Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

I asked Nationwide to cancel a dd; they said there was no record of it, and then paid out


hollywoodhenderson
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5256 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

A week ago, walked into a branch of N'wide to cancel this direct debit I vaguely remember setting up in September with a college; at the enquiry desk they could not find a trace of it. Similarly it wasn't listed in internet banking.Today it was paid out; £313. I telephoned; they said it was a temporary direct debit, whatever that is, and was irreversible.

How could the d.d. have been paid out if it wasn't on the system, and is the branch likely to reinburse the amount as a goodwill gesture, even though I can't prove I walked in there and spoke to the enquiry desk receptionist?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A week ago, walked into a branch of N'wide to cancel this direct debit I vaguely remember setting up in September with a college; at the enquiry desk they could not find a trace of it. Similarly it wasn't listed in internet banking.Today it was paid out; £313. I telephoned; they said it was a temporary direct debit, whatever that is, and was irreversible.

How could the d.d. have been paid out if it wasn't on the system, and is the branch likely to reinburse the amount as a goodwill gesture, even though I can't prove I walked in there and spoke to the enquiry desk receptionist?

 

Then under the Direct Debit Guarantee Scheme they can repay it and the college can then take it up with you since you have tried to cancel it and they have given you the spiel of some temporary DD.....that is rubbish btw.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct debits are an agreement between you and the receiving organisation; your bank/building society are the 'middle man', paying automatically to the receiving organisation on demand. When you want to cancel, you must first speak to the receiving company to prevent them requesting payment from your bank/building society. That said, direct debits can be cancelled on the Nationwide system but only AFTER the first payment has been collected because the direct debit details do not appear on the Nationwide computer system until that payment has been demanded.

With standing orders, you have more control as the arrangement is between you and your bank/building society and therefore you can cancel or amend much more easily!

This explains why utilities et. prefer direct debit payments rather than standing orders!

Hope this helps a bit but sorry, you will have to go back to the receiving organisation to obtain a refund if your contract with that organisation was no longer required and you had notified them of such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"that said, direct debits can be cancelled on the Nationwide system but only AFTER the first payment has been collected because the direct debit details do not appear on the Nationwide computer system until that payment has been demanded."

 

That is true but that is not what the direct debit guarantee says. It says you can cancel the direct debit at anytime. I believe this is a major flaw in the system and there is no consistancy.

 

Case in point I recently changed my energy supplier and I could see the new direct debit mandate sitting on my account before the first payment was taken. Yet I have had instances where it did not show up prior to the first payment being taken and recall many customer being in a similar situation.

 

Surely it should be one or the other not just random?

 

Also assuming the payment was not required there is no need to go back to the company which took the direct debit. If an error has been a direct debit indemnity claim will sort it out. The advice to get a refund from the originator is often given but is incorrect.

 

In my experience many bank staff are unfamiliar with the DD guarantee and what it means so it might be an idea to obtain a copy. The usualy process for an indemnity claim is that the bank will credit the funds back to your account (timescales vary, which is in itself a scandel but not relevent here) and claw back the funds from the originator behind the scenes.

 

I genuinly don't know what happens if the originator insists the payment was due and they had a valid mandate. I believe you could raise an indemnity claim on any direct debit payment and the onus would be on the company to show that it was legitimate.

 

Ps I too agree that talk of a temporary DD is BS. Two ex-bankers can't be wrong. Although that phrase does sound distinctly dodgy. I'm going to be quite now.

Edited by indebtstudent
Added a PS

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...