Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I would guess so dx which is why I've asked the OP to upload the original invoice.
    • ps i doubt the PCN says macdonalds?? MET dont operate a reverse trespass car park for mc'd's parkers going to starbucks...(occupants left vehicle claim) they only do that for the starbucks part  i bet you parked in the starbuck side and walked to MCd's? dx    
    • it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything. Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do). Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS. Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves. 10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either. the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get. where your post said fine it now says charge .............. please fill out the Q&A ASAP. dx  
    • Well done on reading the other threads. If ECP haven't got the guts to do court then there is no reason to pay them. From other threads there is a 35-minute free stay after which you need to pay, with the signs hidden where no-one will read them.  Which probably explains why ECP threaten this & threaten that, but in the end daren't do court. As for your employer - well you can out yourself as the driver to ECP so the hamster bedding will arrive at yours.  Get your employer to do that using the e-mail address under Appeals and Transfer Of Liability.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Secret Deal Btween Banks Nd Ombudsman


GG1971
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6068 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

Does anyone know anymore about this article and what it means for everyone?

 

EXCLUSIVE Banks' secret deal with ombudsman to stop probe into their rip-off charges

 

13/09/2007

 

Related Articles

 

Banks struck a secret deal to prevent a probe into their rip-off charges by agreeing to repay customers' complaints in full.

The agreement meant that anyone who complained to the independent Financial Ombudsman Service would get all their overdraft charges refunded.

In exchange, the ombudsman agreed not to investigate whether the fees were fair. This prevented it from clashing with an Office of Fair Trading probe.

And it averted the danger that the ombudsman would set a precedent - and force the banks to repay all similar cases.

Advertisement

 

//'); //]]>817-grey.gif

An ombudsman spokesman said: "We told the banks we would be forced to investigate if they did not repay the full amount.

"They didn't want to have an investigation. So they agreed to pay up."

The OFT is in the middle of a market study of current accounts and is involved in a joint High Court action to decide whether fees are legal.

It reckons that overdraft penalties raise between £2billion and £3.5bn a year.

For almost two years now a consumer revolt has seen millions of pounds being returned to customers who have complained about the cost of their overdraft penalties, which can be as high as £39 a time.

Initially they took their claim to court, but this year the ombudsman was swamped by a flood of cases - hundreds every day.

The secret deal led to the ombudsman service sending a spreadsheet with the names and claims of any customers that had contacted them.

The bank would then reply, telling the ombudsman that each case would be paid in full.

It has also been revealed that banks have admitted confusing customers with their explanations of current account charges.

A rethink of the Banking Code is expected to clamp down on the way that banks explain their fees, terms and conditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, what I can't decide from this article is whether they mean just the claims that are already lodged with the ombudsman or all claims, mine is lodged with the bank but the test case had started by the time I was ready to take it to FOS and now they arnt taking any new claims so I'm in limbo like alot of others I suspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but since they've put a hold on all claims the banks are obviously not settling yet.

 

the banks don't seem to offer all my claim back, just the charges with no interest. Then the FOS have to go back to them and get the 8%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no it will obviously take some time because of the bulk, however, if they have agreed to settle some they are admitting guilt and need to settle all, you would think!! I this happens it will still be quicker than awaiting the result of the test case. It doesn't make it clear if this deal was made prior to that starting or if it is jus a recent thing either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ombudsman has returned all claims that were logged with them, they have not kept them or put them on hold.

 

The Ombudman website used to say "until now every claim has been refunded from the banks and we have not needed to use our powers"

 

They missed out the part because we send a spreadsheet to them on a weekly basis of claims to be refunded in full!!!!!

 

I doubt very much this could ever be proved though any thoughts!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly.....the FSA wavier is conditional on the FOS stopping their investigation of the complaints........In other words the FOS CHOSE to stop dealing with them. They were not TOLD to do anything.

 

The boys in the 'club' had to work together.

 

I have not had mine returned it clearly states it has been logged with them.

 

I have had mine returned from the FOS and no letter of stay from the bank as well. So looks like no-one is dealing with my complaint(s) at the moment.

 

After i passed them to the FOS many months ago, the bank has never acknowledged anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why they will be keen to reach a settlement soon.....apart from anything else it is much easier and cheaper to resolve everyone's complaint quickly rather than let them fester and annoy customers even more.

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that - its the FSA that has the power to remove the wavier......FOS could just start processing complaints again.....but it won't without the blessing from the boys in Canary Wharf. The FOS is just used to provide the ILLUSION of an independent arbitration service. Don't forget that is gets all its funding from the banks.

 

Such a sham system....

A £35 pound bank charge is not a charge for a service. Its theft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Midge: Don't forget that the FOS has 8 weeks to deal with complaints.

 

No, the banks have 8 weeks to resolve a complaint before the FOS will look at it.

 

The FOS can then choose how long to take. At the moment they are saying between 1 - 6 months or more and most of mine have reached 5 months now with no results (they allow the banks too much time to reply as they 'very busy these days').

 

Every time a case is waiting for 'allocation' (4 weeks after you send it to them) it could take between 3 - 8 weeks to get allocated and looked at by an adjudicator. Then the bank has around 8 weeks to reply (should be 2 weeks but they're 'very busy' these days).

 

The bank will make a measly offer which you reject, then they get another 8 weeks to look at it again.

 

By this time some or most of your charges may have gone over the 6 year limit so no court action, you're stuck with the FOS. Or you may get tired of waiting and accept the low offer the bank has made.

 

Just a little longer to wait. The war is won.
Not really yet. It's only won when we get to claim our own charges back, not when the FSA and banks make a deal.
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a common misconception about all this, even if the test case goes ahead or not and the time scales slip and your claim in full or part falls over the 6 year limit, the limit or Statute of Limitations is unenforceable because the banks have willfully concealed the true nature of their charges.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it the FOS can only deal with claims that have been through the entire complaints procedures of the banks. And as the waiver prevents this process their hands are tied

 

I'm also talking of credit card charges complaints, to which the waiver does not apply and the FOS still look at. All my current claims with FOS are cc as the bank accounts have been put on hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Statute of Limitations is unenforceable because the banks have willfully concealed the true nature of their charges.

 

I understand that this is a hard point to argue in court and the claimant has to be clued up on all the legal arguments, which a lot of people on here are really not (me included, yet). The banks know this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...