Jump to content
Twitter - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'

johnhn

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    337

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by johnhn

  1. johnhn
    ask them again, you mean... My SAR stipulated ALL data. They replied asking "by ALL data, do you mean ALL data?", rather unnecessarily, which I confirmed. So they sent me partial data... I shall ask again, again.
  2. johnhn
    Thankyou! It's been a while... I have finally received SAR info from MBNA. It turns out I had PPI on an earlier account with them from September 2001 to August 2003. A photocopy of the original application shows that I ticked the "Yes" box. Here's what the application says - in its entirety - re: PPI "Safeguard against life's unpredictable events with our payment protection cover for just 58 pence per £100 of your statement balance. Payment Protection Cover is designed to protect your ability to make repayments to your MBNA credit car in the event that you are unable to work due to accident, sickness or involuntary unemployment. Valuable life cover, up to £15000, is also included. We strongly recommend that you take out this cover. For cover, just tick the Yes box". There is no other information or "advice" on the application form regarding eligibility, exclusions, etc. I gave my employment status as self-employed/director of a limited company. Curiously, whilst the MBNA screenshots repeat this, they also say "Limited Company? Don't Know". Unfortunately MBNA have not provided me with any statements whatsoever, so I have no idea of statement balances.
  3. johnhn
    Thanks everyone, I'm aware of the limitations of the Limitations Act, the fact that the debt remains recoverable though unenforceable, and the implications for future benefit claims. I'm happy to deal with this if it's owed but it'll be when I can afford it and not before, and I won't be paying Jacobs a penny, just the local authority. I hope I never need benefits again too. The last time, which was a 6 week gap in employment, I didn't bother claiming because of how long it would have taken just to receive anything (more than 6 weeks...). The time before that, my housing benefit was £200 per month short of my rent. I honestly don't know how I survived.
  4. johnhn
    Just spoke to the council - Decision Notice was issued on 21st April 2011. It's statute barred and Jacobs are talking out of their hat.
  5. johnhn
    So why are Jacobs stating that they WILL take me to court? Lying to intimidate me?
  6. johnhn
    Correct.
  7. johnhn
    "Application will be made to the County Court to obtain a County Court judgement against you" But the invoice date (which I would presume is the council's) is from April 2011, so they're too late to bring it to court aren't they?
  8. johnhn
    Didn't know whether to post here or in a benefits subforum. I recently received a letter from Jacobs chasing me for an alleged housing benefit overpayment of just under £2000 from over 7 years ago. I have responded in writing by disputing the debt and stating that as it is statute barred it is now unenforceable although I understand it may be recovered by the local authority through an attachment of earnings order (I am self-employed though) or deductions from future benefit payments. I had no prior knowledge of the alleged debt, have never acknowledged it, and no court information pertaining to it has ever appeared on my credit report. Jacobs have responded by giving me 7 days to pay in full (expiring 12 noon tomorrow) or they say they are going to take me to court. They have provided no breakdown of the amount they claim I owe, or any proof that I owe it. What's my next step?
  9. johnhn
    FOS decision is in - P2P to refund all interest and charges, plus simple interest, plus £150 compensation for being horrible
  10. johnhn
    Rang the sols on Monday - "someone from the team will ring you back today without fail". They didn't Rang them again on Tuesday. The plonker who was supposed to send me the info in the first place, and again last week, is now on holiday, but they'd send the info "this week". I explained that if I didn't get it by Thursday I'd have a CCJ for 6 years, and right in the middle of a house purchase. Also, if a global financial institution is incapable of supplying an account number and sort code, it's not very impressive! Finally received the details, paid it, and sent proof of payment to the court. The email address the court gave me to use was very similar but not the same as the one previously given, so I sent it to both. Here is the reply: "It is noted that you have lodged documents in this case in more than one format or to more than one email box. We are writing to advise you that doing this, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, is unnecessary and unacceptable. You are referred to 5APD.5 in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998. Practice Direction 5.3 does allow for the electronic filing of documents. However the practice goes on to say, in mandatory terms, that if a document is filed by fax, and by implication, email, the party must not send a hard copy in addition. Your conduct in dealing with a matter in this way is significantly contributing to the delays in the court dealing with matters. Each item of correspondence, whether it comes in by email, facsimile or post has to be individually dealt with by a member of staff. Thus one item, which only requires one action, because of the way that you are dealing with it, may require two or three separate sets of work by the court staff. In the future please avoid doubling or tripling the amount of work that the court has to do, by only filing or lodging documents in one format. That is what the Civil Procedure Rules envisages, and that is what will assist the court in being as efficient as possible in these financially constrained times." I might send them an apology for not being thoroughly au fait with "5APD.5 in the Civil Procedure Rules 1998". To as many email addresses as I can find...
  11. johnhn
    Spoke to the solicitor on Tuesday - "Oh, sorry, I thought I'd sent the information to you - I'll send it out today". Postman's just been. Still nothing. Ringing the court on Monday. Complaint to SRA, or waste of time and energy?
  12. johnhn
    Yes, and that was the plan - under the circumstances I'd have paid it on the spot, but I still haven't been supplied with any payment details.
  13. johnhn
    Normally I'd agree, but I'm buying a house and need to not have a CCJ!
  14. johnhn
    3 weeks later, still no reply from the sols. Are they taking the p*ss?
  15. johnhn
    My dilemma in a nutshell. Probably won't to be honest, galling though it is.
  16. johnhn
    I emailed BC's sols after the hearing requesting bank details for payment of costs and added that I would pay the £129 default if only to have it marked as settled. Still no reply 11 days later. Meanwhile, I've been wavering about appealing* (the deadline is this Thursday), however, I have yet to receive a copy of the judgement (so don't know exactly what is written into it). Is this normal? *my interpretation of OFT v Abbey is that it actually supports my argument and the OFT guidance on credit card charges as it makes the clear distinction between them and bank overdraft fees, therefore the judgement is "erroneous"...
  17. johnhn
    Seems obvious to me, so why not to a judge?
  18. johnhn
    anyone?
  19. johnhn
    I've got a real problem with the reasoning in this judgement. I understand a judge is bound by authorities, but I still don't think this authority applies! I shall attempt to explain. The OFT v Abbey Supreme Court Appeal found that the current account bank charges are part of the package of remuneration, and thus core or standard terms exempt from assessment of fairness under UTCCR 1999 6(2), in part because they are distinct from default charges which are payable on breach of contract (and thus a penalty under common law). "the Relevant Charges are not concealed default charges designed to discourage customers from overdrawing on their accounts without prior arrangement" Whereas in my case, the judgement found that credit card default charges ARE part of the package of remuneration, and thus core or standard terms exempt from assessment of fairness under UTCCR 1999 6(2), (and thus not a penalty under common law), because they are "similar" to current account charges. To me this is too much like havinng your cake and eating it. Or is it just me?
  20. johnhn
    if by dismissed you mean struck out, then no. BC made an application for strike out or summary judgement. The judge didn't strike out, he made summary judgement, in their favour.
  21. johnhn
    I'll check my copy of the judgement when it arrives. Meanwhile, my weekend starts right about.... now. So, until then, b@lls to Barclays.
  22. johnhn
    more or less exactly my thoughts.
  23. johnhn
    He said at various points that he found it to be a difficult case. It was a shame about the reserved judge - my heart sank... I'm not thinking of appealing. However, as the subject of the default does not seem to be within the judgement (which just seems to answer the question of assessment of fairness under the UTCCR's) I was thinking of tackling just the default (rather than the charges themselves) from a different angle.....
  24. johnhn
    He did, and also mentioned "higher courts than this"...
  25. johnhn
    It's just dawned on me that the judgement only addressed whether or not the relevant terms of the contract could be assessed for unfairness under the UTCCR's. It didn't address the issue of the default being registered after arrears periods of 3, 6 and 13 consecutive months (i.e. contrary to ICO guidelines). As far as I am aware, that has not been included in the judgement at all. Hmmmm.........

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London NW11 7PE

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...