Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No you don't have to pay them.  it is their scam which the Courts know about. There was a classic case a few years ago that decided that £100 was not a penalty because that company had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear of cars that overstayed etc because they were there to maximise the availability of car park spaces. As Starbucks was closed in your case, Met have no legitimate interest so their £100 charge IS a penalty. Therefore the case would be thrown out. if they took you to Court and you turned up in Court to defend yourself. So no you shouldn't pay.
    • Thank you as always. Okay, will contact Tesco and will ignore the appeal, and will let you know what happens. You guys are superheroes.
    • A former Tesla engineer is in a decade-long battle with the car company, owned by Elon Musk.View the full article
    • what isn't working out....one very small issue, the rest is going perfectly fine. stop doing your usually running around waving arms and screaming on my god oh my god...sorry too used to you LMM even if you cant hold down a new bank account all is not lost .  ive not seen any reports that monzo refuse people  so go with them. pers as i said id NOT be using any switch service, as there are debts you want to stop paying and get them defaulted BEFORE you ever think of poss might could should pay them. its only a handful of stuff like rent/ctax/ etc that you need DD for ive not used DD's in almost 30yrs now nor use Standing orders, i do it by BACS each month priority bills first (can take roof from over my head if not paid) there REST all get paid if/when i've had the money. 2 well 3 things id dump too or get cheaper. cable/sat tv - ££6PCM . which i will is internet/tv/landline ? from whom that is very expensive. mine is £27PCM for 100MPS Broadband etc all in. 3 tv licence... who cant tell you are watching live tv even if you dont.... mobile phone £27? - go over to giffgaff no contract and as cheap as £6PCM even with mobile data (but use your home wf-fi when indoors!!) no need to keep using @Username, everyone that posted gets an alert like you do if someone posts. dx  
    • Critall windows date back to the 1880s but their steel construction makes them vulnerable to damp.View the full article
  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

Re-claiming Unauthorised Overdraft fees.


craigj
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6504 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

EDIT: Looks like I'm off to a bad start on the forum here - just noticed the individual bank forums below. Could a mod please move this to "The Nationwide Action Group".[/url]

 

Hi folks,

 

Just found this site today when I was looking for information on re-claiming charges that have been made to my current account. I have to say that from what I've seen, this in an excellent resource and very helpful forum for people who have been treated unfairly by large companies.

 

I'm a university student and like most students, my balance lives quite close to the red. However, although I frequently go over, it's never usually more than £10-£20 until my part-time wages come through.

 

I'm looking to re-claim these charges and I'm about to post the following letter:

[my name and address]

 

13 June 2006

 

Nationwide Building Society

Head Office

Nationwide House

Pipers Way

Swindon

Wiltshire

SN38 1NW

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Penalty & unfair charges – request for refund for [my name], [sort code], and [account number]

 

I am writing regarding unauthorised overdraft charges totaling £175 which have been made to my account on the following dates:

 

04 April 2005, 04 July 2005, 03 August 2005, 03 September 2005, 04 October 2005, 03 January 2006, 03 February 2006, 06 March 2006, 04 May 2006 and 03 June 2006.

 

0n 5 April 2006 the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) announced that default charges which are set at more than £12 will be presumed to be unfair and unenforceable in terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI. 1999/2083). Charges above this sum will be subject to legal action by the OFT (press release 68/06 - online here: http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2006/68-06.htm).

 

I would respectfully submit that if your organisation does not agree to immediately refund all unfair charges applied to my account, it will not meet the ‘fit and proper person’ test to hold a consumer credit licence under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In that eventuality, I will submit a 1974 Act complaint to the OFT.

 

On a separate note, I am of the view that your charges represent a penalty and are therefore irrecoverable at common law. In the Scottish case of Castaneda and Others v. Clydebank Engineering and Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (1904) 12 SLT 498 the House of Lords held that a contractual party can only recover damages for actual or liquidated losses incurred from a breach of contract. This is also the position in English law: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79.

 

Your charges do not reflect any actual loss; instead they appear to represent a lucrative profit-making scheme. UK banks have recently given evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on how bank charges are calculated: "The costs are going to pay for all the people we have who pursue debt, collect debt, speak to customers and chase payments. The way these charges are arrived at is by taking these total costs and making some assumptions about the volume that is going to come through to arrive at the individual charges" (2nd report, 25 January 2005, paragraph 50 - online here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtreasy/274/27405.htm).

 

Accordingly, the charges applied to my account are not a reasonable pre-estimate of the bank’s loss in relation to my account. Your charges would appear to represent a device to recover global losses (for example, loan defaulters, bad debt write off, including commercial lending in, and outwith, the UK).

 

Please refund these charges to my account within the next 7 days. I reserve the right to commence court proceedings without any further notice, and to seek an additional award for distress and inconvenience, together with legal expenses.

 

Yours Faithfully,

 

[my name]

You all will have more experience than me doing this, so I was wondering what you think of the letter (I found the template on a local MPs website) and if there's anything I could add to make it more likely to win me a refund.

 

 

Cheers,

Craig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving thread to the bank charges side, you're in consumer issues. Better chance of an appropriate response there! lol

 

Cheers Bookworm.

 

I'm curious as to whether or not most people complaining to the Nationwide have used this letter (Preliminary approach for repayment.) and how successful it has been. I may ditch my letter for that one if it has a proven success rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,I have sent the prelim letter that you highlighted from this site, I had a standard reply saying no refund,I have now sent my moneyclaim.

As to which is better,either I would have said.I have seen your letter on govan law centre site,they seem to have had good responses.

good luck, jools

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello everyone :)

Joined this site today, what fantastic reading! Cant wait to get started on the letter writing, but like a good girl I'm doing my homework in the forum first. Wish me luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...