This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

anyone have any latest news on what is going on with the OFT case?

i best remember to make sure i have all my paperwork prepared and my best Perry Mason attitucde in place.

was in Liverpool. where the judge also indicated that a significant number of cases were being awarded to the banks. hmmmmm wonder if its to late to try to get it moved to another court somewhere.

ahhhhh another wasted day. Court today granted Barlcays a stay in light of OFT test case. Judge took a very dim view of them only informing me 5 minutes before going into the court though. awaiting a copy of the Directions for Stay (or whatever its called) and preparing form N244. it aint over till the fat lady sings. and since i have got her tied up and gagged that isnt likely to happen unitl i am ready. will post details of Stay directions when recieved. so be warned anyone currently with cases on the way with Barlcays, they are going for a stay every time. be prepared for it.

oh forgot to update for a while. Allocation Hearing is set for next Tuesday.

not about bank charges but very definitely worth bringing to peoples attention http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6686415.s... anyone else see this latest from our wonderful Home Office? apparently (and i admit i only caught part of the item on the news) John Reid has said the government may have to opt out of some aspects of the European Human Rights laws when dealing with terror suspects. apparently Control Orders don't work so he has decided to just take a hatchet to the Human Rights Act to solve the problem. mind you it looks like the Tories and Lib Dems are no better, urging greater use of phone taps and other 'intercept evidence' to bring more suspects to trial. so basically, if they dont have any evidence agasint you but someone reckons you might just be one of them dodgy terrorist types then they slap you with a Control Order. you maybe have to wear an electronic tag and report to the local police every day. but now not satisfied with that, Reid has decided he wants to be able to lock these people up. we dont need to bother with all that silly evidence business. its fine we'll just rip up the Human Rights Act then we can do what we want. i mean who really cares if these people are innocent or not. i mean look at them. they're muslims. they must be guilty.

what does anyone think of the advisability of a combination of the two ideas; first a request to have the defense struck out, and if the judge is happy to let it stand, then the disclosure of how they arrive at their figures.

OK another one being dragged right up to the court stage. got my allocation questionaire and defence. i am guessing it is a pretty standard defence. points 1 to 5 basically say 'we told him about the charges and he agreed to them as part of the terms of contract' point 6 then goes on to deny therefore that the charges are unlawful point 7 claims that 'such charges do not unduly enrich the defendant' point 8 is just pint 6 reworded point 9 is utterly irrelevant in that it says 'we charged him because he went overdrawn' point 10 is point 6 again point 11 is an attempt to wriggle out of part of the claim on the grounds of the limitation act. conveniently forgetting that those parts of the claim were inside the 6 year limit when the action to recover the charges was begun. 12 says ok we are entitled to charge something at least. and we will try to get some of the money back again. so basically my questions are is the rubbish about the limitations act valid? and if i wish to make mention of such things as the 'whistleblower report' do i need to put it on my AQ (in the witness section or somewhere

anyone know what the legal issues might be in having a (properly rent paid if necessary) stall situated outside a bank advising customers about claiming back bank charges? can we really get in the banks faces like this legally?

after reading the relevant article on the moneysaving expert site it would appear that any case you might have would depend heavily on the exact wording of the ad. and whether the item you recieved was 'as described'. read the full article here for more info eBay Golden Rules: protect yourself and cut the purchase price | MoneySavingExpert.com

on todays lunchtime news they were talking about it and apart from the obvious worrying things about them possibly being given greater powers to 'force entry'; i also noticed an almost throw away line about jail terms for 'obstructing the bailiff' ??????????????????? oh dear god as if these thugs didnt have enough power already. and all this new powers are being brought in without any talk of regulation or review.

yeah same address. it was just a pretty standard threatening letter. if you dont phone us our solicitors will issue legal proceedings and warrant of execution blah blah blah.

CCA letter sent on 23rd, then I recieved 'the threatening letter' on the 24th. if you do not respond blah blah DG Solicitors blah blah etc. then today recieved letter thanking me for my £1 payment, as a indication of my intention to pay. still waiting for the 12 days to be up before i do anything but my question is what happens after the 12 days? because Metropolitan clearly employ a bury their head in the sand approach to such letters. thanks

having similar issues with a friend and her security camers she has installed in her flat (police saying she had to move them as they were showing neighbours properties) however further investigation by myself of the Human Rights Act 1998 article 8 seems to suggest that they only have a case if you have recorded anything of a confidential nature. so in theory unless they can prove that what you have recorded is confidential then they shouldnt be able to do anything about it. but dont just take my word for it i might be wrong.

SLC are right dodgy b*****ds. after several years of deferrments i forgot one year to send for the forms and so they decided to take me to court and after conveniently writing to my mother to find details of an address for me they then proceeded, without bothering to contact me, to obtain a CCJ against me. without even sending me any papers. luckily i have the letters still with the dates clearly showing that they made no attempt to contact me, between finding an address for me and taking the court action (which surprisingly enough i wasnt able to defend since i knew nothing about it). and thanks to learning how the process is supposed to work on this site, i am now applying to the court to have that CCJ over turned.

i have a question on the gaining access part. if for example you have a porch on the house which is not locked but the door into the house proper is locked, does this count as them gaining access to your property? and if so how can you prevent it if for example you do not have a lock on the porch or the doorbell doesnt work or something so people have to come into the porch to knock on the inner door?

letter came through today offering 1000pounds 'in full and final settlement'. i intend to laugh in their faces (by letter of course) and say I am happy to accept the money in part payment and expect the rest of my money back too. if not then i will proceed to court proceedings.

well some decent progress at last. after the recent meeting with the solicitor an appointment was made for the Environmental Health to come back out to the flat and she would switch off the dehumidifier thing so they could see that the problem is still there. So thee guy from the EH now comes every couple of days to take readings, and guess what. Yep. the damp levels in the air have gone up 4% in just a week without the dehumidifier she bought being switched on. She still has this rather useless device (i thinki it is supposed to be some kind of air circulator or something) that the council fitted last year claiming it would sort the problem out. Which quite clearly it hasnt done. in fact the only thing it has done is increase her electricity bill by about 400 pounds!!!!!! (just over the winter) but finally some good news and before long hopefully this Housing Association is going to get its comeuppance.

Ok so my friend (the same one who has the problems with her flat- if you have seen that thread) asked me about something and i figured this was a good place to come for advice. a couple of years ago she had accident at work (pretty serious back injury), at the time she had loan and had payment proection on it. now the place she worked didnt put anything in their accident book at the time so the bank wouldnt invoke the protection and pay the repayments for her. Since then she won compensation from the company but now she wants to know how she can go about reclaiming her money from the bank. Since she was paying extra so that she would be covered in case of accident. any help appreciated.

LBA posted today. and already assembling details on second claim for charges since this action.

dammit I was going to say that

finally got round to starting the process. sent off the prelim letter requesting my 1925.00pounds back last week. recieved standard 'we are investigating and will attempt to fob you off with rubbish until you go away' reply. next letter is already printed and dated ready to post in 14 days time.

well after a little bit of research in the local library we have now discovered that the estate is built downhill from a (now flooded) quarry, that used to quarry sand and gravel. there are also several other large bodies of water in the area all apparently linked by underground systems and one (the closest one) even has a tourist info. board saying that it leaks!!!!! also the whole area seems to be sitting on a geology of sand and gravel beds which have been heavily quarried in the past. but of course all that is purely circumstantial without evidnece from the building company to see exactly what work they did to dampproof and drain off any excess groundwater. also looking at her medical records it can clearly be seen that she has been significantly less healthy since moving into that flat. letters have even been written to the local MP. however since she now uses one of those moisture collector things and such things to try to keep the damp away; whenever the council comes out to look at the problem they just say what damp? so unless she lets all her clothes and furniture get moldy and ruined a secont time (despite still having photos and actually still got the ruined clothes from last time) everybody just thinks she is just causing trouble. one leter from the council even suggests that 'she does too much ironing inside' and that 'she switches the heating off when she goes away for a few days'. oh and the threat apparently was something along the lines of 'accidents can happen to women living on their own' unfortunately i dont think she actually managed to record it or anything. she has arranged a meeting with the solicitor next week to discuss the latest circumstantial evidence of the geology etc and see if anything can be done with it, so will see what happens after that.