Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. I am reading through the full thread and will continue to research. I have come across a reference to a form called N180 DQ in the thread, but I cannot see any reference to this form in my case nor can I see it on the MoneyClaim website. Should I have been sent this form? Thanks 
    • 12mph (beyond any UK limit) will certainly qualify for a Fixed Penalty. So you should received an offer of a FP for each of the remaining two offences. Be sure to submit your licence details as instructed when you accept the offer. If you don't your £100 will be returned to you and the police will prosecute you in court.
    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
  • 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

Summary of Exactly What the OFT Said & The 'New' £12 Threshold


PeterG
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6516 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

 

Hi

 

For those who ‘have believed but not actually seen’, I thought it might be of interest to CAG members to see extracts of exactly what the OFT said in their Press release 05/04/06.

 

In particular, we should take note of the fact that although the threshold has been reduced to £12, it doesn’t mean that the Banks can automatically charge a flat fee of £12 (which is what they think they can - and are doing)

 

So if you are apprehensive of taking the banks on, get some reassurance from what the OFT said, and if you are still not sure, then get a cuppa, put your feet up and read the House of Commons Select Committee on Treasury Second Report House of Commons - Treasury - Second Report > Paragraphs 48 - 51.

 

and / or

 

The complete OFT report ‘Calculating fair default charges in credit card contracts’ can be found on their website: [/size] [/color][/font]

 

Current credit card default charges unfair

 

OFT sets threshold for intervention

68/06 5 April 2006

These (penalty charges) are charges in standard credit card contracts for a failure to pay a minimum payment on the due date, exceeding a credit limit or a failure to honour a payment made.

Where credit card default charges are set at more than £12, the OFT will presume that they are unfair, and is likely to challenge the charge unless there are limited, exceptional business factors in play. A default charge is not fair simply because it is below £12.

A default charge should only be used to recover certain limited administrative costs. These may include postage and stationery costs and staff costs and also a proportionate share of the costs of maintaining premises and IT systems necessary to deal with defaults.

A fair default charge should not exceed a reasonable estimate of certain limited administrative costs which the credit card issuer reasonably expects to incur as a result of default.

Only a court can finally decide whether a charge is unfair or not. The OFT has today set out a statement of its view of the law. This has not generally been accepted by most of the eight credit card issuers.

The OFT is not proposing that default fees should be equivalent to the threshold, and a court will certainly not consider that a default fee is fair just because it is below the threshold. Where there are exceptional business factors, so that the presumption that a default charge over £12 is unfair is not applicable, this does not necessarily mean that the current level of the default charge is consistent with the OFT's interpretation of the requirements of unfair contract terms legislation. But for example, where a card issuer has a policy of requiring customers to pay minimum monthly repayments by direct debits, such as that operated by Egg, and offers credit cards only to customers that satisfy a relatively high scoring requirement it may be able to set a fair default fee at a level above the threshold.

So- Go for it. The Law is on your side!

PeterG

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

 

Yes good Info and I think a few on here see the OFT statement and hopefully one day we will see one for the Banks:)

DONT FORGET TO DONATE TO THIS SITE WHEN YOU WIN THANKYOU

If you dont it wont be here:x

 

Let battle commence!!!!!:mad:

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments Welly.

 

However, for those who might wish to look at other options by which they might improve their financial standing simply by being aware of what they might be able to legally claim, simply input 'Bank charges' into Google Advanced Search, Exact phrase, press Enter and peruse the results!

 

In particular, I recommend a look at Martin Lewis' brilliant website, 'www.moneysavingexpert.com' whereby you'll find not only a significant and superb article on the recovery of Bank charges courtesy of CAG!!!, but also a host of other ways by which you may well discover other benefits to which you are fully entitled but which you never knew existed.

 

PeterG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this site has a large link to martins site on every page even on this one;)

 

And the users on this site are always finding new Infomation on this and many other consumer Issues as you probly have found but if you find some not on here then please post Im sure the the whole of CAG would be Intested:)

DONT FORGET TO DONATE TO THIS SITE WHEN YOU WIN THANKYOU

If you dont it wont be here:x

 

Let battle commence!!!!!:mad:

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the links, Peter, very much appreciated!

-Warms (Alexandra)-

---------------------------------------------

Whatever I post is just my opinion, no more, no less!:!:

.....................................................................

NatWest=>settled in full, no strings!:D

NatWest creditcard=>settled in full, no strings!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...