Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Though it would be Highview you would  pursue. DCBL are nonentities-on their best day,
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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
      • 161 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

Santander SVR/Cap Margin 2008


fishing novice
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2774 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 would be grateful to know if anybody who has been successful in a claim against Santander

on the 2008 svr/cap margin issue could explain the grounds on which the claim was made;

 

 

was it on the basis of breach of contract on the bank's part

 

 

or the longer-term financial implications of Santander's application of the cap margin increase.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Two years on the FCA investigated and found Satander was at fault.

 

 

Affected mortgage customers are now getting compensated when they were fobbed off by Satander

with their standard questionnaire and responses pre-FCA investigation.

 

I know people who have successfully claim and won significant compensation with support of FOS.

 

 

PM me for the links I found for FCA's findings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your kind reply.

 

Unfortunately this site will not allow me to send a PM

- it seems that I need to have made 30 posts before it will allow me to do so.

 

I would be very grateful if you could forward me any details with regards to FCA's findings.

 

Thanking you.

Cathy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very grateful if you could forward me any details with regards to FCA's findings.

 

Hi,

 

The FCA's link is here............

 

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/santander-uk-contact-borrowers-svr

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't post links yet as i need 10 posts, so go on the FCA website:

 

Search for:

Fairness of changes to mortgage contracts

June 2014

DP14/2

 

 

I'm trying to find out what grounds to base my letter of complaint on. I will probably need to speak to some in the FCA to get advice. But I was reading this and found....

 

Principle 6

2.8 Principle 6 provides that firms must pay due regard to the interests of their customers and treat

them fairly.

 

Principle 7

2.14 Principle 7 says that firms must pay due regard to the information needs of their clients and

communicate information to them in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading.

 

For example:

1. A lender may have the right to increase the interest rate applicable to its regulated mortgage

contract, and the respective contract term might be fair under the UTCCRs. However, if the

lender uses that right to take advantage of the fact that many of its customers are ‘trapped’

borrowers and will be unable to exit the contract and refinance, the lender may be in breach

of Principle 6.16

2. A lender might comply with a contractual requirement to provide notice to its customers

of a change to its regulated mortgage contract, and the term that states this requirement

might be fair under the UTCCRs. However, if the notice is not clear, not fair or is misleading

(for example, the relevant information about the change is not sufficiently prominent), the

firm may be in breach of Principle 7

 

Did you receive a letter in 2008 about the SVR Cap margin increase?

I only received a letter five years later; the letter with the M001 code.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the success stories.

 

 

Go onto Moneysavingexpert site and search for

 

MSE News: Thousands of Santander mortgage holders could get payouts after blunder

 

Got to the last page of the 2 year long thread and you will be happy and hopeful :)

 

18th Nov 15, 12:31 PM

 

Hi there,

i had a letter from the FOS about 2 weeks ago after they called me earlier that week.

 

 

Essentially they have decided that Santander was at fault, and they have negotiated me a good compensation deal of £5849.

 

 

I was on a fixed mortgage w Abbey National that ended in 2011, and I never received any letter at the time

about the cap margin increase, even though I could have got out without an ERC.

 

The compensation was worked out by looking at the best deal on the market at April 2011,

and giving me the difference in interest between it (1.99%) and what I paid, up until 2014 when I sold the property.

 

 

They agreed to waive the arrangement fee I would have paid, and also paid interest on that money I should have had,

plus £250 for my troubles.

 

Hope this helps other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...