Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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

Sijowa vs RBS


sijowa
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6307 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 that's the initial request for repayment sent off, direct to our friend Tommy himself.

 

As well as the charges which total £1845 i've requested contractual interest at their current authorised rate of 15.10%, even though i feel entitled to the much higher unauthorised rate. i've done this as a 'gesture of goodwill' on my part.

 

i've also requested the interest i paid on £680 of a consolidation loan they provided to cover a £1700 overdraft i ended up with a few years back due to a period of 'financial difficulty'. £680 was the total amount of charges they had taken from me up to that point so i feel it unfair that i've paid interest on money i should't have had to pay in the first place.

 

i'm off on holiday in two weeks so am hoping to have had a response back, even if its just a rejection, before then.

 

s

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we recieved our 'go take a running jump' letter this morning, just 5 days after sending the initial request for repayment. In line with the majority of opinions on here we've taken this as a cue to go to the next stage the LBA, rather than wait for the 14 days to be up.

For your reference below is a scan of the letter we recieved off Mr McLean.

 

Dear *****

Thank you for your letter of 6 November 2006 and I apologise for any dissatisfaction caused by the application of charges to your account.

We believe that our charges are fair, reasonable and transparent. We consider that the amounts debited to your account have been applied strictly in accordance with your agreement with us and our published tariff, which we are satisfied, complies with all applicable laws and regulations. We are also committed to ensuring the transparency of the information that we give to our customers about the operation of our products.

We have considered and responded to the Office of Fair Trading's statement of 5 April 2006. We do not accept the Office of Fair Trading's findings in relation to credit card fees. We are concerned that the Office of Fair Trading has publicly called into question the setting of charges applied to other products, including current accounts. The Office of Fair Trading has restricted its investigation to credit cards and made no attempt to consult with RBS or the industry in relation to other, entirely different products.

Consequently, against that background, we must differ with the views expressed in your letter and will not be refunding any of the charges applied to your bank account.

Again, thank you for taking the time and trouble to write. Yours sincerely

 

 

Tommy McLean Customer Relations

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having sounded so confident of the decision to use Mr McLean's response as a cue to send off the letter before action i'm now having second thoughts. What are peoples thoughts on this, is it better to wait for the 14 days to be up or is it fine to send the lba on reciept of a response to the prelim?

 

thanks for any light you can shine on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

not updated this for a while but have good news now.

 

Due to a holiday we only sent our LBA on the 2 december, we recieved a letter on the 16 december offering, as a goodwill gesture, to refund all the charges we were claiming for though minus the interest we had requested. after talking it over we decided to accept the offer, as we did this in the interest of righting an injustice not for financial gain (but financial gain is good of course). the only issue is they offered to pay the money back into the account, the account we defaulted on 12 months ago (mostly due to charges). Anyway we've sent a letter accepting the offer and requesting that it be paid by cheque.

 

anyone else had a similar experience, and how did it pan out?

 

simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations!

 

Just out of (scuse the pun) interest, minus which interest? The loan interest or the contractual interest? Or both?

 

 

If I've been help to you, click on my scales and add to my rep! :wink:

__________________

 

Stuck with RBS charges?

Click here!!

 

Settled

RBS Current Account1 £2794

RBS Current Account2 £503

HBOS Credit Card £498

 

Still to Settle

Barclaycard Est£180

If my post has been useful, tip my scales and let me know

 

Always start with the User guide!

Stuck with RBS charges? Click here!!

 

RBS CA1 £2794 SETTLED!!! RBS CA2 £503 SETTLED!!! HBOS CC £498 SETTLED!!! Barclaycard £705 (with CCI) ONGOING!!! NATWEST CA ONGOING!!! LLOYDS CA x 2, CC, LOAN ONGOING!!! HFC LOAN ONGOING!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

pun excused. Both loan and contractual interest. i felt we had more of a case to get the loan interest back but in the end we decided we'd be happy to settle just for the charges. and they've offered us all the charges back, which seems fairly rare for a first offer.

 

simon

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...