Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
Have taken these idiots to court...after much deliberation and letters and phone calls to sodding India
Have figured that their "charges" are unlawful in a similar way to the bank charges...
Don't beleive me?
£30 says it is ;-)
1.The Claimant purchased 2 flights from
London heathrow to Dublin 2.The Defendant
debited total amount of £54.00 for the
flights; £67.50 for applicable taxes,
passenger surcharge, and insurance surcharge
charge(taxes); 3 Claimant canceled flight of
own accord. Defendant offered total of
£17.50 refund from taxes portion of the
transaction which was rejected. Defendants
fee for cancellation and processing of this
was £50. 4. Claimant contends; a) The charges
exceed the Defendants losses caused by
cancelling; (b) The Term permitting the
Defendant to levy such charges is
unenforceable under the Unfair Terms in
Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Unfair
Contract Terms Act 1977 and at Common Law. 5.
Claimant claims: (a)Return of the amounts
debited of £67.50 for taxes portion of
transaction and refund; (b)Alternatively, if
the charge is a fee for a service, then they
must be reasonable under S.15 of the Supply
of Goods and Services Act 1982.(c)Court costs
Here is a statement in BMI terms and condtions whereby if the booking is cancelled then one is entitled to a refund of the Taxes portion of the transaction less an "administration fee"
It is this "administration fee" (which turned out to be £50) that I am contesting in court.
Does it really cost £50 to do a refund and cancel a booking?
Can anyone suggest any other approach I could take on this in court other than trying to prove that their cost is unreasonable under s.15 of the sale of goods and services act 1982 ?
Almost all companies whether they are banks or not, will intend to defend at the initital stage of a claim against them.
You appear to be doing all the right things, now keep going.
Finally, I would suggest that it does not cost £50 to cancel a booking, but, if it really does, let them show you in court.
iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted. Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received
BMI has submitted a legnthy defence saying in short that the charges are reasonable - and they are willing to submit evidence in court to back this up.
I have the AQ to fill in but comments welcome before I proceed...
I am very much intrigued as to how it costs £50 to conduct refund back to a debit card - and find it hard to beleive that there is no penalty factored into this cost.
In any case, here is the defence word-for-word.
Any comments / suggestions greatly appreciated...
Magz
xx
IN THE NORTHAMPTON county court BETWEEN: “MAGZY” Claimant - and - BRITISH MIDLAND AIRWAYS LIMITED trading as bmi Defendant
DEFENCE 1. Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Claimants Particulars of Claim are admitted. 2. The Defendant denies that the refund administration charges of £25 per ticket exceeds the Defendants loss caused by the cancellation and processing of the cancellation by the Claimant as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Claimants particulars of Claim.
Particulars (a) In order to offer tiny tickets at the lowest possible price, the costs of such tickets are stripped of predominantly all charges for contingency events. This is not the case with certain of the other tickets which the Claimant had the opportunity to purchase. One of these charges is an administration charges for cancellation by the passenger. Rather than increase the ticket price, the Defendant only levies a charge to cover cancellations where the passenger cancels.
(b) The Defendant operates a telephone and internet service to enable passengers to cancel tickets. Both operations involve a manual process which requires a dedicated member of staff processing any refund manually. The process involves checking that the passenger's ticket has not been used, the calculation of the refund due, the manual input of refund details including the passengers name and credit card/debit card details. The Defendant intends to submit evidence of the process to show that the cancellation fee is a fair pre-estimate of the Defendants loss.
3. The Defendant denies that the terms set out in their booking terms and conditions entitling the Defendant to levy an administration charge in the event that the, passenger unilaterally cancels their ticket, are unenforceable whether as alleged in paragraph 4(b) of the Claimants particulars of Claim or at all. In any event, the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (1977 Act) is not applicable as the terms in question are not exclusions or limitations of liability. If, which is not admitted, the 1977 Act is applicable, the terms are reasonable in the circumstances.
Particulars (a) The Defendant operates a number of different types of ticket at varying prices. The ticket purchased by the Claimant is known as a 'tiny' ticket and is the lowest price seat the Defendant sells. (b) The flexibility of the ticket is dependant upon which ticket a passenger purchases. On the flights for which the Claimant booked tickets, the Defendants full range of tickets from tiny to business flexible where available. The Defendant chose to purchase a tiny ticket where a fully flexible ticket allowing a full refund without any administration charge at a higher price was available.
4. The Defendant denies that the cancellation fee must be reasonable under Section 15 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 (1982 Act) as alleged in paragraph 5(c) of the Claimants particulars of Claim. If, which is not admitted, Section 15 of the 1982 Act' is applicable in the terms are reasonable in the circumstances.
Particulars (a) The particulars to paragraph 3 above are repeated. (b) Section 15 of the 1982 Act implies a term that charges must be reasonable in the event that the consideration for the service is not determined by the contract. The terms and conditions of carriage governing ,the relationship between the Defendant and the Claimant clearly state the cancellation fee and as such, section 15 is not applicable
5. Save as aforesaid, each of the allegations set out in the Particulars of Claim are denied and the Claimant is put to strict ,proof of the same. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief, for the reasons alleged or at all.
Statement of Truth. The Defendant believes that the facts stated in the Defence are true I am duly authorised by the Defendant to sign this statement.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Further it looks to me like the £25 is an arbitrary sum and bears no relation to the potential loss.
It will be interesting to see if a) they turn up and b) how they intend to prove their costs.
iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted. Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received
Good for you Magzy, well done - I guess they were penalties after all then...
iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted. Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received
WELL DONE - Maybe you have to accept first in writing before they issue the cheque. Best thing is to phone them and ask where the cheque is!
Regards
DS
Have taken BMI to Court *AND WON*
to sodding India
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MAGZY
Re: Have taken BMI to Court - *AND WON*
Re: Have taken BMI to Court
