Hello every one got some rubbish news today from the financial ombudsmen and my i would like to say first when dealing with this it is very draining, furthermore from the get go, the adjudicator from the financial ombudsmen named "....", was on the side of Egg from the start, her attitude towards me her tone of voice was wrong, furthermore when speaking on the phone she was defending egg that's when i knew she had already made her decision Financial ombudsmen are suppose to be in the middle to settle disputes but unfortunately i have found out the hard way they are ..... Complete waste of time, not fit for purpose. i shall be taking this further as far as i am concerned they should not be allowed to get away with wasting your time and siding with the banks. However that is just in my experience with them. The adjudicator "....." gives her reasoning to not uphold my complaint! Which in my view is very poor and weak Adjudicator "....." STATEMENT WORD FOR WORD!... I have carefully considered all the information that you and Egg have provided. I have set out my findings below: • I accept Egg may not have adequately explained the ongoing cost of the policy to you and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums. However, even if Egg had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because I think it more likely than not that you would still have purchased the policy had you understood exactly how much the policy would cost and the potential amount you would receive in benefit in the event of a claim. • Egg has confirmed that the CRP options were not pre-selected and you were presented with the following two options as part of the online process in applying for your card; Yes, I would like to protect my repayments against accident, sickness and unemployment. (I understand that by clicking on this box I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of the repayment protection policy.) No, I do not wish to protect my repayment and I understand that it will be my responsibility to keep up my repayments if I fall ill or lose my job. You would need to actively select 'yes' on the online application to take out the CRP. I have enclosed a copy of this page for your reference which has been supplied to us by Egg. I have also enclosed a copy of application history which shows the level of payment protection cover selected at the time of the application. • You indicated that you were unaware that you had protection on the card. However Egg has confirmed in their correspondence to ourselves that you were able to log onto your secure online account and view your statements which were posted online each month, and this would have shown the CRP premium applied to your credit card. • I have not seen sufficient information to suggest there are any other reasons to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. Conclusions Because of this, I have to tell you that I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. Nevertheless, I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What do you think? your thoughts......?

Hello every one got some rubbish news today from the financial ombudsmen and my i would like to say first when dealing with this it is very draining, furthermore from the get go, the adjudicator from the financial ombudsmen named "Christina Oreilly", was on the side of Egg from the start, her attitude towards me her tone of voice was wrong, furthermore when speaking on the phone she was defending egg that's when i knew she had already made her decision Financial ombudsmen are suppose to be in the middle to settle disputes but unfortunately i have found out the hard way they are ****. Complete waste of time, not fit for purpose. i shall be taking this further as fare as i am concerned they should not be allowed to get away with wasting your time and siding with the banks. However that is just in my experience with them. The adjudicator "Christina OReilly" gives her reasoning to not uphold my complaint! Which in my view is very poor and weak Adjudicator "Christina OReilly" STATEMENT WORD FOR WORD!... I have carefully considered all the information that you and Egg have provided. I have set out my findings below: • I accept Egg may not have adequately explained the ongoing cost of the policy to you and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums. However, even if Egg had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because I think it more likely than not that you would still have purchased the policy had you understood exactly how much the policy would cost and the potential amount you would receive in benefit in the event of a claim. • Egg has confirmed that the CRP options were not pre-selected and you were presented with the following two options as part of the online process in applying for your card; Yes, I would like to protect my repayments against accident, sickness and unemployment. (I understand that by clicking on this box I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of the repayment protection policy.) No, I do not wish to protect my repayment and I understand that it will be my responsibility to keep up my repayments if I fall ill or lose my job. You would need to actively select 'yes' on the online application to take out the CRP. I have enclosed a copy of this page for your reference which has been supplied to us by Egg. I have also enclosed a copy of application history which shows the level of payment protection cover selected at the time of the application. • You indicated that you were unaware that you had protection on the card. However Egg has confirmed in their correspondence to ourselves that you were able to log onto your secure online account and view your statements which were posted online each month, and this would have shown the CRP premium applied to your credit card. • I have not seen sufficient information to suggest there are any other reasons to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. Conclusions Because of this, I have to tell you that I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. Nevertheless, I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What do you think? your thoughts......?

Hello every one got some rubbish news today from the financial ombudsmen and my PPI CLAIM! "Egg credit card" i would like to say first when dealing with this it is very draining, furthermore from the get go, the adjudicator from the financial ombudsmen named "Christina Oreilly", was on the side of Egg from the start, her attitude towards me her tone of voice was wrong, furthermore when speaking on the phone she was defending egg that's when i knew she had already made her decision Financial ombudsmen are suppose to be in the middle to settle disputes but unfortunately i have found out the hard way they are ****. Complete waste of time, not fit for purpose. i shall be taking this further as fare as i am concerned they should not be allowed to get away with wasting your time and siding with the banks. However that is just in my experience with them. The adjudicator "Christina OReilly" gives her reasoning to not uphold my complaint! Which in my view is very poor and weak Adjudicator "Christina OReilly" STATEMENT WORD FOR WORD!... I have carefully considered all the information that you and Egg have provided. I have set out my findings below: • I accept Egg may not have adequately explained the ongoing cost of the policy to you and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums. However, even if Egg had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because I think it more likely than not that you would still have purchased the policy had you understood exactly how much the policy would cost and the potential amount you would receive in benefit in the event of a claim. • Egg has confirmed that the CRP options were not pre-selected and you were presented with the following two options as part of the online process in applying for your card; Yes, I would like to protect my repayments against accident, sickness and unemployment. (I understand that by clicking on this box I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of the repayment protection policy.) No, I do not wish to protect my repayment and I understand that it will be my responsibility to keep up my repayments if I fall ill or lose my job. You would need to actively select 'yes' on the online application to take out the CRP. I have enclosed a copy of this page for your reference which has been supplied to us by Egg. I have also enclosed a copy of application history which shows the level of payment protection cover selected at the time of the application. • You indicated that you were unaware that you had protection on the card. However Egg has confirmed in their correspondence to ourselves that you were able to log onto your secure online account and view your statements which were posted online each month, and this would have shown the CRP premium applied to your credit card. • I have not seen sufficient information to suggest there are any other reasons to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. Conclusions Because of this, I have to tell you that I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. Nevertheless, I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What do you think? your thoughts......?

rubbish they are on the side off the banks

hmm I did use paypal to pay paypal refused the charge back to Lloyds TSB. stating the goods (where as described) i basically i said "how do paypal know the goods where as discribed if they where not my apartment when i took it out the box? surly the customer would know not paypal " then after writing to the chief executive of paypal (email) they refunded me my money back. LLOYDS TSB have no grounds for asking for the item after 2 months they didn't follow proper procedure, if anything they should have ask me to send it back first but like I said the seller didn't wont the items back. After carefully explaining to the chief executive of Lloyds TSB... he then handed it down to the head of customer service Lloyds TSB they refunded my money back, plus compensation for the harm and distress coursed, basically they call it (good will gesture) and now the case is closed. eBay sellers in my view there are some good one and bad ones but at the end I got my money back plus a bonus all I will say is if anyone else has this problem and your not getting anywhere with customer service, always write to deputy head manger or the chief executive and complain and in your complaint ask for double the amount I compensation. it worked for me. case closed job done messgae to ebay sellers P.S forgot to mention the goods i bought, i bought knowing they where faulty they where advertised as faulty. however when i got the item there was more then one fault. so it was not as described. if a seller says there is one fault and explains that fault, but when you get it, there is more then one fault to the item then the seller is in breach of contract weather it be private or business . its happened twice now and i got my money back. its always worth complaining to the chief executive or the deputy head manger and ask for compensation, i can not stress that more. and if it does not work out. i would suggest small claims court.

If an item is not as described, faulty, non delivered, and you used a debit card to purchase the item, "for what ever price" and you card debit card has a visa logo on it, that indicates you have some protection under visa rules which the banks subscribe too. you can see for your self here: http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/ so does any one have any ideas how to defend this?

does anyone have any suggestions?

There is no more to the story, that is it, i found it bizarre that now LLODES TSB are asking for the item back after 2 months when they already wrote to me 2 months earlier saying they refunded me and now the case is closed. they wont me now to send the item back to them. I bought this off ebay. using a visa debit card. item was not fit for purpose, nor as described. seller did not wont the item back. so i asked llodes tsb to do a charge back, they said there wear not successful then i complained then after a week got my money back, under the visa rules. then case closed 2 months later lloyed tsb asking for item to be sent to them, however now i have thrown away the item thinking the case was closed. i have never heard of a bank asking for the item to be sent to them after 2 months passed and they said 2 months earlier case closed.

Hello to all, VISA DEBIT CARD: CURRENT ACCOUNT. I bought an item of eBay, lets say around £100, i received the item and it was not fit for purpose, not as described, so i tried sending the item back for a full refund. The seller said he does not accept goods back he was a private seller not a business seller, after weeks of trying to get the item to him he was not going to take the item back, so i went for a charge back with LLOYDES TSB who i bank with. They did a charge back but they said they failed to secure a charge back, ok i thought then i complained, then they refunded the money to me after a week. under vise charge back rules. Now 2 and a half months later, i get a letter from the bank LLOYDES TSB, stating now i should return the goods to them, before that i told them the person didn't wont his goods back they confirmed this to me in writing, that the item was not fit for purpose, and not as described, and the seller didn't wont the goods back. so on those grounds and under visa rules they refunded me however now they are saying send the item back to them in 10 days or they will re-debit my account, of £100, now the problem is the item was a not fit for purpose not as discribed, so after LLOYDES TSB, refunded me and said the issue is closed, now 2 and a half months later they are saying send the item back to the bank "LLOYDES TSB" which is odd because i didnt buy the item from the bank, furthermore this issue was sorted 2 and a half months ago, i have thrown the item away when this item was sorted out knowing the seller didn't wont the item back. so what grounds do LLOYDES TSB have to say send the items back to them? or they will re-debit my account which they have done. Now LLOYDES TSB are charging me daily fess and on top of that monthly fees, becuase i have no overdraft on this account. I'm thinking small claims court? Financial ombudsmen: takes to long and side with the banks, so i don't wont to GO TO THEM, THEY ARE waste of time and energy. your thoughts please.:-?

hmm ok i just seen it now, good job

Press releases 2010 OFT consults on unenforceable credit agreements guidance 05/10 27 January 2010 The OFT has today published draft guidance for consumers and industry on the application of sections of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the CCA) that allow consumers to request information about their credit agreements. The OFT is consulting on guidance because of concerns that some debtors are being misled into thinking that these sections can be used to get their debts written off and that some creditors are not following legal obligations to provide information to customers. The draft guidance consists of a document setting out the technical legal issues for businesses and consumer advisers, and a simpler version for consumers. It incorporates the findings of recent High Court cases that have clarified a number of technical issues. For example, sections 77-79 of the CCA allow a consumer to request a 'true copy' of their agreement. The High Court ruled that a true copy does not have to be a photocopy or an exact copy of the original. The lender is allowed to provide a reconstituted agreement, as long as that version is accurate and contains all the original information apart from the few exceptions that the law allows (which include the signature, signature box and date of signature). The guidance also makes it clear that if a lender cannot comply with the sections - making an agreement unenforceable - then it is restricted in the debt collection activities it can undertake. Whilst lenders are able to request repayment and to record any arrears or default with a credit reference agency, the OFT considers it would be wrong to threaten court action if the lender knows that it is not possible. Ray Watson, OFT director of consumer credit, said: 'There has been a great deal of confusion over the meaning of these sections with many borrowers being misled into thinking that they can get their debt written off. 'This guidance is to clarify the legal position and the OFT view on standards expected of the industry, and to make consumers aware that they may be at risk if they seek to use these sections to avoid paying legitimately owed debts.' The deadline for responses to the consultation is 21 April 2010. NOTES 1. The consultation document is available on the OFT website. 2. The recent judgment in Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 can be found on the Judiciary of England and Wales website. :-xDoes this mean the debt collecters can make up all kinds of rubbish with there own agrreement? all they have to do is have your name and where you live???

Thank you very much sir, so it looks like i will not be able to defend against it in court, even though they defaulted on this account hmm.. anyway thanks your a super star

Thanks for your reply, how would i know if there front or back it seems there just 2 pieces of paper separate, and a letter from Lowell asking for money. has any one actually looked at the link i have provided? for information? hmm... can anyone point me to any good letters basically saying 1.) they are in default of the account because i sent the request on the 8th December 2008 and got some fake agreement on the 16th of January 2009, it also states on there letter they wrote to me that the balance of the loan was nill but still want me to pay them money. which is on the link i have provided hmm maybe ill wait for the working week see who gets back to me. apart from that have a nice day.

can you close this thread now. Halifax has been done with. thank you

please accept my apologies, i was not getting any reply's that's why i posted more threads. it want happen again. i bid you good day sir:D