CCA's and Dave against the world !!!

[JonCris]

namely

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217173/Judge-quashes-womans-8-000-credit-card-debt-landmark-ruling-mis-selling-payment-protection-insurance.html

[davefirewalker]

hmmmm

 

term 8 of the original agreement (which I have)

 

....................

8 optional payment protection insurance......

 

8.1 if you exercise your right to cancel this agreement or if you repay the loan early in full, any payment protection insurance which you have taken through us for this agreement will be cancelled

 

8.2 If you repay any insurance advance early in full it is your decision whether to exercise any right you may have to end the related payment the related payment protection insurance early.

 

8.3 Moneys payable by the insurer under the payment protection insurance in satisfaction of a claim will be credited back to the account

 

8.4 where there is an insurance advance, moneys payable by the insurer under the payment protection insurance by way of a refund of the premium will be credited to the account..........................

.................

 

it says optional but I dont recall it that way I dont ever remember asking for it or being asked did I want it. It was just on the agreement when I signed it....being naive and not realising the implications.

 

I was self employed at the time .......and did actually claim on it it was like trying to pull teeth though, talk about jumping through hoops. I needed references from the queen and the pope.....

 

still its one more avenue to explore

 

Dave

[paulwlton]

Looks like a multiple agreement: unrestricted-debtor-creditor and restricted-debtor-creditor-supplier.

 

I'd make a SAR and specifically ask if a commission was paid for setting up the insurance with the third party.

Edited November 3, 2009 by paulwlton

[davefirewalker]

Hi guys.....

 

While I waiting to see if Barclays are going to put in a defence in time (17th Nov I think) I started to have a go a TV licensing.

 

I didnt renew my license (again) on the correct date and they wrote to me and told me what a bad boy I had been and that they had the power to re-date the license to show the "correct" date.

 

ok....I am not advocating tv license evasion, but the tone of this letter rubbed me up the wrong way so I wrote......>.

 

------------------------

 

Dear Sir,

 

With regard to your recent query regarding my television licence renewal, could you please direct me to the current legislation that states that…..

 

1.I am required by law to have a television

2.I am required by law to use a television even if I have one

3.I am required by law to inform anyone that I am NOT using a television.

 

As I am in fact NOT required by law to have a television or use one even if I do have one, or in fact to inform anyone that I am not using a television, then when I choose to get a licence is my own business, and I do not need to explain myself to anyone.

 

You should be grateful that I do choose to obey the law and get a license when I feel I need one. As strange as it may seem to you, some people do not NEED a television at all times. As far as I am aware even in current legislation it is not an offence to own a television, the only offence that I can see is if you use a television to receive broadcast signals via an aerial without purchasing the required licence.

 

It is not for me to “prove my innocence”, but for you to prove any wrongdoing

 

For your information and to expedite matters, any television set owned by me was not used to receive TV broadcasts during any period not covered by a relevant license.

 

Please restore my licence to its original date

 

Thank you........

 

-------------------------------

 

Then they wrote back with some crud absolutely refusing to re-date the license, including the the line "in cases where a customer has asked for the expiry date to be amended on a license we require adequate proof that the license was not required”

 

I swiftly replied with a rather sharp and pointed letter copied here

 

-----------------------

 

Thank you for writing to me and explaining why you won't re-date my tv license.

 

Firstly I would like you to climb down of your high horse, and remember that you are, or are working on behalf of public servant (whether a private company or not), and that as the law now stands you are required to issue me with a license if I have paid for it. I should not have to explain my reasons as to why I didn't renew on the correct anniversary, all you are required to know is that I have paid for and require my FULL license

 

There are many and varied reasons for not requiring a TV license not least of which is not having a TV.

 

As far as I am aware the purchase of a TV license seems to me to be wholly dependant on the ability or need to receive TV broadcasts, but even so it is not a requirement under British law (yet) that you are required to purchase a license for something that you don't use. For example it is perfectly legal to OWN as many TV sets as you wish without a license...as long as you don't use them. Until the law is changed I will continue to purchase a TV license when I am required to. I fully support the funding of the BBC and have no wish to deprive them of funds, similarly I am sure that the government / BBC would not want me to pay for something that I don't use.

 

If for example I didn't want to use my car for 3 – 6 months I wouldn't have to tax it, however there IS a legal requirement to inform them of such. There is no such requirement as yet to inform anyone that you don't require a TV license, nor should there be. Believe it or not not everyone requires or uses a TV all the time

 

Further your letter states.....” in cases where a customer has asked for the expiry date to be amended on a license we require adequate proof that the license was not required”............WTF ?????

 

Have you ever tried proving a negative...............attached is a blank sheet of paper not showing a picture of the television that I didn't have, and one not showing another with the plug removed and not in working condition. There is also not attached a cheque not to the value of twenty pounds, could you please confirm that you didn't see it.

 

Try answering this question at the airport...” has anyone put anything into you case without your knowledge ?”............how would you know ???

 

You have already had my statement that I did not require a license for the given period that should be sufficient.

 

It is not my responsibility to prove that I did not require a TV license, It is yours to prove that I did! I am sorry but “we can change it if we feel like” is not good enough and if you think it is then you have the option of taking me to court. Does the phrase “innocent until PROVEN guilty” have any meaning.

 

We are not under a fascist regime yet so don't act like we are.

 

I have the receipt that shows that I paid for my license and that will be sufficient for 12 months If I require it that long. I shall not be renewing it BEFORE that date and if it should ever get as far as a court case I will explain my reasons to the judge, and then ask for damages and compensation, your call!!

PLEASE ISSUE THE FULL LICENSE

------------------------

 

lets see what happens

 

Dave

Edited November 12, 2009 by davefirewalker

[AnimalMagic]

Dave, I'm glad you're back...

 

Have you ever tried proving a negative............attached is a blank sheet of paper not showing a picture of the television that I didn't have, and one not showing another with the plug removed and not in working condition. There is also not attached a cheque not to the value of twenty pounds, could you please confirm that you didn't see it.

 

I'm still chuckling after 5 mins

 

I'm interested in your argument. Does this mean that if I record a program and watch it I do not need a licence, so long as I do not watch anything live?

[davefirewalker]

NO.....if you recorded it you must have received it.... or if someone else recorded it there my be copyright issues.....

 

however it is perfectly legal (I think) to use a tv NOT connected to an aerial or with the receiving part disabled to play pre recorded tapes and dvd's or to use it for gaming, wii, xbox etc

 

However when the switch over to digital is complete you can use a tv without fear because you are unable to receive TV broadcasts......what I mean by that is you wont have to disable the receiving circuit because the terrestrial signal will be switched off......not true for newer integrated sets with digi onboard though

 

but they will soon put an end to that by bringing in smart cards to pay or the digi signal will be switched off....

 

Dave

Edited November 12, 2009 by davefirewalker

[willtheywontthey]

just brilliant Dave. Missed your unique angle of late but glad you are back for the good fight.

 

ps. TVs run on battery need no licence - is this still true? ie 12v car battery (but fumes are dangerous remember people!)

[AnimalMagic]

but they will soon put an end to that by bringing in smart cards to pay or the digi signal will be switched off....

 

I think that is the true reason for the digital switchover...

 

I must take a closer look at that law. I think maybe demand a discount given the amount of garbage that's on

[davefirewalker]

just brilliant Dave. Missed your unique angle of late but glad you are back for the good fight.

 

ps. TVs run on battery need no licence - is this still true? ie 12v car battery (but fumes are dangerous remember people!)

 

Pass ......

 

the telecommunications act 2003 changed a lot of things......

 

Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)

 

mainly this one.........>

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_34#pt4

 

have a look

 

Dave

Edited November 12, 2009 by davefirewalker

[foolishgirl]

Dave, I'm glad you're back...

 

I'm still chuckling after 5 mins

 

Heartily seconded!! Wonderful post, Dave.

 

I'm interested in your argument. Does this mean that if I record a program and watch it I do not need a licence, so long as I do not watch anything live?

 

You need a licence to record from a TV signal but currently there is nothing to stop you watching iPlayer or 4OD on your computer for nought!

 

FG

[davefirewalker]

It seems as though the powers given to the "licensing authorities" seem to outweigh the "offence" power of forced entry etc......I wish the OFT would take a leaf from their book and force some entry's in some of these lying cheating banks.

 

Dave

[patrickq1]

he he dave your a fruitcake lol good write up

[patrickq1]

Hmm someone with a full copy of there application, that could be useful ;-)

 

(licking his lips and wondering from what year )

 

S.

dave did nt you get an application form if not then that aint fair as all i got was a unreadable application form....?

[davefirewalker]

dave did nt you get an application form if not then that aint fair as all i got was a unreadable application form....?

 

Yeah but my application was totally readable....with not a term in sight

 

mind you the current spate a EXTREMELY BAD decissions going through the courts has me a little worried.......

 

never mind when I win the lottery I will fund a massive challenge...in fact several

 

dave

[foolishgirl]

.....

 

never mind when I win the lottery I will fund a massive challenge...in fact several

 

 

You have to be an employee from a BT centre in Liverpool to qualify on that one. Oh, sorry, you only score on one there! Not this week then? :D

[davefirewalker]

You have to be an employee from a BT centre in Liverpool to qualify on that one. Oh, sorry, you only score on one there! Not this week then? :D

 

hmmmmmmm grrrrrrr

 

I nearly won....only needed another four numbers

 

Dave

[foolishgirl]

hmmmmmmm grrrrrrr

 

I nearly won....only needed another four numbers

 

Dave

 

Well better than me - I needed another 7 plus a lottery ticket

[patrickq1]

i won last week the euro lotto lol only till i woke up

[davefirewalker]

Hi guys....

 

Today is the last chance for sharkleys to file a defence, and they haven't filed as yet.....what's the bet they leave it until the very last minute before close of play today. Mind you if I do get summary judgement whats the bet they get a set aside !!!! been down this path before

 

ah well lets see what tommorrow brings

 

Dave

[davefirewalker]

:)

 

Hey guys.....guess what

 

The TV licensing have rolled over..........

 

only a minor victory, but it makes you feel really good

 

Letter received today.............

 

Thank you for your letter of th 12 Nov which was addressed to ??????? and has escalated to me.

 

Having reviewed the correspondence on this matter I have today amended you TV license to expire on the last day of September 2010 (the proper date)

 

blah blah blah blah.......rubbish etc

 

I trust that this resolves the issue for you

 

Should you wish to pursue matters you should contact the BBC at .....etc

 

 

----------------------

They dont half try it on though, I can understand how people could be victimised by some of their "customer service advisors"

 

I probably shouldn't say morons so..........

 

MAROONS

 

 

Dave

[foolishgirl]

 

Hey guys.....guess what

 

The TV licensing have rolled over..........

 

only a minor victory, but it makes you feel really good

 

 

Well done dave, another one hits the dust...

[davefirewalker]

Hi guys....

 

Today is the last chance for sharkleys to file a defence, and they haven't filed as yet.....what's the bet they leave it until the very last minute before close of play today. Mind you if I do get summary judgement whats the bet they get a set aside !!!! been down this path before

 

ah well lets see what tomorrow brings

 

Dave

 

 

they have filed a defence.......its gone to judge for directions. I thought the court would have forwarded the defence on ??? it was filed on the 10th Nov

 

ah well, will win in the end just take a little longer

 

dave

[stripper]

Dave

I've got to say it mate,you are a real inspiration to all us Caggers.

Thanks;)

Stripper

[davefirewalker]

Still waiting .....??????

 

not seen their defence yet................still with the judge........maybe thats a good thing

 

 

Dave

[davefirewalker]

STILL NO NEWS from the court.......

 

phoned them up yesterday and they said that they had a huge backlog of cases, and that mine should be sorted soon.

 

Barclays had until 17th Nov to put in a defence and apparently they put one in on the 10th........

 

Just received of this morning a special delivery letter dated the 7th dec asking me to discontinue as I didnt have a case ( yeah right I can smell the fear) and that they had already paid me my charges back.

 

well to my recollection I asked for £1700 and they paid £620 as a GOODWILL gesture......without admission of wrongdoing, which I accepted as a partpayment, so if my maths is accurate they owe me at least £1000 +

 

If they want to go around giving people money as goodwill gestures without having to sign for it, then it is their lookout.

 

then the followed that up with the statute of limitations saying I could in any case only claim up till oct 2003..........hogwash

 

lets wait and see :0

 

Just sent them an email

 

I am in receipt of your letter of the 7th Dec received here on 9th dec (signed for) and I am somewhat confused by the content

 

I have NOT received or even seen your defence as yet, and I believe it is with the judge for a determination.

 

However to take your other points into account

 

It had already been decided by the OFT that credit card charges were unfair but that they would not investigate of their own volition any charges of £12 or under. HOWEVER that does not mean that charges of £12 ARE fair. I will be asking for full disclosure if / or when this gets to court to try to determine the true cost.

 

If you had read my POC fully and properly you will see that I am asking for Contractual interest NOT Statutory interest. If you had refunded when I first asked in 2007 then this and other matters may have NOW been settled. I have been offered various amounts ranging from £190 to £850 conditional on me signing an agreement to waive my rights to future litigation.

 

However due to your determination not to try and settle this and the fact that you have totally ignored several letters, I had decided that the only just way would be to claim contractual interest to compensate me for the time value of the money while it was in your possession.

 

the Statute of limitations would only apply if I was making a fresh claim.....or from the discovery of cause of action.

I have been asking for a refund since early 2007 so making a claim as far back as 2001 seems to be within the right time period. The statute of limitations would also not apply if the cause of action was hidden, deliberately or otherwise.

 

To save yourself some time and money I would suggest that you withdraw your defence and accede to my rightful demands

 

 

I hope that this clarifies matters for you

 

-----------------------------------

 

rgds

 

Dave