Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Participants can get £50 - but must permanently consent to the retailer using their personal data.View the full article
    • Documents arrived today dated 27th March.  This is a cc taken out a long time ago (2008) and they don't seem to have been able to provide a copy of a CCA agreement, just reams of print outs of lines of texts from old bank statements, default notices etc.   
    • Documents finally arrived today from PRA group.  New day have sent me lots of paperwork, copies of default letters and statements, print out of what looks like a CCA that would have been completed on online, IP address as signature.  This debt is not too old, so possible this is the true copy of agreement ?  Not sure what my defence would be beyond irresponsible lending. 
    • pers i wouldn't.. all you need to know is in the posts of that thread....that being section 127(3) of the CCA refers. if under a CCA return, the 'creditor' claims its a recon, it must not contain any details like a sig, tickbox, or typed name (whether you signed physically or by online tickbox) 1. those are not necessary in a recon, so why inc them? (faked??) 2, it cant thus be a recon!!, it must be a copy of the 'original' from the original creditor, not from a debt buyers filing cabinet. they shouldn't not be 'mixing' some original docs from the OC with crap from their filing cabinet, claiming its ALL a recon! because some of it is faked. just remember there are far more docs like NOA and a DN that are as equally important to a court claim of 'this debt is enforceable'. never rely solely upon the dodgy agreement argument.
  • 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

RBS Bank Charge Claim, continuing to bitter end


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5089 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

Hi All,

 

I have average experience with this whole process, having 3 successful claims back when it was much easier (£1500 from Lloyds - settled during court proceedings, £520 first RBS claim - settled before court proceedigs, £196 from Halifax - settled during court proceedings). However, the golden days are over and the fight really is on now.

 

Here's a brief summary of where I'm at with the sole remaining claim I have with RBS:

- Initial letter before action sent May 2009, complaint was put on hold pending test case outcome (I was happy to sit tight)

- Test case outcome wasn't good

- Heard no reply so sent an amended letter before action attempting some of the new legal arguments (don't really have a case to claim hardship, so legal is all I have really)

- Received a detailed rejection letter from RBS today dealing with each point in my amended letter and giving a fairly lengthy explanation as to why I'm legally wrong. Ends with "You may consider this to be the Bank's final response"

 

So I realise that really my next step is small claims court. But this is uncharted territory. So for the first time I have made a post seeking some guidance as I am not a solicitor and my legal knowledge is limited.

 

I have my particulars of claim template all ready to go, but want to know how strong it is. Also, would people be interested for me to show my amended letter and then RBS's response to this arguing each point I tried to make? Seems they put a little bit of time into their letter of rejection.

 

Thanks guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Me

123 Address Road,

Address

AB12 3CD

 

 

RBS HEAD OFFICE

36 St Andrew Square,

Edinburgh,

EH2 2YB

 

14th March 2010

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Account number: 12345678 Sort-Code: 16-00-00

 

I have previously contacted you on 14th May 2009 with regards to a claim for bank charges that you have placed on hold until the OFT test case has completed.

 

I feel that in issuing these charges you have broken the FSA’s regulatory principle to ‘pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly’ and I am writing to request that you reopen my complaint taking into consideration the following new grounds:

 

 

The charges are unfair under s.140A(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and contrary to the requirement of good faith, having caused a significant imbalance in our relationship and a detriment to myself, and under regulation 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, in the following respects (save for, in the case of the latter, those matters which relate to the level of the charge as against the service supplied in exchange):

 

(1) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive and punitive in comparison with the costs to the bank caused by my conduct which triggered the charges.

 

(2) The charges were set by reference to the overall cost to the bank of providing current accounts to all of its customers which held such an account, rather than merely to the cost of my conduct thereby effectively requiring me to subsidise the provision of current accounts by the bank to other customers.

 

(3) In the premises the bank did not deal fairly as between myself and its other customers.

 

(4) The existence and quantum of the charges were inadequately and/or insufficiently explained and/or drawn to my attention either; when my account was first opened; when I gave an instruction which would result in the levying of a charge; or otherwise before any particular charge was applied.

 

(5) The circumstances and manner in which the charges were levied created potential for the application of multiple charges and the levying of charges to give rise to the application of further charges.

 

(6) The complexity of the charges and/or the circumstances in which they were levied.

 

(7) The nature of the charges and/or the circumstances of their application was such as to cause me inherent difficulties in predicting the incidence and amount of such charges in advance.

 

(8) The absence of any effective competition between providers of current accounts which restricted my ability to choose a current account operated on terms which did not provide for charges such as (and/or equivalent to) those levied by your bank.

 

(9) The charges were (or had the potential to be) excessive in comparison with the level of borrowing which triggered the levying of the said charges.

 

In particular, and without prejudice, the burden of proof for the above rests on RBS to prove that the circumstances of our relationship are fair (pursuant to s.140B(9) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974), so unless you can provide evidence to the contrary I expect a refund of the full amount requested by return.

 

I now ask that you repay the amount I have previously requested of £xxxx which did not include the interest a court would award.

 

In addition I would like to add a further £xxx of charges received since the date of my original complaint making a total of £xxxx. I have attached a full schedule of all the charges with this document.

 

I look forward to a full response to this letter within 14 days and if I do not receive a satisfactory response I intend to pursue my complaint to the small claims court at the earliest opportunity.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

 

 

Mr Me

 

 

 

above is my letter, now just allow me to type out their reply!

Edited by vinnynorman
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...