Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Rbphot V CitiCards


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6396 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

Well the process has started, received my statements I requested under DPA, right at the last few days before the deadline.

 

Sent off the prelim letter yesterday with the request for refund, most of the charges I had on my account were due to their PPI not paying out when I got made redundant they piled on the charges and even when they finally sorted the PPI out they wouldn't refund interest and charges, the account was settled in 2004, but due to their mismanagement they profited at the time from my circumstances.

 

To be sure I was glad to see the back of this company, but now the law is with the consumer, I'm taking back what is rightfully mine.

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rbphot,

Just wanted wish you the best of luck. Watch out for Brian Smith who is a condescending, patronising arse!

Hondamad :D

Check out my claim against citi, click here

__________________

EGG CC Default Removal: Have reported Egg to Trading Standards, Summery Claim - 2nd Hearing Date 09/10/07. Click here to read posts

Monument CC: received statements, now need to send letters. . . !

BoS Current Account: Settled

Citi Cards: Hhmm seems like I have sued the wrong “entity”. Aaaaahhhhh . . .. oh well back to court I go, and they have settled in full!!!

 

:-D:p:D

This is just advice from me. If you are not sure please seek legal advice. However if what I have said has been helpful, than please add to my reputation by clicking on the scales :D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thanks for the warning, I've noticed from some of the other posts he's got a bit of attitude, I'm looking forward to his responses.

 

I've been dealing with someone allready about the default the put against me as the broke the agreement when I settled the account not to apply a default as the problem was caused their mis managment of the PPI and account.

 

Has anyone thought of throwing in there face why the charges in other EEC countries is minimal( I believe this is the case, just posted question in the general forum) and they still believe £12 is not profit making!

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my instincts seem to be right about CitiCards, I've been looking into their charges in other EU countries as ammo for my claim against them.

 

Have a look at my tread in the general forum

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html

 

You'll all be sick when just how much they rip us off in the UK, ONLY BECAUSE PEOPLE LET THEM!

 

Well I hope this information kicks them where it hurts, I would like to see them defend there charges and that of many of the banks on something like Watchdog.

 

Oh Mr Brian Smith if your reading this, can not wait for your attempt to reply to this!:D

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well as expected, recieved the standard sod off letter from CitiCards in reply to my first request for refund!

 

I'm in the process of writing up my reply, and while doing some investigation in to CitiBanks practices in other EU countrys, it seems that they can not charge the penaltys they do here in the UK in other EU member states, I'm currently trying to find out more as they may be in breach of fair contracts laws across member states.

 

Taken from their Germany Charges PDF

 

Replacement of Card due to damage or Loss by customer = 10,-EUR

 

Fast Card - Replacent card within 24 hr = 50,– EUR

 

(48 hr outside Germany)

 

Request for a new personal (PIN) = 1 5,– EUR

 

Additional manual monthly account statement on customer's request = 5,50 EUR

 

Cost for Customer at fault going overlimit = 4,– EUR

 

Request of reciepts of transactions(is void with justified complaints) = 5,50 EUR pro sheet

 

Costs of action for Payments in arrears

1. Service letter = 3,– EUR

2. Service letter = 3,– EUR

3. Service letter = 3,– EUR

plus postage = 0,90 EUR

 

Non payment/Late payment of Monthly Invoice amount = 10,- EUR

 

As you can see the charges that they apply to other member countrys is tiny compared to what they have been charging us for a long time, (I' have also checked their Belgium/spanish site and the charges are very similar).

 

Hay anyone else looked in to the legalities of this within the EU?

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they just seem to be automatically sending out replies now, sent the LBA on the 4th Sept and today 7th Sept recieved saying they have looked into my query, in other words here's a fob off letter, Blah, Blah Blah.

 

I guess better get the moneyclaim started as this is all the time they are getting to resolve this.

 

Do I use the same argument that is in the templete as my case, what did other put in there claim against this bunch of idiots.

 

I think I'll be dealing with Mr brian Smith soon.....:-|

 

Thanks

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I just thought I would give CitiCards a ring to confirm that this latest letter was there final response in this matter!

 

It went something like this...

 

Me

" Received your letter refering me to OFT/FSA/Complaints procedure, is this your final response?"

 

Citi

"We are currently looking into this for you"

 

Me

"So are you going to refund my charges that I am claiming as my last letter was my LBA, I am about to put a claim before the courts"

 

Citi

"We are currently calculating what we will be refunding, it will be the difference above £12 OFT recommended, but as we are dealing with about 30 case, and as we clear some, more come in, so we will need some time"

 

Me

" So I will be hearing from you again within the 14 days stated in the LBA"

 

Citi

" we will certainly try to meet the deadline and get this sorted for you as soon as possible"

 

Has anyone got there partial refund and managed to get the rest from the after submiting a moneyclaim yet!

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I just thought I would give CitiCards a ring to confirm that this latest letter was there final response in this matter!

 

It went something like this...

 

Me

" Received your letter refering me to OFT/FSA/Complaints procedure, is this your final response?"

 

Citi

"We are currently looking into this for you"

 

Me

"So are you going to refund my charges that I am claiming as my last letter was my LBA, I am about to put a claim before the courts"

 

Citi

"We are currently calculating what we will be refunding, it will be the difference above £12 OFT recommended, but as we are dealing with about 30 case, and as we clear some, more come in, so we will need some time"

 

Me

" So I will be hearing from you again within the 14 days stated in the LBA"

 

Citi

" we will certainly try to meet the deadline and get this sorted for you as soon as possible"

 

Has anyone got there partial refund and managed to get the rest from the after submiting a moneyclaim yet!

 

When I accepted as partial offer they withdrew it, then on defence said they had paid it - bunch of idiots.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well, I had my reply to my LBA from our Mr Brian Smith, regarding their charging policy in other EU countries, and my claim, most of it the same as others have received.

 

Here's some of the other bits.

 

"My client has adopted the same practises as the entire UK credit card industry and, with that industry, disagrees with OFT's interpretation of the law relating to default charges. Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretation does not have the force of law, having never been decided by a court, and is merely persuasive"

 

So why is it they have never taken the matter to court then!

 

He then goes on to try to justify the £12 threshold by implying it's not only based on the cost of a stamp/envelope etc.

 

Everyone knows the factors include IT staff/equipment power costs, but is still nowhere near the amount of £12

 

This is their reply to the rates I quoted that they charge in the rest of the EU

 

" Firstly, your comments regarding charging policies in other countries is not like for like because of difference in labour costs, tax etc... A like for like comparison can only be between us and other card issuers within the UK and as previously stated we have adopted the same practises as the rest of the UK industry"

 

Yes you have just adopted the maximum £12 just like the rest but, 4-EU + £2.70 not £12 and I don't think that labour costs in Germany are much different, or do they pay their computers less!:cool:

 

This is where the letter gets to the crux of the case(wouldn't mind some advice from the mods)

 

After listing a breakdown of the charges, and saying that they would refund the difference above the £12, they go on and add this.(they can not even do their sums as the amount is to much, not good considering they deal with money)

 

"However in this case, I see from our records that we have already refunded £xxx Date, when we accepted £xxx in short settlement of your balance at the time which was £xxx

 

I feel that the refund of £xxx, that we would have offered, has already been included in the short settlement figure that we accepted from you, where we refunded a remaining balance of £xxx. We will therefore not refund any further amount to you for this reason."

 

He then goes onto his usual threats of will defend any claim, and have the case transferred to their local court, HAHA

 

THAT'S not going to happen is it Mr Smith and you know it..

 

As the inflated minimum payments that were made would have included interest and charges applied over a couple of years due to them not paying out on a PPI due to a period of redundancy and then when it got sorted after 6 months and they then refused to refund the excess interest and charges for that period.

 

All the payments made to them therefore included an amount covering the charges more than I would have paid, the original debt was £500 and the limit would have been maintained with their PPI meeting the minimum payments during the redundancy period, this went up to £1600 due to charges in spite of payments made to them.

 

After 12 months of trying to get it sorted I threatened to report them to OFT and FSA, they then offered a settlement of £750 as full and final payment.

 

So with this in mind I feel the claim is valid as they have received the full amount with payments, the settlement amount, and also they will have written off the remainder through tax, so they have lost nothing, where would I stand with my claim?

 

Hope someone can advise, as I want to put the claim in soon as they have really tried my Patience, it was bad enough when I had the account with them.:-x

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

your last four paragraphs beginning with "my question is" is rather confusing for me.

 

Would you mind restating your question carefully please

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about that, give it a read over now.

 

Thanks

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I had my reply to my LBA from our Mr Brian Smith, regarding their charging policy in other EU countries, and my claim, most of it the same as others have received.

 

Here's some of the other bits.

 

"My client has adopted the same practises as the entire UK credit card industry and, with that industry, disagrees with OFT's interpretation of the law relating to default charges. Please note that the OFT recognises that its interpretation does not have the force of law, having never been decided by a court, and is merely persuasive"

 

So why is it they have never taken the matter to court then!

 

He then goes on to try to justify the £12 threshold by implying it's not only based on the cost of a stamp/envelope etc.

 

Everyone knows the factors include IT staff/equipment power costs, but is still nowhere near the amount of £12

 

This is their reply to the rates I quoted that they charge in the rest of the EU

 

" Firstly, your comments regarding charging policies in other countries is not like for like because of difference in labour costs, tax etc... A like for like comparison can only be between us and other card issuers within the UK and as previously stated we have adopted the same practises as the rest of the UK industry"

 

Yes you have just adopted the maximum £12 just like the rest but, 4-EU + £2.70 not £12 and I don't think that labour costs in Germany are much different, or do they pay their computers less!:cool:

 

This is where the letter gets to the crux of the case(wouldn't mind some advice from the mods)

 

After listing a breakdown of the charges, and saying that they would refund the difference above the £12, they go on and add this.(they can not even do their sums as the amount is to much, not good considering they deal with money)

 

"However in this case, I see from our records that we have already refunded £xxx Date, when we accepted £xxx in short settlement of your balance at the time which was £xxx

 

I feel that the refund of £xxx, that we would have offered, has already been included in the short settlement figure that we accepted from you, where we refunded a remaining balance of £xxx. We will therefore not refund any further amount to you for this reason."

 

He then goes onto his usual threats of will defend any claim, and have the case transferred to their local court, HAHA

 

THAT'S not going to happen is it Mr Smith and you know it..

 

As the inflated minimum payments that were made would have included interest and charges applied over a couple of years due to them not paying out on a PPI due to a period of redundancy and then when it got sorted after 6 months and they then refused to refund the excess interest and charges for that period.

 

All the payments made to them therefore included an amount covering the charges more than I would have paid, the original debt was £500 and the limit would have been maintained with their PPI meeting the minimum payments during the redundancy period, this went up to £1600 due to charges in spite of payments made to them.

 

After 12 months of trying to get it sorted I threatened to report them to OFT and FSA, they then offered a settlement of £750 as full and final payment.

 

So with this in mind I feel the claim is valid as they have received the full amount with payments, the settlement amount, and also they will have written off the remainder through tax, so they have lost nothing, where would I stand with my claim?

 

Hope someone can advise, as I want to put the claim in soon as they have really tried my Patience, it was bad enough when I had the account with them.:-x

 

I am still confused - are you saying that you claimed PPI? and it was paying part of min payments? How much did you actually pay? The debt was £1600 of which £995 was charges,but they wrote off £850 of that debt. Therefore debt repaid was £750, if your spending was £500, then charges that you actually paid was £250 - is this what you are saying?

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi My, credit limit was £500, and at the time of redundancy CITI Cards, the PPI was supposed to pay the minimum monthly payment each month, instead they didn't and for 6 months they applied charges/interest, I ended up making £15/per month payments just to keep them off my back from my unemployment benefit which only being £110/ month, then they decided that when I returned to work, to make a payment of £64, that was supposed to be to cover the PPI mistake by them.

 

By that time my account had risen to £750 or more, and after contacting them to refund the unlawful charges and interest they stuck there heads in the sand and would do nothing about it, so with my account now over it's limit and my ability pay reduced and the continued spiral of charges they keep applying, It wasn't long before it reached £1600, even with payments to them.

 

I then threatened them with action by OFT/FSA if they didn't resolve the dispute, after I had exhausted all possibility's following their internal complaints procedure.

 

They then immediately offered a short settlement of £750 leaving the remainder to be written off to Tax.

 

Over the period of the dispute, from when the redundancy started, the amount payed to them was £1100 including the settlement.

 

As a proportion of this was charges, what would the course of action as to calculating the amount to claim.

 

Also because the so called refund they are now claiming they gave at the time made no mention of what part of the debt it was to be linked to, I wounder if should be able to say that the written of part was in fact the core debt including interest, which means I still payed the charges they applied to my account.

 

So if it went to court my argument would be that the core debt was recovered through Tax by them, as I believe that is how the corporate tax right off system works, so therefore the amount I payed was in fact the charges on the account.

 

What does everyone think?

 

Thanks

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi My, credit limit was £500, and at the time of redundancy CITI Cards, the PPI was supposed to pay the minimum monthly payment each month, instead they didn't and for 6 months they applied charges/interest, I ended up making £15/per month payments just to keep them off my back from my unemployment benefit which only being £110/ month, then they decided that when I returned to work, to make a payment of £64, that was supposed to be to cover the PPI mistake by them.

 

By that time my account had risen to £750 or more, and after contacting them to refund the unlawful charges and interest they stuck there heads in the sand and would do nothing about it, so with my account now over it's limit and my ability pay reduced and the continued spiral of charges they keep applying, It wasn't long before it reached £1600, even with payments to them.

 

I then threatened them with action by OFT/FSA if they didn't resolve the dispute, after I had exhausted all possibility's following their internal complaints procedure.

 

They then immediately offered a short settlement of £750 leaving the remainder to be written off to Tax.

 

Over the period of the dispute, from when the redundancy started, the amount payed to them was £1100 including the settlement.

 

As a proportion of this was charges, what would the course of action as to calculating the amount to claim.

 

Also because the so called refund they are now claiming they gave at the time made no mention of what part of the debt it was to be linked to, I wounder if should be able to say that the written of part was in fact the core debt including interest, which means I still payed the charges they applied to my account.

 

So if it went to court my argument would be that the core debt was recovered through Tax by them, as I believe that is how the corporate tax right off system works, so therefore the amount I payed was in fact the charges on the account.

 

What does everyone think?

 

Thanks

 

I think that you would only be able to claim back charges that you actually paid regardless of what system they used to write the remainder off. But others may have a better understanding/knowledge of this

 

Did the PPI actually pay out anything?

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that you would only be able to claim back charges that you actually paid regardless of what system they used to write the remainder off. But others may have a better understanding/knowledge of this

 

As I paid over £1100 to them and my charges were £995, I would argue that I paid the charges and that the core Debt was what the decided to write off as it's claimed back through tax and therefore they loss no money at all.

 

Yes they paid out £64, 6-7 months after the redunancy period started, during this time due to not being able to meet the minimum payments that the insurance should have been covering, the account went over limit, so the interest and charges started to pile on.

 

I asked them to refund the charges and interest as it should never have been applied with the PPI active, but the were having non of it, and fobbed me off a every attempt to sort it out.

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some are making hard work of this.

 

Whether or not you have paid them you claim the charges plus contractual % Its upto them to counter with an offer less what you owe them.

 

Remember even those you have NOT yet paid will have certainly been added to your account & payment demanded

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thanks for the reply, was starting to think no one was reading my thread.

 

I've been following the F&F settlement tread, and as ZOOTSCOOT pointed out, I think that there charges are taken as a matter of priority, as if they go into settlement, they can not claim that as a tax loss, so they make sure they get as much of the charges from your payments and settlement, and they get the core debt back through the tax system by it being a loss to them.

 

I know this as I had to do some freelance work many years ago and bought a server computer for £1300, after 12 months the project was over and I needed to sell the equipment, only got £500 for it.

 

When it came to doing my tax return, I got a tax refund due to this!

 

So htye don't loss any thing, infact they have scammed your for the unlawful charges.

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

After looking into this regarding the F&F settlement, and their claim that the money written off by them, was the charges so as I had not paid the money in the first place there was nothing to refund.

 

I found this interesting information on another thread, basically when you make a payment to them the deduct the charges and interest first.

 

Had a look at the company in questions T&C, and as some one rightly said they priortise charges first, see below.

 

9. All payments we receive from you will (unless otherwise required by law) be applied to your Account in the following order:

9.1 Citi Flex Payments Monthly Instalment (to be applied to each Citi Flex Payment facility in the order of creation);

9.2 other interest and Account Charges;

9.3 existing Promotional Balances that attract a lower rate – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.4 existing Purchase balances and non-promotional Balance Transfers – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.5 existing Cash balances shown on the last monthly and/or previous statements – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.6 new Promotional Balances that attract a lower rate – in the order in which they were debited to your Account as shown on the monthly statement;

9.7 new Purchase balances and non-promotional Balance Transfers – in the order in which they were debited to your Account but not yet shown on the monthly statement;

9.8 new Cash balances – in the order in which they were debited to your Account but not yet shown on the monthly statement; and

9.9 the balance of each Citi Flex Payments facility (to be applied to each facility in the order of creation).

 

So where F&F settlement is agreed and you have paid them more than the charges you claim back as part of that total, including monthly payments, you should have grounds for the claim to proceed.

 

So my claim will be going ahead.

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify something which has been mentioned a few times in this thread. The OFT did not say that £12 is an acceptable charge to levy. What they actually said was that they will automatically presume that any charge over £12 is unfair, and that amounts below £12 can still be challenged. I think this was a stop-gap measure by the OFT while they look at the matter more closely.

Robertxc v. Abbey - £3300 Settled in full

Robertxc v. Clydesdale - £750 Settled in full

Nationwide v. Robertxc - £2000 overdraft wiped out, Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Style Card - Default removed by order of the sheriff

Robertxc v. Abbey (1) - Data Protection Act action. £750 compensation

Robertxc v. Abbey (2) - Data Protection Act action. £2000 compensation, default removed

 

The opinions on this post are those of Robertxc and not necessarily the opinions of the group and do not constitute sound legal advice. You are advised to seek professional legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, but OFT restated their belief in their statment of the 7th Sept (Notes Section)that although companys automatically adopted the £12 threshold they set, that if the matter wnet before the courts a judge might rule against them, making it unlawful.

 

As regards the claim already worked out the amount to claim, and will be going for contractual interest 24.9%(cus I feed up with their games), if the judge doesn't feel it relates then 8% will do just as well.:)

My Cases

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/lloyds-bank/14777-rbphot-lloyds-tsb.html?highlight=rbphot

 

My useful posts

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/26095-bank-credit-charges-eec.html?highlight=rbphot

 

;) The Masses Will Always Prevail

 

Rbphot

 

Lloyds TSB, (£2.5k) Data Protection Act-150606, Prelim letter-050706, 2nd LBA-140706, Money Claim submitted 010806(6QZ51069), Claim Agknowledged 040806:D , AQ submited today-070906

Lloyds TSB Amex, (£60) Data Protection Act-150606, 1st LBA-110706, 2nd LBA - 040806, SETTLED 50% of amount.:D

Citi Cards, (£995) Data Protection Act-110706, Prelim letter-210806, LBA - 040906

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...