Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

OFT slams high street banks over 'complex' current accounts: The Telegraph- 16/07/08


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5755 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

OFT slams high street banks over 'complex' current accounts - Telegraph

 

"The Office of Fair Trading has attacked Britain's high street banks for generating more than £8bn a year from current accounts that are too complex and fail to offer customers transparency

 

The OFT said that banks are raking in £8.3bn a year from complex current accounts which customers do not understand.

A significant number of customers do not know how much they actually pay in bank charges, either before or after they are incurred, it added. The total average unauthorised overdraft balance in 2006 was £680m, generating penalty fees of £1.5bn alone.

In its report today, Personal Current Accounts in the UK, the OFT said that current accounts 'are not working well' for consumers."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Office of Fair Trading threatens banks over current account charges - Times Online

 

"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) today threatened to report banks to the Competition Commission after finding that the current account market did not offer good value for customers.

Following an investigation by the competition watchdog into the £8.3 billion current account industry, John Fingleton, chief executive of the OFT, said that retail accounts were a "vital gateway to effective participation in the economy. "But this market is not serving customers well," he said. "There is much the banks could do to improve how the market works."

Banks make an estimated £152 per year per active account.

The OFT will spend the coming months working with banks and consumer groups to improve the industry but, if necessary, would consider imposing heavier regulation of current accounts or making a referral to the Competition Commission.

 

The OFT found that a significant number of bank customers did not know how much they paid in bank charges, even after they have incurred the charges. The investigation found that about 1.4 million people pay more than £500 a year in bank charges, hitting "vulnerable" low income earners. More than 75 per cent of people do not know the credit interest rate offered on their account.

Meanwhile, complexity of accounts made it extremely difficult to compare them, the OFT said. Just six per cent of customers surveyed by the watchdog switched their account in the past 12 months, making Britain's one of the lowest switching rates in Europe.

Banks are opaque about how they derive revenue from current accounts, with 81 per cent of their income coming from bank charges, worth about £2.6 billion a year. Current accounts generate more revenue for banks than savings and credit cards combined, the OFT said.

The damning findings come in the wake of the OFT's recent High Court win over the bank on the legality of unauthorised overdraft charges. Banks have appealed against the verdict and a second hearing on whether the charges are unfair and what a fair charge would be has been delayed until the appeal is heard."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky news article, same issue

 

Office Of Fair Trading Report Says Bank Current Accounts Not Working Well For Consumers | Business | Sky News

 

"An Office of Fair Trading report on personal accounts found that there was a lack of transparency in the way banks operated and that competition was not working in the market.

The study found that banks make £8.3bn from personal accounts - more than they reap from credit cards and savings accounts put together - but that 81% of this income is made "opaquely".

It revealed that £2.6bn came from overdraft charges while a further £4.1bn was "net credit interest income" - the profit made after banks have paid customers their interest.

The watchdog also found that more than three quarters of consumers did not know how much interest they should earn on their accounts.

It said this lack of understanding accounted for the low rate at which Britons switch banks.

Only 6% of consumers have changed banks in the last year - one of the lowest rates in Europe.

OFT chief executive John Fingleton said: "Personal current accounts are a vital gateway to effective participation in the economy.

"But this market is not serving consumers well."

He went on: "Customers lack the information they need to choose the best deal, and this in turn weakens the banks' incentives to compete.

"There is much the banks could do to improve how the market works, and we hope this report will encourage them to take steps to do so in the near future."

But the British Bankers' Association said the report did not take into account the cost of providing the services.

It said: "The OFT's market study contains many good points but some of its numbers are difficult to rationalise as they use assumptions and averages and, importantly, do not recognise the costs of providing the services.

"UK banks offer a wide range of products and services and are committed to providing their customers with high quality service and accounts to meet all their financial needs.

"The retail banking market is open and competitive."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax Bank - Owed £1599

23/3 - Data Protection Act sent

24/5 - Data Protection Act finally arrived

25/5 - Demand for repayment sent

04/10 Court bundle filed with court and Halifax

29/10 STAY ISSUED

JAN 08 - Currently being harrased by debt collectors!

Mar 08 - New DCA - Stopped in there tracks

Jun 08 - And another

Jul 08 - Complaint made to HBOS

Nov 08 - My accounts been sold to a DCA

Jan 09 - New complaint issued against HBOS

Mar 09 - Halifax re-aquired the debt

Apr 09 - Applying for Hardship.

 

at least they removed 2 defaults in selling accounts! :D

 

I dont not claim to know everything and any advice i give should be treated as MY opinion.

 

If ive been helpful tip the scales!

or better still

DONATE TO CAG - every tenner helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal current accounts in the UK - a market study

 

executive summary

 

Full text of the report can be found here, (Probably posted somewhere else on site and discussed further, but I havent found it yet :D:D

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes all in this thread

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the look of note 8 on page 4 of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

it reads: "during the course of this market study, the OFT has seen bank`s internal documents on the level of charges that include statements such as: `in order to maximise fee revenue, whilst maintaining our competitive position, selective increases in (insufficient fund s charges) are proposed`, and `increasing (insufficient funds) charges will have less impact on our marketing position..... due to its lower visibility`

makes me wonder, do they have these documents and will they be using them at the next test case hearing?

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello my friend Stone!! :) I hope you and your family are really well!:)

 

The documents will hopefully surface, there's cartainly lots that could help our case, but, will that happen? There is evidence in our favour, absolutely everywhere, it depends on what is called as evidence during the case.

 

Nice to catch up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello my friend Stone!! :) I hope you and your family are really well!:)

 

The documents will hopefully surface, there's cartainly lots that could help our case, but, will that happen? There is evidence in our favour, absolutely everywhere, it depends on what is called as evidence during the case.

 

Nice to catch up!

 

All keeping well Kenny, nice to catch up !!

stating to get busy at work again, but will make time to keep up with all friends here, like tilly, rough patch at the mo, and one or two others. help out where I am able or give directions when i am unable. ;)

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...