Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i dont think the reason why the defendant lost the case means anything at all in that case. it was a classic judge lottery example.
    • Hello, I will try to outline everything clearly. I am a British citizen and I live in Luxembourg (I think this may be relevant for potential claims). I hired a car from Heathrow in March for a 3-day visit to family in the UK. I was "upgraded" to an EV (Polestar 2). I had a 250-mile journey to my family's address. Upon attempting to charge the vehicle, there was a red error message on the dashboard, saying "Charging error". I attempted to charge at roughly 10 different locations and got the same error message. Sometimes there was also an error message on the charging station screen. The Hertz 0800 assistance/breakdown number provided on the set of keys did not work with non-UK mobiles. I googled and found a bunch of other numbers, none of which were normal geographical ones, and none of which worked from my Luxembourg mobile. It was getting late and I was very short on charge. Also, there was no USB socket in the car, so my phone ran out of battery, so I was unable to look for further help online. It became clear that I would not reach my destination (rural Devon), so I had no choice but to find a roadside hotel in Exeter and then go to the nearest Hertz branch the following day on my remaining 10 miles of charge. Of course, as soon as the Hertz employee in Exeter plugged it into their own charger, the charging worked immediately. I have driven EVs before, I know how to charge them, and it definitely did not work at about 10 different chargers between London and Exeter. I took photos on each occasion. Luckily they had another vehicle available and transferred me onto it. It was an identical Polestar 2 to the original car. 2 minutes down the road, to test it, I went to a charger and it worked immediately. I also charged with zero issues at 2 other chargers before returning the vehicle. I think this shows that it was a charging fault with the first car and not my inability to do it properly. I wrote to Hertz, sending the hotel, dinner, breakfast and hotel parking receipt and asking for a refund of these expenses caused by the charging failure in the original car. They replied saying they "could not issue a refund" and they issued me with a voucher for 50 US dollars to use within the next year. Obviously I have no real proof that the charging didn't work. My guess is they will say that the photos don't prove that I was charging correctly, just that it shows an error message and a picture of a charger plugged into a car, without being able to see the detail. Could you advise whether I have a case to go further? I am not after a refund or compensation, I just want my £200 back that I had to spend on expenses. I think I have two possibilities (or maybe one - see below). It looks like the UK is still part of the European Consumer Centre scheme:  File a complaint with ECC Luxembourg | ECC-Net digital forms ECCWEBFORMS.EU   Would this be a good point to start from? Alternatively, the gov.uk money claims service. But the big caveat is you need a "postal address in the UK". In practice, do I have to have my primary residence in the UK, or can I use e.g. a family member's address, presumably just as an address for service, where they can forward me any relevant mail? Do they check that the claimant genuinely lives in the UK? "Postal address" is not the same as "Residence" - anyone can get a postal address in the UK without living there. But I don't want to cheat the system or have a claim denied because of it. TIA for any help!  
    • Sars request sent on 16th March and also sent a complaint separately to Studio. Have received no response. Both letters were received and signed for.  I was also told by the financial ombudsman that studio were investigating but I've also had no response to that either.  The only thing Studio have sent me is a default notice.  Any ideas of what I can do from here please 
    • Thanks Bank - I shall tweak my draft and repost. And here's today's ridiculous email from the P2G 'Claims Dept' Good Morning,  Thank you for you email. Unfortunately we would be unable to pay the amount advised in your previous email.  When you placed the order, you were asked for the value of your parcel, you stated that the value was £265.00. At this stage the booking advised that you were covered to £20.00 and to enhance this to £260.00 you could pay an extra £13.99 + VAT to fully cover your item for loss or damage during transit, you declined to fully cover your item.  Towards the end of your booking on the confirmation page, you were then offered to take cover again, to which you declined again.  Unfortunately, we would be unable to offer you an enhanced payment on this occasion.  If I can assist further, please do let me know.  Kindest Regards Claims Team and my response Good Afternoon  Do you not understand the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘cover’ or ‘protection’ (or whatever you wish to call it) on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to pay up in full for both cases, which by then also included court costs and interest. I shall be including copies of both those judgements in the bundle I submit to the court next Wednesday 1 May, unless you settle my claim (£274.10) in full before then. Tick tock…..    
    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
  • 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

Money taken out of account without consent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3858 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

I logged onto my online banking on 15/8/07 to find that I had a debit charge that I did not immediately recognise from my account. I telephoned Halifax immediately to enquire what the charge was about and was told it was in relation to motor insurance. I told them that I had not authorised the transation and my card was stoped and reissued.

 

I was told that this was a fraudulent transaction that it would be passed to the Fraud department and someone would contact me. On 23/8/07 I was contacted by an official from the Fraud dept who initially told me that I had to chase for the return of money myself giving the reason that I had dealth with them previously.

 

I told them that I felt I should not have to chase for a transaction I had not authorised or agreed to and that the bank acknowledges is fraudulent. I was told that forms would be sent to me for completion and once these were returned the Fraud department would determine whether it should be referred to the police for further investigation or whether I would get my money reimbursed.

 

I have determined that the transaction was an automatic renewal for my son's car which I had paid for a year ago and he has since gone elsewhere.

 

In the meantime Halifax have increased my overdraft limit so that I can continue using my account; of course the overdraft is incurring interest charges which I am not happy about.

 

Should I chase the insurance company myself? Or should Halifax chase them on my behalf and reclaim chargeback? Who should be responsible for overdraft fees?

 

What is the best course of action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you tried contacting the motor insurance company? Im assuming the payment is classed as a one off Direct Debit payment, you can go into your local Halifax branch and fill out an Indemity form, Halifax will then credit the amount back into your account and then request the money back from whoever the motor company was.....simple as, it happened to me last month and thats all i did took minutes!

Nationwide Won - £2000 :D

Barclay Card - Hearing Date 14/08/07 :???:

Capital One - N1 Filed ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first speak to your son and find out if he has confirmation that he has cancelled the insurance policy, and that he has it in writing.

 

Its all to common nowadays for the renewals to renew automatically unless told otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've discovered one of the many 'gotchas' with online ordering. The firms concerned will retain the card details and use them to re provide services EVEN IF YOU GAVE NO PERMISSION TO DO SO. The banks do not care, and will do (as they did in your case) state you voluntarily gave them your card details so any culpability rests between you and them. I'm in the middle of a similar case where Norwich Union were able to help themselves again despite my arranging cover elsewhere. It seems that Visa pay no attention to expiry dates (my replacement card had the same number but a different expiry and CVV code. Since neither of these two details were known to NU, they still managed to take the funds as the card number was unchanged.

 

I hold a recording of my voice call arranging the cover with NU and it was quite clearly stated the number I gave was for use only for that transaction - yet they still tried to assert I had given permission, because they wrote to me and said they would!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first speak to your son and find out if he has confirmation that he has cancelled the insurance policy, and that he has it in writing.

 

Its all to common nowadays for the renewals to renew automatically unless told otherwise.

 

The policy was cancelled as he returned the renewal certificate that was provided and requested cancellation.

 

It is not a DD but a Debit Card payment from my Visa Debit. I just find it illogical that VISA regulations differ from bank to bank.

 

He had a similar problem recently with his card from Lloyds who merely charged back the amount, but Halifax seem to not want to care.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The VISA regulations don;t differ - it's VISA's ball and they do with as they please. You bank simply honoured a debit request from Visa, fully trusting they had the relevant authority. It is when you challenge this, you get the Banks refusing to assist or reverse without you leaping through hoops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The VISA regulations don;t differ - it's VISA's ball and they do with as they please. You bank simply honoured a debit request from Visa, fully trusting they had the relevant authority. It is when you challenge this, you get the Banks refusing to assist or reverse without you leaping through hoops.

 

Buzby: isn't the whole point of us using banks and visa cards because of their pledge that our money will be protected against just such fraud. I believe that this protection has gone out the window with internet transactions. It is worrying that these big firms can hold our details and use them electronically without a by your leave to gain illegal payments. Until the law is altered to prevent this happening, we poor buggers can chase for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, insurers will generally cancel a policy, back dated to its inception, if it was automatically renewed, providing you can show that the car was continuously insured - so providing you can show the certificate from the new insurer, starting on the same day that the original policy should have lapsed, you shouldn't have a problem getting your money back.

 

In fairness to the bank, it isn't their fault, and the same guarantee (immediate refund) doesn't apply to card payments as it does to Direct Debits.

 

The insurance company will claim they were 'right' to take the payment, but hopefully will refund without any issues - particularly if the certificate has been returned and the car can be demonstrated to be insured continuously elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, insurers will generally cancel a policy, back dated to its inception, if it was automatically renewed, providing you can show that the car was continuously insured

 

The issue here is not that there is an obligation of the OP to show the insurance was not required (as an alternative arrangement had been made), but that a card number provided 12 months earlier, had been retained and used without permission.

 

Little wonder firms like Esure do not allow policy payments to be made in cash or by cheque, for the simple reason they cannot take control of the insured's finances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry buzby, but I think the title of this thread is rather misleading, and it is yet unproven that permission WASN'T given.

 

When you take out motor insurance, it is STANDARD PRACTICE for your insurer to contact you, between 2 and 4 weeks (I guess) prior to the end of the policy, with an updated quotation for renewal.

 

If you paid with a card the first time around, or if you are paying with a continuous payment method (eg DD), they will tell you that, unless you choose to cancel, they will take payment once again, and provide continuous cover.

 

I appreciate that things have changed since a few years ago, when you always knew you were buying car insurance for 12 months, and had no recurring contract with the insurer - but I'd be surprised if this wasn't mentioned during the payment / sign-up procedure, as I'm sure it was with mine - something along the lines of "When it is time to renew, we'll send a renewal quotation, and will take payment using the details we hold on file, unless you chose to decline the renewal."

 

For people who want to stick with the same insurer, year on year, this is a nice and easy way of doing things - better for some people to be doubly insured (cos they forget to cancel) than have people driving around uninsured (because they forgot to renew).

 

The OP's son doubtless received a renewal quotation, and I'd be surprised if it didn't mention taking payment once again, using his father's details. My recent renewal even identified my credit card number (last 4 digits), in bold print, so it was very clear what would happen.

 

I simply sent the certificate back in the provided envelope, and they didn't bill me for this year.

 

I agree that times are changing, and more companies retain your financial details in order to charge you for the same service again the following year, but it doesn't have to be 'sinister' and permission / consent to do so was almost certainly granted.

 

As I said, it shouldn't be hard t get the money back - but if there's an argument to be had, it should be with the insurer, not the bank.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It just goes to show how our finances have been totally undermined. As the customer, I take out (and pay) for a service using a card. I make no specific arrangements to permit the firm to take subsequent payments yet they can do this on a whim, and I have to battle for my money back. I could have dropped dead and not required insurance, their ability to take funds because they can is an abomination. The fact banks are simply processing the debit requests does not excuse them from a responsibility of ensuring the customer actually WANTED to pay the debit as taken. The mere fact the insurance company was given the number of the card in the first place does not signify any agreement for further debits to be taken, and I wish there could be some protection built in to the system to prevent abuse like this.

 

A system I used previously that issued 'virtual' CC numbers that expired after one usage was used by Cahoot and AIB, and worked extremely well - so much so, the company promoting the scheme had a hard time from firms who objected to their right to continuously bill were being infringed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

I have just had the same with my car insurance (Admiral). I bought another car about 2 months or so prior to my insurance expiring and paid the transfer / admin fee of about £20 or there abouts. Their renewal was several hundred more than quotes I received prior to buying the car so when paying this transfer fee I specifically stated not to auto renew my insurance. The man said he noted this down on the system. (Their quotes for the new car being around £700 a year, normally paying around £300)

 

I always paid annually.

 

My renewal was mid-September and received an email that my funds did not go through (luckily it was an old card I used for the admin fee) and emailed them of my previous conversation that I did not want to auto renew. I then received my "confirmation of motor insurance", charging some £1000 more than swift insurance. (£1300)

 

Their renewal is set up now as monthly payments so unsure how that can auto renew and change from annual to monthly, so this is another concern.

 

I have just had another email saying that if I do not pay within 7 days I have committed an offence under the road traffic act and “DEFAULT NOTICE SERVED UNDER SECTION 87 (1) OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974”

Basically Admiral have ignored both telephone calls and emails and threatening with court action should I not pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adie, I have responded on your thread :)

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...