Tweet
Re: If your bank start chasing you for disputed overdraft following the judgment....
PS (P for Pre not Post in my PS ;-)
quote: Curleyben post
[B]Have you fired off a Prove It to Moorcroft to see if they are actually entitled to collect on this debt ?[/B]
In replying to this simple question I'm afraid I've slightly digressed perhaps; but my grey matter is a bit like sludge at the moment so didn't want to lose the train of thought in case it COULD be of use or relevant??? LOL (stranger things have happened y know...
) So please bear with me and thank you in advance for your patience if any of my questions seem a bit er 'Doh' (or dough...:-) Cheers all. Once again, thank you all for yr ongoing support and commitment and useful info/imput etc...
The bank started chasing me for 'debt' after I stopped my money going into the account cos I couldn't afford to live when they were taking nearly all of my money... can't think off hand the exact date this was but it was after the stay imposed... the DCA has been more recent, I'd say in the last year. The HOME visit (to my knowledge, the first) came approx 4 hours from the supreme courts ruling being announced... ( if that makes sense?)
No, I didn't realise I could or indeed that there was any onus on them to prove it? I suppose the actual £1100 they are chasing, boils down to the original argument about charges and mounting charges upon those charges... from the bank... I say they owe me £5,000 (or more- but my request was for £5100 - of £5164.34 I'd paid in charges from 2001- until the stay in Aug 2007)... They say I owe them (the bank, or Moorcroft now) as the debt was 'sold on' or passed on...) £1100. One thing I've been meaning to ask though, (although I suppose its probably irrelevent now) is, were the banks still allowed to pursue people for money which was disputed owing to the fact that 100% of the 'debt' was attributed to unarranged OD charges and/or unreturned DD etc etc on current accounts? I mean, given that the banks WANTED these claims for charges reimbursed being 'stayed', were they in turn allowed to continue pursuing customers and sending in the 'wolves' (DCA).
If they were allowed to effectively nail a customers foot to the ground to stop them moving forward, whilst simultaneously unleashing the wolves upon the customer (be it through DCA, threats of court action, threats of further costs being imposed, threats of bailiffs etc etc and indeed, still adding further charges on the charges so that they literally double in a few weeks...) am I missing something or does that seem fair or equitable? And if, like myself, you think the answer is absolutely NOT, then is there anything within the legal parameters that CAN be pursued to move forward for justice? I mean, could this be used as a legitimate example of unfairness maybe under clause 5? Surely but surely, as many people have already said, the banks cannot have it ALL ways?
Cheers all, CatXXX
PS (P for Pre not Post in my PS ;-)
quote: Curleyben post
[B]Have you fired off a Prove It to Moorcroft to see if they are actually entitled to collect on this debt ?[/B]
In replying to this simple question I'm afraid I've slightly digressed perhaps; but my grey matter is a bit like sludge at the moment so didn't want to lose the train of thought in case it COULD be of use or relevant??? LOL (stranger things have happened y know...
) So please bear with me and thank you in advance for your patience if any of my questions seem a bit er 'Doh' (or dough...:-) Cheers all. Once again, thank you all for yr ongoing support and commitment and useful info/imput etc...The bank started chasing me for 'debt' after I stopped my money going into the account cos I couldn't afford to live when they were taking nearly all of my money... can't think off hand the exact date this was but it was after the stay imposed... the DCA has been more recent, I'd say in the last year. The HOME visit (to my knowledge, the first) came approx 4 hours from the supreme courts ruling being announced... ( if that makes sense?)
No, I didn't realise I could or indeed that there was any onus on them to prove it? I suppose the actual £1100 they are chasing, boils down to the original argument about charges and mounting charges upon those charges... from the bank... I say they owe me £5,000 (or more- but my request was for £5100 - of £5164.34 I'd paid in charges from 2001- until the stay in Aug 2007)... They say I owe them (the bank, or Moorcroft now) as the debt was 'sold on' or passed on...) £1100. One thing I've been meaning to ask though, (although I suppose its probably irrelevent now) is, were the banks still allowed to pursue people for money which was disputed owing to the fact that 100% of the 'debt' was attributed to unarranged OD charges and/or unreturned DD etc etc on current accounts? I mean, given that the banks WANTED these claims for charges reimbursed being 'stayed', were they in turn allowed to continue pursuing customers and sending in the 'wolves' (DCA).
If they were allowed to effectively nail a customers foot to the ground to stop them moving forward, whilst simultaneously unleashing the wolves upon the customer (be it through DCA, threats of court action, threats of further costs being imposed, threats of bailiffs etc etc and indeed, still adding further charges on the charges so that they literally double in a few weeks...) am I missing something or does that seem fair or equitable? And if, like myself, you think the answer is absolutely NOT, then is there anything within the legal parameters that CAN be pursued to move forward for justice? I mean, could this be used as a legitimate example of unfairness maybe under clause 5? Surely but surely, as many people have already said, the banks cannot have it ALL ways?
Cheers all, CatXXX
Comment