Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Financial Ombudsman Service ** Complete Waste of Time & Effort !!!! **


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5023 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 have been fighting several credit card cases and personal financial issues since the closure of my business in January 2009, I have had a severe issue with one case in particular; Barclaycard.

 

I reported them to the Financial Ombudsman service several months ago for not supplying me with a valid Consumer Credit Agreement and also for harrasment by telephone.

 

The case has now gone to an Ombudsman after I requested that it be escalated as I did not agree with the adjudicator in the case telling me that he did not agree with my arguments and felt that Barclaycard were well within there rights to phone me continually "in order to establish a way forward to repaying the debt"

 

Here is an extract from todays letter received;

 

"We beleive that it is more appropriate for a court to decide wether a debt is ultimately legally enforceable. Also that we conclude cases based on what we consider to be fair and reasonable. As the funds were borrowed and used we would deem it fair and reasonable that these should be repaid"

 

What is the role of the Financial Ombudsman if this is there stand point??

Should I have gone directly to the Information Commisioners office or am I just going to be banging my head against a brick wall with them as well.

 

Disapointed & Angry is the only words I can find at this present time. I live in hope that the Ombudsman sees it differently to the Adjudicator that has checked over the case so far.

 

Financial Ombudsman Service - Financed & Run by the financial sector for the financial sector !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry if you had the money

i think thats a very fair comment.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS is funded by the various financial companies. They get £500 for looking at each case, I fairly sure that fee goes up depending on the circumstances. I'm fairly sure they back the paymaster more often then not. I' don't have too much faith in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whats the amount in dispute ?

ie alleged to be owing - and has there been charges levied and if so how much ?

Have you got a thread running already for this ?

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

matters not, if you had the money. you should pay it not wriggle out of it.

 

so ans the question, did you have the money?

 

dx

Edited by dx100uk
,

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The account is Illegal and Unenforcable by law as there is no CCA present

 

Barclaycard are forcing the Court idea because they KNOW that many judges have ruled in their favour after asking if the customer had spent the money.

 

 

No CCA does not mean its illegal or unlawful-it means that recovery action cannot legally be enforced without a Court order....but there are many instances where CC issuers are confident of going down that route now.

 

So can you answer Dx ?

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

DX

 

In many cases the debt has been paid back because the customer has been paying for many, many years, so the card companies are on thier

umptean profit, infact there gorging on it. You don't know the facts don't

go around judging folk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always found this site and it's members to be very helpful and resourceful and for the ones that are trying to help I thank you once again.

 

This situation regarding this credit card is very complex. I lost my business due to the so called "credit crunch" and the financial institutions all around us falling flat on there faces and leaving us i.e. in this case "ME" deep in the proverbial!!

 

I am in the midst of possibly losing my house through the Bank as it was secured against my business through a 2nd charge; but hey feel free to sit back and fling mud from the comfort of your armchair when you don't know the circumstances surrounding each individual case.

 

As far as I am concerned Barclaycard are breaking the law and as they do not have a true copy of the CCA then they cannot enforce the agreement. I am sure if the shoe was on the other foot then Barclaycard and the rest of the financial instituitions like them would use the law to there advantage to swqueeze every last penny out of us!

 

My purpose in this instance was to merely point out the fact that I have wasted approx 6 months of fighting this case throught the F.O.S. who have been a complete waste of time. I am not some ned who has made a schoolboy error I am a business man with a family who has watched everything come crumbling down around him with little or no support from any of the blood sucking financial institutions who were happy to stand by you when the times were good and now it's all turned to sh1t they run for the hills!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello tigercub!

 

I know the feeling.

 

Agree FOS are a complete waste of space.

 

Sorry to see you receive some rather unhelpful commments on this Thread. I'd just ignore them and move on. If you have a Thread for the Barclaycard issue, maybe Post a link, because I am sure people will be only too happy to help you stand up against these feckers.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

in all honesty, what do you expect the fos to do? become a courtroom judge?

 

if you had not had the money then fair dues the system is screwing you over and they should have sided with you, but going by the decision you must have had it, so they were never going to rule in your favour- they can't

 

its always worth asking/answering a few more questions before you waste your time & the FOS's.

 

there are numerous threads in the BC forum on this, p'haps a study of those will help.

 

as for judging or being unhelpful, sorry but sometimes someone has to smell the coffee and be blunt instead of pussy futting around with users & ask questions, like do/did you owe this money, because it was silly to recommend going to the FOS if they did. - unhelpful there were we guys?

 

we are all in trouble, likewise i have a business that could sink or swim this season because of nasty banks ripping me off in the past, i'd rather get useful help rather than running up a mudslope.

 

the experts here p'haps need to examine these charging orders you have, maybe it can be dealt with that way.

 

dx [the judge:)]

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/230986-financial-ombudsman-conclusion-cca.html

 

relates.

 

Sadly it appears too much faith has been put towards these magic bullet promises of getting debts written off by claiming a CCA is unenforceable. Be it from reading threads on the various reclaim sites or seeing TV adverts, but you have fallen victim to this belief, and not only in this one thread.

 

i wish you well in your exploits and i really do hope CAG and it's members can assist you in more positive methods toward favourable outcomes in all your troubles.

 

here to help

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I know we are all up to our eyes fighting debt problems but I would urge anyone who is unhappy with the FOS to complain to their MP. Mine is getting involved and asked for copies of all FOS correspondence (I have several complaints with them at various stages). I do not think the FOS is fit for purpose - it is not independent enough. How can customers' claims be rules against so often when we know how unfairly the banks have behaved in mis-selling product by incentivising their staff and charging disproportionate fees. If the FOS was truly independent and after such a catastropic collapse in the financial world, the majority of complaints would be in the customers' favour. Believe me you don't go to the FOS lightly. The amount of paperwork, time and energy the complaints take is huge. When they do rule in your favour, they offer some paltry sum of compensation eg £50 for months and months of unecessary stress and paperwork. This kind of award is then included in the figures in favour of the consumer when it goes nowhere near giving due compensation for the financial loss or time spent dealing with the problem. It is absolutely disgraceful and the FOS needs to be radically changed to have a much more "fair for the consumer" slant. The Banking and now Lending Codes need to be made compulsory and fleshed out in much more detail and policed properly by the FOS with FSA and OFT scrutiny. SJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent foslink3.gif some private papers and they returned them to someone else! They phoned me to let me know. Said the papers were being returned...but this huge and amateur bungle has opened us to ID theft , breaches all kinds of rules and regulations, confidentiality and data protection. They wrote to us today and said it was 'human error' but offered no solutions...unbeleivable. I thought they were supposed to 'defend 'us . From what I've read above, I don't know why we bothered . Will pursue this never-the-less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent foslink3.gif some private papers and they returned them to someone else! They phoned me to let me know. Said the papers were being returned...but this huge and amateur bungle has opened us to ID theft , breaches all kinds of rules and regulations, confidentiality and data protection. They wrote to us today and said it was 'human error' but offered no solutions...unbeleivable. I thought they were supposed to 'defend 'us . From what I've read above, I don't know why we bothered . Will pursue this never-the-less.

 

Have you reported it to the ico? https://www.ico.gov.uk/Global/contact_us.aspx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks very much for that, but yes, we have. They are contacting the fos. Also taking legal advice ands will be informing our bank in writing, so that this whole thing is 'date stamped'

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi there,

 

Well it shows persistance pays with the FOS. They have sent a cheque to cover a security ID theft package from Lloyds Bank for 18 months.(They sent all our bamk details to another customer by mistake) Not a stunning result , but a lot better than nothing which is what I expected.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it would. The ICO have had this case for some time. They have sent a reply saying that they are investigating... but that was some time ago...I'll chase them up and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...