for sickness etc it was for theft lol as if i am housebound

just started getting around on a wheel chair now and seeing things differently .so i stopped the monies as i said and informed cpw that i was going to issue S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) notice so the made an offer to pay 2/3 of the insurance

104.00 .i am not satisfied with this because when i was argueing about the insurance i then looked at the circumstances surrounding this fiticious bill it was xmas or just after and as we all know the bills are piling in..but i then knew they had deceived me cause when they changed the bill they sent a document out i have it here the t & c no mention of insurance but as i say they deceived me into accepting this new contract without reilising they obtained my consent by trickery this is why i say their is and cannot be any reality of consent over the phone when you are being deceived....hope this explains things better that is why when trading standards come on monday morning i aint interested in compensation its the deceipt it was deliberate their was no mistake at cpw i strongly feel that if more people check their bills and suddenley find they have a almost triple the normal bill then check all the circumstances surrounding the bill were you duped...its about the most professional con i have ever witnessed

...and i have also informed my bank i am unhappy about a term in the contract of divulging information to any third parties.except if it is the police and taxman & courts

so i await their response reason being i did not know this clause was on the contract and i deem it is unfair as we all do who on earth would want to share their details with strangers unless it was through the courts

That's not entirely true. You can agree to DD mandates online, and it's binding.

is rhere a reality of consent a meeting of minds no contract was posted to me all i got from them was a ficticious and supercharged bill following my complaint to them concerning this bill i then reilised im in trouble i cant really afford the bill so they gave me the option of accepting a couple of months credit they will charge the normal,i found this acceptable at the time cause it meant i did nt have to find all that money and i had accepted their origional excuse that i was now on a new contract and they must have made a mistake..during my conversation with them at that time i also asked what about the new phone you had promised ...he offered a lower rated phone than what i had..so i refused to accept this offer and keep the phone i have..then a few weeks later the penny dropped what new contract gggrrrr was i angry you bet so i phoned them temper gettin the best of me i then got my bill at the normal cept they were adding vat on the top making it approx 3.49 more expensive monthly and i also noticed a little statement on my visa and it said insurance (due to a long illness)i never checked these statements my wife did ,so when i seen it i phoned visa asked them what it was they informed me it was carphone gggrrrrr and it had been going out of my account since 2004 ggggrrr and ive been disabled since round about that time and did nt know i was insured...then it was nt insurance for sickness etc it was for theft lol as if i am housebound

just started getting around on a wheel chair now and seeing things differently .so i stopped the monies as i said and informed cpw that i was going to issue sar notice so the made an offer to pay 2/3 of the insurance

104.00 .i am not satisfied with this because when i was argueing about the insurance i then looked at the circumstances surrounding this fiticious bill it was xmas or just after and as we all know the bills are piling in..but i then knew they had deceived me cause when they changed the bill they sent a document out i have it here the t & c no mention of insurance but as i say they deceived me into accepting this new contract without reilising they obtained my consent by trickery this is why i say their is and cannot be any reality of consent over the phone when you are being deceived....hope this explains things better that is why when trading standards come on monday morning i aint interested in compensation its the deceipt it was deliberate their was no mistake at cpw i strongly feel that if more people check their bills and suddenley find they have a almost triple the normal bill then check all the circumstances surrounding the bill were you duped...its about the most professional con i have ever witnessed

I would also have thought that it would be time limited

 

if they have had no contact since 1993 then I would have thought that the statute of limitations would apply? they have 6 years to chase a debt. unless it has been the subject of a ccj

 

rgds

 

Dave

the agreement has not been updated nor amended cept to say they bounced three cheques whilst the account was in credit charged over 2000 pounds in intrest charges and sent me a libelous letter/fax from the bank rung my suppliers and basicly put me out of busines i had no choice but to bankrupt the company last i heard from them was 1992...........after all that i issued them with a notice giving them ten days in which i asked that they proceed with their court action if they wanted any monies for i was not prepared to discuss it farther until it was in court...ps before i forget my solicitor who was furnishing them with information weeks before i was privy to it was struck of and by the way most of my suppliers were in spain italy and some transport companies ..but efectively they deliberately put me out of busines ...i cannot act on any of this yet until i have undergone a few major operations and i get stressed every day thinking about this case its like a noose round my neck knowing they still have this deed on my property ..but after my operations i intend going for it

but thanks a lot dave i will now study the data you have posted

patrickq1

Refards? LOL sorry Peter, I just couldn't help myself! :grin:

Hi

 

Oh yes you could you just didn't want to.

 

Best fishes

 

Peter

hi peter appreciate your reply thanks

does anyone have a copy of section 82 of the 1974 act cause this is what the bank is relying on from a deed of assignment

or so i thought thats what it was until i have looked at it now and it says its swb1019 revised december 1989 guarantee sterling and currencey it dose nt actually metion deed of assignment also its ltd to 20,000 but they drifted to 21,800 on the bank statements at the time

so this is actually a guarantee sterling and currenceyby an individual or ltd co so what the hell have i signed up to ? they have not been in touch since oct 1993 since they are relying on this also in oct 1993 i challenged them to take me to court or forget it cause i wanted this case heard before a judge at the time ,bearing in mind i have a written libel letter here sent by the bank fax machine during the operation of the contract also they were frustrating the contract and my business at the same time

hope someone has some knowledge

patrickq1

having read it through several times in more detail - I hadn't quite realised how much is cut and pasted from here

 

personally I would find it helpful if you could wrap

tags around published information so that I can distinguish your interpretation of the act from theirs.

 

You know as well as I do that companies first of all attempt to meet the conditions described in paragraphs 1-4 of schedule 2. My so called 'golden 4' so that a data subject cannot stop processing even if it causes unwarranted damage or distress. The easiest way to do this is via a contract as you know which contains standard data disclosure clauses passed from the ICO through the CRAs to the data subscribers or lenders.

 

All the registrations, including 'purposes of processing' contact details and addresses are available from the ICO website of licensed data controllers click here

 

I doubt you are likely to get anywhere against the big lenders arguing that they have not fulfilled their obligations under the act in this way.

 

sorry, I've not read anything that changes my view regarding how the CRAs process data. They can usually show that one of the 4 golden paragraphs are met and when they can't in the event of contract ending they argue the have legitimate interest under para 6. You must challenge this in a court, ideally by issuing a S.10(1) notice and then excercising your rights under s.10(4).

 

Good luck with putting your ideas in action though.

does a bank not have an obligation (BANKERS OBLIGATIONS) not to proccess data to a third party cept for the taxman other banks and police,it seems all the data proccessing thats been going on for the last 15 years or so have taken a turn from being proccessed legally and fairly surely the likes of equifax(who own wescott)are now proccessing our data cannot be deemed legal unless the banks take the case to court is it not a case were the likes of wescot and equifax are abusing the law with the help from the banks who are also a major contributor for supplying illegal data or is their a specific law allowing this data to be sent to other parties without a court order and allowed to be in the public domain.its like going back to the early 18/19 century blacklisting and thrown off your land or property for debts

patrick- Im in a similar position, credit card co defaulted me for amount 2/3rds of which is penalty charges and interest.

 

S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'d and CCA'd them, turns out the agreement isnt actually enforceable due to Prescribed Terms being incorrect and s.127(3), but they beleive the default notice and processing to CRAs is quite legal and lawful due to their T&Cs.

 

(No doubt in the same way as they believe that penalty charges are also lawful.)

would like to ask peter

if this is still relevant concerning the bankers

i remember back to the 70s when you had to get a bank refferance for any type of business you where thinking of doing ie you used to have the bank make enquiries and also ask for bank references ,but in the 80s all this changed to reference agencies..so when did the BANKERS OBLIGATION NOT TO DISCLOSE unless it was through a sequestrator or police ? just a thought,you will find this section under NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

just thought you might know or be able to shed light on this and also with the banks including this right to confer with others your details surely this alone renders any contract voidable or void hope you can research this

patrickq1

Hi Shane and Dave

What i did when i first saw this clause 127(3) is remove all the brackets(and information contained therin) and then read it and add them back in by one. If you do that the meaning becomes clearer and it is that, An Agreement must have the prescribed terms and the debtors signature contained within it in order to be enforceable or conversely without them it is totally unenforceable.

 

If the agreement has not complied with other matters of form and content made under section 60 of the act and laid down in regulations1983/1553 then it is only enforceable with a court order.

 

on the 6th April 2007 the unenforceability afforded to section 127 via subsections (3-5) was rescinded this means that any agreements made on or after that date even if the do not have the prescribed terms cannot be unenforceable but fall back on section 60 which would make them enforceable only by order of the court.

 

The second red bit IMO refers to the enforcement orders that can be made ie those with the prescribed terms and signed but with some other term( notice it doesn’t say prescribed term) missing and gives the court the power to consider that they are OK and to continue to enforce(this is to stop claims for unenforceability on minor breaches of section 60.)

 

There is no way that an agreement that is unsigned by the debtor can be considered properly executed in fact you could argue that because of section 61 the agreement was not executed at all.

 

Hope this helps

 

Just to add a comment on a completely different subject.

I think we are going to have to alter our thinking on the way we pursue these unenforceability issues.

We seem to be looking at agreements and if they contain the prescribed terms and a signature saying OK. there is nothing we can do it's enforceable.

Often this is not the case, i am thinking about the credit card agreements that are cropping up that do not even attempt to conform to the regulations on forms and content ,we should be making the creditors go to court for permission to enforce. Let’s face it that’s what we are going to after do with post 2007 agreements anyway. What is there to loose, send them a letter saying this agreement is unenforceable without a court order because it does not conform to regulations in that.... The worst that can happen is you get a repayment holiday and no interest added to your account whilst it is in dispute. Then we will see what the courts will and will not stand for in the respect of compliance.

 

Best Regards

 

Peter

would it also be fair to think where the credit card company has entered a default against you to another company ie experian etc (who also would be in breach for receiving and publishing info) without going to court be a breach of contract/aggreement without useing the court procedures to comply with defaults

just a thought cause i have three defaults entered when the payment where being met by the PPI insurance

patrickq1

it would be nice to add the banner to our e mails this way the banks and dca know we mean business

Hi folks,

 

I have recently changed my mobile phone contract from Vodafone to Orange. The deal was done through Carephone Warehouse and everything done online.

 

The problems started when i noticed I had incurred a bank charge on my bank account during the end of Februrary. It turned out Carphone Warehouse had tried taking £7.95 from my account for Insurance!!!! I had never agreed to this insurance as my 'deal' had free insurance through Orange in the opening months of my contract.

 

My bank account did not have enough money in the account when they tried to take out the money and as a result i received two bank charges. One for a 'knocked back' amount and one for going into overdraft. this amounted to £69 in total!!!!

 

I was livid and got in contact with Carphone Warehouse. They said they would look into the matter and send me a 'pack' from which I could make a claim. THIS NEVER APPEARED. I ended up writing a letter to them showing details of the two charges (photocopies of the bank charge letters).

 

I just received a letter from them this morning saying they would not pay me back. They have cost me so much money for trying to take off a charge I never agreed to in the first instance. Surely i have rights in this case.

 

HAS ANYONE GOT ANY ADVICE ON WHAT TO DO?

If you did not sign a direct debit mandate then your bank should not have proccesed the direct debit the carphone warehouse use an irish company called

NEW TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE...i have demanded from my bank a copy of this so called direct debit i want to find out just who sent it to the bank and who signed the mandate i also had a go at my bank for authorising it without my consent and also i am treating it as fraud ,and reading the thread from GERMANY2006 it is a fraudulent transaction taken without your written consent

dont argue with carphone just get even

patrickq1

Remove Default Notices on a Credit File - We show you how

try this may hope it helps

patrickq1

We think that claimants should consider claiming beyond 6 yrs.

 

Firstly, the charges campaign has been in full swing now for a good year. The banks were well aware of it a year ago and also the OFT report highlighted the law and the bank's obligations - just in case any of them were at all in doubt.

 

To my mind this is good evidence that any bank which continued its charges regime after the date of the first OFT report has been concealing its charges regime and therefore has lost the protection of the Limitation Act.

 

I do not believe that the Limitation Act offers any long-stop mechanism so that if you concealed the facts one year ago then you do not merely accrue an additional year of liability. I think that a single instance of concealment invokes s.32 and the limitation barrier falls away completely.

 

Concealment amounts to a question of the morality of the defendant's action. Once this is established then I do not believe that the courts will strive to give them any help.

I understand from Zootscoot that this view is also confirmed by case-law.

 

In fact it seems even if a concealment has occurred even after the breach in question has occurred, the limitation period still falls away.

 

If the banks want to challenge this then it is up to the claimant to respond at least with the arguments above and then if the bank want to rebut this, they can rebut it with a statement of truth.

I doubt whether any of them would dare. They are already getting in too deep as it is.

A statement of truth which is made knowing that it is false or reckless as to its truth is a contempt of court. I do not believe that the banks would go this far

 

We would urge all claimants to claim as far back as they can.

In the case of the Yorkshire and Clydesdale banks we would suggest that even where claimants have accepted full and final settlements or have accepted compromise settlements that they should now go back for anything outstanding on the basis that the Whistleblower disclosures show that there has been concealment and that any full and final agreements are now vitiated by that concealment.

 

We expect to be giving the same advice in respect of other banks as more information surfaces - as it surely will.

 

However, we consider that beyond 6 years is now just a basic claim.

 

We will be amending templates and so forth in the coming days

thanks bankfodder this means i can now resurect the nat west claim 1992 and also i like the STATEMENT OF TRUTH as i shall ask them for such a statement thanks

patrickq

Hi Joa, good luck and keep us updating:)

Mr D is useless....u r right:)))

 

I received a letter from CW Lifeline insurance people via email with refusal to pay £195 back for the insurance i wasn't aware of paying(never used to check my statements:-o ).When i bought my phone it was part of free offer and when i cancel the contract a year later, they still kept charging me...

 

As they said i should've cancelled it by myself...i even didn't know i had it...

 

I emailed them a Prelim letter, and giving them 14 days to refund...

 

 

Have a great day and let me know how your claim is going.....Good luck;)

if they have offered any sort of settlement sounds like they are aware they are on shallow ground...i am about to begin serving papers fro their fraudulent actions it seems imdemic within this company and i really think it is time it ceased and they had their trading licence revoked i am awaiting trading standards report before i finnish with my findings then i will leave a report in here for people to contact me see my thread patrickq1

i have received four replys can any mods make sense of this as they now offer 114.00 in comp i have of course refused to accept it as a full payment and also let them know i am determined to go for a criminal fraud investigation as i am disabled they cannot get out of this one by just taking peoples money without a signed aggreement i have also let my bank know that i want this copy of direct debit mandate to see who has signed for it from cpw..i will not let this one go

aug2004 till this month they have deducted in PPI by my estimation they owe me approximately 179.00 plus intrest plus damages for the fraudulent receipts of monies from my account

patrck1q

Thank you for your email.

 

I am sorry to hear that your refund appeal was unsuccessful.

 

Your previous email was sent to our Administration Department who will

be treating it as a re-appeal and they will contact you once a decision

 

is reached which should be within the next 5 to 7 days.

 

There is no signed copy of the direct debit mandate as the upgrade was

processed over the phone and not in one of our stores; however, a

paperless direct debit was set up with your agreement when the

transaction was made in August 2004. Kindly note that a paperless

direct

debit is perfectly legal and we have not been in breach of any legal

requirement.

 

The salesperson would have explained to you the benefits and features

of

the insurance cover as well as the frequency of payment. We also send

policy documents to the account’s address within days of the purchase

 

date to allow customers a chance to examine the full terms and

conditions and decide on whether or not to keep the policy.

 

It is the duty of the policyholder to consider keeping the cover by

examining the policy documents to understand the terms and conditions

within the 14 days trial period.

 

If there's anything else we can do to help you please reply to this

email.

 

Regards

Dear Mr ,

Thank you for your email.

I am glad to inform you that our Refunds Department authorised your

refund appeal and the funds debited (£104.79) will be credited back

into

your bank account within the next 14 days.

I wish you the best of luck with your upcoming hospital examination and

I hope you are satisfied with the resolution of your refund complaint.

If there's anything else we can do to help you please reply to this

email.

Regards

Idris Lobinet

Lifeline Customer Liaison ExecutiveDear Mr Neary,

Thank you for your email.

I am sorry that you are unhappy with the previous response.

We are only able to refund you the amount quoted as we have proof that

you disconnected your contract with your service provider on the 26th

October 2005.

We have explored all avenues to bring this issue into an amicable

resolution and I am disappointed that you have decided to escalate this

matter further and you are unhappy with our final resolution.

We now consider this matter closed and if you would like to take this

matter any further, you can contact the Financial Ombudsmen using the

following:

The Financial Ombudsman Service

South Quay Plaza

183 Marsh Wall

London E14 9SR

Email Address: complaint.info@financial-ombudsman.org.uk

I am sorry if the final resolution was not resolved to your

satisfaction

but I trust you can understand we are obliged to adhere to the terms

and

conditions of the policy.

If there's anything else we can do to help you please reply to this

email.

House of Commons - Explanatory Note

i have decided to USE THE ABOVE ACT WITH ppi insurance AGAINST CARPHONE WAREHOUSE reason being since my illness i am unable to afford my mobile phone charges of 25:00 pm i have asked they cancel my contract also i have not been getting the new phone as promised yearly (although they did offer a lower sub standard phone to the one i have)so i am not to happy with cpw so i await their reply but as far as i am concerned i under no circumstances signed for PPI it seems to have been added and the payment date back to 26 aug 2006,so i am ready for taking them to court for fraud as this is excactley how i see it

i have received four replys can any mods make sense of this as they now offer 114.00 in comp i have of course refused to accept it as a full payment and also let them know i am determined to go for a criminal fraud investigation as i am disabled they cannot get out of this one by just taking peoples money without a signed aggreement i have also let my bank know that i want this copy of direct debit mandate to see who has signed for it from cpw..i will not let this one go

patrck1q

Thank you for your email.

I am sorry to hear that your refund appeal was unsuccessful.

Your previous email was sent to our Administration Department who will

be treating it as a re-appeal and they will contact you once a decision

is reached which should be within the next 5 to 7 days.

There is no signed copy of the direct debit mandate as the upgrade was

processed over the phone and not in one of our stores; however, a

paperless direct debit was set up with your agreement when the

transaction was made in August 2004. Kindly note that a paperless

direct

debit is perfectly legal and we have not been in breach of any legal

requirement.

The salesperson would have explained to you the benefits and features

of

the insurance cover as well as the frequency of payment. We also send

policy documents to the account’s address within days of the purchase

date to allow customers a chance to examine the full terms and

conditions and decide on whether or not to keep the policy.

It is the duty of the policyholder to consider keeping the cover by

examining the policy documents to understand the terms and conditions

within the 14 days trial period.

If there's anything else we can do to help you please reply to this

email.

Regards

I Invoiced A Certain Bank 10 Pounds More Than They Charged Me They Stopped Charging Me After That Your Time Is As Legitimate As Theirs It Is Legal To Charge For Your Time Same As Anyone Else Who Bills You

credit agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 terms and conditions ....mbna have on the top of the small leaflet application states quite clearly ..in their own words (printed)this is a copy of the full set of terms and conditions for the mbna credit cardwe refer to in your applicationunder the consumer creditcredit act 1974 WE MUST GIVE YOU THIS COPY ,we have also includeddetails of mbna,s PAYMENT PROTECTIONCOVER ..so if if you did not receive back this credit agreement leaflet as the origional perhaps they have already breached the credit agreement this leaflet is for the year 2002/3

they also have a small section that says the charges for payment protection cover .plus intrest charged on the statementand fees ,plus £5.00 :or the balance on the statement if less than £5.00 whichever is the least

hope this helps will send this copy to alanfromdarby and he can decipher the whole contract they do state also the payment protection cover is just 68pence per £100.00

payment protection cover is designed to protect your ability to make repayments to your mbna credit card in the event that you are unable to work due to to accident sickness or involantary unemployment.valuable life cover up to £15000 is also included we strongly recomend you take out this cover

for cover just tick this box to confirm you are eligible and you have read the terms and conditions

But their are no terms and conditions apart from what i have written above in other words they seem to imply that sickness and accidents etc your card will be paid in full otherwise their is no clarity in plain english other than beleiving your card will be cleared under PPI

hope this helps

patrickq

Hi chrisking

Have you got any updates?

After reading the thread again I wonder if you could go for mis selling on the ppi?

Were you told that without it your loan would probably not go through or perhaps not all the conditions were told to you.

Trading standards will look at the redemption figure and tell you if it was calculated properly and Blemain should have sent a full statement with it as well.

I've sent my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) off to them but not had an aknowledgement from them but then they seem to be a law unto themselves!!!!!

I really hope they are one of the 5 firms being investigated by the FSA regarding sub prime lenders.

hi chriss i bought a car and after a year plus 5 months i had a breakdown (still recovering)but when i got the finance nothing was explained cept i had to fill in the finance form that was it due to the breakdown i claimed but it was only for two years the payment from the PPI so i was left with another 710.91 but it was during my arguement with blenheim they used a company also at bracken house called monarch recoveries who are also part of spot and blenheim and a real bitch of a dog the legal manager sylvia,she openly discussed my case in front of the whole reception at the county court everyone could here her discussing the case with a total stranger,who said he was a bit of a debt collector he was touting for busines,well at the time i got a stay of execution and then prepared my defence,so when it came to the court hearing they never turned up so the case was thown out ,five weeks later i got another default and was taken to court again for the same debt ? so i argued with the judge and he aggreed with her cause she knew her way around and knew the legal part of it i had nt a clue so i lost and had to pay all the charges penalties and costs, so i have written them a nice letter today in temper after reading the threads of blenheim im like that blow up at the thought of them robbin me and shaming me in front of everyone,i have decided that they fraudulently have added charges knowing they were nt legal cause she pulled the wool over the judge with her legal arguments and i am ready to put my complaint to trading standards and ask them if they will look at the excesive charges concerning this case also the defaults against me they did five for the same bill

this might help chris also from an oldpost of mine:

 

found this already on the forum ......

 

If your secured loan is governed by CCA 1974 then s.95 (1) entitles you to a rebate of charges to credit.

http://www.passprotect.studio400/ .me.uk/Consumer_Credit_Act_1974. PDF

The Consumer Credit (settlement Information) Regulations 1983 requires the creditor to give a statement of amount required to pay off the loan and how this was calculated. The Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004 (see link below) regulates the calculations and these cannot be contracted out of to the detriment of the consumer (s.173(1) CCA). So an ERC would be classed contracting out of the Regulations to the detriment of the consumer. These Regulations only apply to loan agreements taken out since 31st May 2005:

The Consumer Credit (Early Settlement) Regulations 2004

 

If your loan was pre May 2005 the Consumer Credit (Rebate on Early Settlement) Regulations 1983 apply which contain the rule 78 which provides that creditors can charge upto six months interest on redemption. Anything over the 6 months interest would be regarded as a penalty and unenforceable..

 

However..Blemain Finance gave the Office Of Fair trading assurance in November 1997 that it would no longer use the rule of 78 when redeeming.

sorry to jump in on your but i had a problem with a company called SPOT FINANCE who are apparentley part of the blenheim group and they took me to court in january 2001 i owed a balance of 710.91 they took me to court for the monies and this is what they charged me balance outstanding 710.91 default intrest 169.32 collection costs 660.00 total amount due 1.540.23 this i paid into court after many arguements with the magistrate and five defaults for this debt the judge ruled in their favour so i had to pay the lot do you think i could claim some of this back

sorry again for buttin in its just that i noticed blenheim and it lit a fuse .... good luck to yourself and all athers who are succesful against these dogs

House of Commons - Explanatory Note

i have decided to USE THE ABOVE ACT WITH ppi insurance AGAINST CARPHONE WAREHOUSE reason being since my illness i am unable to afford my mobile phone charges of 25:00 pm i have asked they cancel my contract also i have not been getting the new phone as promised yearly (although they did offer a lower sub standard phone to the one i have)so i am not to happy with cpw so i await their reply but as far as i am concerned i under no circumstances signed for PPI it seems to have been added and the payment date back to 26 aug 2006,so i am ready for taking them to court for fraud as this is excactley how i see it

I was beginning to think things were looking up then illness struck again,my first case is against Nat West Bank who have a deed of assingment against my property,this deed was signed in 1992/3 and the reason for my signing was the bank offered me a 25000 overdraft and condition that i leave the other bank and join them,it was an offer i could not refuse so i dully signed and without reilizing that it was only for a three month period subject to reveiw,i truly beleived at the time it was for twelve months,anyway they withdrew the funds some ten weeks later and bounced several checks in the process but also during this time they rang suppliers and businesses i had dealt with ie transport companies for my imports business,the reason for their phone calls was private (not for my ears)until one of the transport companies rang me to say that the Bank had been in touch personally with them and they did not have a very good word for me or my business and that they felt they had to safeguard their intrest and demanded full payment for previous deliveries totaling some 4800 ,i then paid the company only to find the bank had refused payment (even though i had sufficent funds at the time)so i then decided that i cannot operate a business under these conditions and especially since the bank had libeled me (they admit this in writing and also on their faxed message sent to me)the message was libalous and for this they publicly apoligised via the local newspapers,so i went about things half cocked and in temper with the bank and to cut a long story short i then went to the bank one friday afternoon and asked to see the bank manager in order to try to resolve the matter and to stop them from closing my account,the manager refused to see me so with this and my debt with the bank that day i was almost upto my 25000 limit and because of the banks refusal to see me or discuss the matter i paid into my account that day 12500 and then informed the bank if they want another penny they can take me to court for the rest as i felt i had been victimised and the bank manager had become too vindictive and personal in dealing with this account,so i then informed them that my company would cease trading within the next hour and they can whistle for their money if the want more then prosecute...to this day i am still awaiting their response almost 15 years but now we wish to sell our property and the bank still have our deed of assignment,i would like to know where i stand

second troubles are with Morgan Stanley who have been chasing me for a debt of some 2700 but this is now standing at 3779.36 i sent them a SAR notice last september and also my complaint to them was that due to illness i expected the PPI to pay the debt of as i am disabled and unable to work at all,i have an operation in october for a aiorta twin by pass to try and get the blood flow back to my legs as i have been unable to walk for several months now my alternative to the operation is amputation of both legs(i dont fancy the legless bit)not unless i am two sheet to the wind lol,but also i have a illness called fibromyalgia this leaves me crippled at best of times not only that it also leaves me with a terrible memory problems that is short term memory span is about five minits yet long term i can remember ten years ago like it was yesterday,i can hardly carry out a conversation for more than thirty minits then i lose track of whats what so much so that i cannot concentrate even on reading a letter (sometimes)not all the time but back to the point i have this trouble with MS and found on my SAR stuff sent by MS they had been paying or the PPI had been paying them for some three years only to find that as well as the PPI paying MS were charging intrest that was more than the payment going into their account so i was no better of in fact as you can see the bill went 1000 pounds more than the origional bill so PPI was useless,i do recall that i asked them to suspend the intrest on my card but was told by the person at MS that i need nt worry as they will probably write of the debt due to my illness ,instead they put in place another PPI and added this to the monthly payments without my knowledge,i have since written to MS complaining about this to date they had not responded,this week i received a letter from HFO SERVICES and they say in writing thaey now own my contract that i supposedly had with MS only trouble is MS have never sent me any contract and i have not signed for any contract..so i asked HFO what contract is he talking about he said they do not have the full details to hand so i said this bill is in dispute and i have no intention of discussing further on the phone and have no intention of paying their company any money he started getting stroppy and warned me he is putting it in their legal department and will prosecute so i dully reminded him for a second time that i am recording this call which i have done he said they are as well so i said well enough said you have your conversation on record as i have and do not contact me again by phone he reminded me my account has been defaulted...which brings me to another point during the PPI payment MS defaulted me three times becuase the PPI company were late in paying i had also sent a letter of complaint about morgan stanley to the omsbudsman who said they would look into it ??? what a useless lot they are i have nt heard from them since what is my position at this moment i dont know as it is difficult cause i have lost a lot of my e mails and correspondancies due to my other computor going crash bang lost most of my data so should i start again,this i will find extremely difficult because of memory loss and fear of reprisals and phone calls again cause last year MS had appointed three diferent DCA to try to getr money from me all threatening especially Newmans who i sent a £1:00 postal order and they said they would knock it of my account but did not respond to my request for all my data from them, so i am not sure where or how to begin do i start the procedure all over agin or what ps before i forget HFO are claiming thefull amount i asked them (this is recorded)how much they paid for my account he said the full asking price 37779.36 so i said to him then how do you as a collection agencey expect to make a profit on the full asking price this he refused to answer basicly he has lied on tape so i am dealing with liars hate liars their is nothing more despicable than a liar sorry for boring you all but just want to know where do i start ps do MORGAN STANLEY REALLY HAVE A CCJ AGAINST THEM as i want to use this as evidence if its possible

Morgan Stanley's

 

DEFENCE

 

1. The Defendant denies (insofar it is alleged) that it acted improperly or unlawfully.

Specifically The Defendant denies that it has debited the Claimant's account number XXXXXXXXX ("The Account") unlawfully or in breach of the Claimant's rights in respect of the Account.

 

The Agreement

2. The Claimant applied for a Morgan Stanley credit card on or about the end of February 2000. The Claimant's application was accepted by the Defendant and the Claimant signed a Credit Agreement confirming her agreement to be bound by the Terms & Conditions of the Morgan Stanley Credit Agreement ("The Agreement")

As at the time of filing this Defence, the Defendant has been unable to locate a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant. A copy of the current Morgan Stanley Gold Card Terms & Conditions is attached for reference purposes only. The Defendant intends to amend this Defence by attaching a copy of the Agreement signed by the Claimant once such document is located by the Defendant.

 

3. The Agreement entitles the Defendant to charge default fees to the Account if the Claimant committed breaches of the Agreement as described in the Agreement.

 

4. Reasonable steps were taken to bring the fees to the Claimant's attention during the course of the Claimant's application for a Morgan Stanley credit card.

 

The Fees

5. The Claimant breached the Agreement twenty two times between June 2001 and May 2006 as described in the attached schedule to the Defence (the "Breaches").

 

6. The Defendant admits that fifteen £20 default fees ("the Fees") were debited to the Claimants Account by the Defendant between 4 May 2002 and 2 May 2006 in respect of the Breaches. The Defendant did not debit any Fees in respect of the other seven Breaches of the Agreement.

 

7. In each case, the Defendant was authorised by the Claimant to debit the Fees to the Account in respect of the Breaches pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.

 

8. It is denied that the Fees are penalties or otherwise unenforceable, as alleged or at all.

 

9. The Fees represent a genuine pre-estimate of the loss that would be suffered in the event of a breach of the Agreement by the Defendant. The Defendant has at all times complied with its obligations under the Agreement by continuing to provide credit facilities and associated services to the Claimant, including an online account centre, access to customer service representatives, convenience cheques and other services. The Defendant will rely on authorities such as White and Carter (Councils) Ltd v McGregor (1962) AC 413, Export Credits Guarantee Department v Universal Oil Products Co and Procon Inc and Procon (Great Britain) Ltd (1983) 1 WLR 399, Indian Airlines v GIA International Ltd (2001) EWHC 2361 and Jeancharm Ltd (t/a Beaver International) v Barnet Football Club Ltd (2003) 92 Con. LR 26 in this regard.

 

10. Further or alteratively, the Fees were not unreasonable, extravagent or unconscionable when compared with the losses, costs and other expenses that were incurred by the Defendant as a result of the Breaches. The Defendant will produce evidence of its losses, costs and other expenses in support of this position. Accordingly, the Fees are properly recoverable as liquidated damages.

 

 

Okay thats it apart from the statement of Truth.

 

Help please-

 

Thanks

angry cat

This is perfect for you it is also very usefull you can now contact the OMBUDSMAN SERVICES and ask for them to be a material witness to MS with regards to your complaint and explain the same to them as you have here what better witness can you ask for i dont think MS will be pleased and myself i would force this action into the courtroom, good luck

i am prosecuting them for PPI INSURANCE will explain in a new thread