Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Lloyds Collections Department


Brick Driver
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6434 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello all,

 

My account has been taken overdrawn by bank charges levied by Lloyds TSB. I have refused to pay these charges after calling Lloyds and asking for them to be refunded.

 

I was about to send the preliminary approach letter when I recieved a letter from their collections department. This letter basically tells me what I already know and asks for imediate payment. It also details that there will be an "initial charge of £25 follwed by charges of £17.50" whilst my account is with the collections department. I again contacted them and asked for a refund only to be told that they will not refund and that they will continue trying to reclaim these charges possibly by using a debt collection agency.

 

Can I ask where I stand on this matter? Do I send them the preliminary approachletter asking for the current charges to be refunded or wait for my next statement to see if any other charges have been levied?

 

Thanks in advance

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you know what bank penalty charges they have levied, send them a Preliminary Approach for Repayment immediately. You can adjust your figures accordingly (anytime before issuing your County Court claim) if you find that they have added some more charges. I don't know how you stand having told them verbally that you were not going to pay (it probably counts for nothing unless you can substantiate it), but you really need to lodge your dispute with them in writing so that all is clear and recorded - both to them and, should it come to it, a court. Don't be delayed by their actions, set your own timeframe for your claim and stick to it.

 

Once your dispute is lodged with them in writing, you can tell them that the balance is in dispute. This MAY discourage them from persisting with a default but I doubt it.

 

Bear in mind that not paying part or all of what they are asking for could result in a default. Based on what you have described, though unjust it will be a matter of considerable hassle to you to get it removed later (See thread titled 'Default Hell'). I know it sounds like a compromise to pay part or all of what they are demanding, but IF you can do this, it demonstrates that you have been reasonable even in the face of the nonsense of these unlawful charges, plus it will save you some trouble. IF you can stand the cost now, and IF you are willing to do so, the good will out and you will eventually get your money back.

 

I don't like this solution either, but if you can and will do it, it protects you from getting a default and gets you started on recovering what they have taken.

 

Incidentally, I understand Section 13.6 of the Banking Code says they will pass information on late payments to credit reference agencies...if the account is not in dispute. You may wish to check out the details. Clearly if your account is disputed, as signatories to the Banking Code they are duty bound not to pass late payment/default information to the credit reference agencies.

 

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Bean

Lloyds TSB - 27/11/06 - £6377 paidrest with FOS

 

SETTLED

Cap One - 6/10/06 - £875

Lloyds TSB (MC) - 20/10/06 (BY DEF) £372

Hitachi Cap - Nov. 06 - £207

Citi Cards - 28/12//06 - £220

Monument - 23/1/07 - £889

Barclaycard (Mrs. Bean) - 19/2/07 £376

Opinions / advice of Bean are independent, informal, without prejudice, without liability, not CAG endorsed. If in doubt, ask a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your speedy reply. I have ammended the preliminary approach letter to include these charges and I will forward it to them before I pay any of these charges. Hopefully the PA letter will show that I'm not going to let them have this money.

 

Thanks again

Matt

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're entirely welcome Brick Driver,

 

To attempt to stop these charges, you may wish to send the following letter [by our friend Spiceskull (Moderator)] to the bank:

 

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I find myself in the position that your actions require my intervention for the [HOWEVER MANY] time in the space of a few days. I am seriously reconsidering my view that [bANK] has the capacity to act as my fiduciary in a responsible and lawful manner, as implied by the terms and conditions between both parties.

[WHENEVER] I received a statement from [bANK], stating their intent to unlawfully apply penalty charges to my account on [DATE]. These charges are to the sum of £XX.

As you are aware, I have asked you to demonstrate to me that these punitive charges are fair and just, that they are lawful, and that they are being lawfully applied. You have failed to demonstrate this to date, and therefore it is implied by your refusal or inability to supply such demonstration, that these penalties are, indeed, unlawful.

Therefore, I would draw your attention to the following point: you have stated that these charges will be applied on [DATE]. If these charges ARE applied, then you will be required to explain why you have, in my view, committed a pre-meditated breach of the law, and I will be reporting such breach to all of the relevant authorities.

However, as this has not yet happened, I require that you take action forthwith, and cancel this transaction prior to its execution. Furthermore, I require confirmation, in writing, that this transaction will, indeed, be cancelled.

I shall be checking my account on [DATE], and if I see that the penalty charges have been unlawfully applied to my account, I shall lodge a claim at the county court to recover these charges, plus my costs and interest calculated at 8% APR, without hesitation. Furthermore, I shall require that you confirm whether these unlawful charges have resulted in a default notice against my record with credit reference agencies, and if so, I will seek appropriate action to have this notice removed.

In view of my first paragraph, and considering your apparent incompetence to act as my fiduciary in a lawful manner, I will start to consider a course of action whereby I may seek redress for all the inconvenience you have caused me."

Regards,

Bean

Lloyds TSB - 27/11/06 - £6377 paidrest with FOS

 

SETTLED

Cap One - 6/10/06 - £875

Lloyds TSB (MC) - 20/10/06 (BY DEF) £372

Hitachi Cap - Nov. 06 - £207

Citi Cards - 28/12//06 - £220

Monument - 23/1/07 - £889

Barclaycard (Mrs. Bean) - 19/2/07 £376

Opinions / advice of Bean are independent, informal, without prejudice, without liability, not CAG endorsed. If in doubt, ask a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have ammended the preliminary approach letter to include these charges and I will forward it to them before I pay any of these charges.

 

Be careful with your timing to protect yourself. Events may over-run you - they may press for a default before you get much further with your claim.

 

...Hopefully the PA letter will show that I'm not going to let them have this money...

 

Let's hope so...

Regards,

Bean

Lloyds TSB - 27/11/06 - £6377 paidrest with FOS

 

SETTLED

Cap One - 6/10/06 - £875

Lloyds TSB (MC) - 20/10/06 (BY DEF) £372

Hitachi Cap - Nov. 06 - £207

Citi Cards - 28/12//06 - £220

Monument - 23/1/07 - £889

Barclaycard (Mrs. Bean) - 19/2/07 £376

Opinions / advice of Bean are independent, informal, without prejudice, without liability, not CAG endorsed. If in doubt, ask a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Corking advice from Bean, BD, and I would second his suggestion that you read Default Hell, it's quite brilliant and inspirational.

 

The only thing I would add is that you may have already been defaulted. Have you applied for a credit report from any/all of the CRAs?

 

Elsinore

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your kind words Elsinore. I have read your informative and supportive posts with interest and to receive this compliment from you is very much appreciated.

 

...The only thing I would add is that you may have already been defaulted. Have you applied for a credit report from any/all of the CRAs?...

 

Excellent point, which reminds me that a credit report as well as showing defaults also shows other adverse points such as late payments and being over limit. Though I have no defaults, unlawful bank penalty charges have caused me to be late paying some credit card accounts (the timing is clear from statements). Several late credit card payments will make you an 'adverse' status credit risk, which significantly raises the cost of later credit.

 

This may not apply to you Brick Driver, but it will apply to many reading this. You may wish to consider these and any other consequences of bank penalty charges, and to cite them with your claim in order to seek recompense.

 

Note that going beyond standard recovery of bank/credit card charges is new ground, should be done very carefully, and needs to be capable of full substantiation. For example, see janeyb's thread.

  • Confused 1

Regards,

Bean

Lloyds TSB - 27/11/06 - £6377 paidrest with FOS

 

SETTLED

Cap One - 6/10/06 - £875

Lloyds TSB (MC) - 20/10/06 (BY DEF) £372

Hitachi Cap - Nov. 06 - £207

Citi Cards - 28/12//06 - £220

Monument - 23/1/07 - £889

Barclaycard (Mrs. Bean) - 19/2/07 £376

Opinions / advice of Bean are independent, informal, without prejudice, without liability, not CAG endorsed. If in doubt, ask a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...