Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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

OFT slams high street banks over 'complex' current accounts: The Telegraph- 16/07/08


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5762 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

OFT slams high street banks over 'complex' current accounts - Telegraph

 

"The Office of Fair Trading has attacked Britain's high street banks for generating more than £8bn a year from current accounts that are too complex and fail to offer customers transparency

 

The OFT said that banks are raking in £8.3bn a year from complex current accounts which customers do not understand.

A significant number of customers do not know how much they actually pay in bank charges, either before or after they are incurred, it added. The total average unauthorised overdraft balance in 2006 was £680m, generating penalty fees of £1.5bn alone.

In its report today, Personal Current Accounts in the UK, the OFT said that current accounts 'are not working well' for consumers."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Office of Fair Trading threatens banks over current account charges - Times Online

 

"The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) today threatened to report banks to the Competition Commission after finding that the current account market did not offer good value for customers.

Following an investigation by the competition watchdog into the £8.3 billion current account industry, John Fingleton, chief executive of the OFT, said that retail accounts were a "vital gateway to effective participation in the economy. "But this market is not serving customers well," he said. "There is much the banks could do to improve how the market works."

Banks make an estimated £152 per year per active account.

The OFT will spend the coming months working with banks and consumer groups to improve the industry but, if necessary, would consider imposing heavier regulation of current accounts or making a referral to the Competition Commission.

 

The OFT found that a significant number of bank customers did not know how much they paid in bank charges, even after they have incurred the charges. The investigation found that about 1.4 million people pay more than £500 a year in bank charges, hitting "vulnerable" low income earners. More than 75 per cent of people do not know the credit interest rate offered on their account.

Meanwhile, complexity of accounts made it extremely difficult to compare them, the OFT said. Just six per cent of customers surveyed by the watchdog switched their account in the past 12 months, making Britain's one of the lowest switching rates in Europe.

Banks are opaque about how they derive revenue from current accounts, with 81 per cent of their income coming from bank charges, worth about £2.6 billion a year. Current accounts generate more revenue for banks than savings and credit cards combined, the OFT said.

The damning findings come in the wake of the OFT's recent High Court win over the bank on the legality of unauthorised overdraft charges. Banks have appealed against the verdict and a second hearing on whether the charges are unfair and what a fair charge would be has been delayed until the appeal is heard."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky news article, same issue

 

Office Of Fair Trading Report Says Bank Current Accounts Not Working Well For Consumers | Business | Sky News

 

"An Office of Fair Trading report on personal accounts found that there was a lack of transparency in the way banks operated and that competition was not working in the market.

The study found that banks make £8.3bn from personal accounts - more than they reap from credit cards and savings accounts put together - but that 81% of this income is made "opaquely".

It revealed that £2.6bn came from overdraft charges while a further £4.1bn was "net credit interest income" - the profit made after banks have paid customers their interest.

The watchdog also found that more than three quarters of consumers did not know how much interest they should earn on their accounts.

It said this lack of understanding accounted for the low rate at which Britons switch banks.

Only 6% of consumers have changed banks in the last year - one of the lowest rates in Europe.

OFT chief executive John Fingleton said: "Personal current accounts are a vital gateway to effective participation in the economy.

"But this market is not serving consumers well."

He went on: "Customers lack the information they need to choose the best deal, and this in turn weakens the banks' incentives to compete.

"There is much the banks could do to improve how the market works, and we hope this report will encourage them to take steps to do so in the near future."

But the British Bankers' Association said the report did not take into account the cost of providing the services.

It said: "The OFT's market study contains many good points but some of its numbers are difficult to rationalise as they use assumptions and averages and, importantly, do not recognise the costs of providing the services.

"UK banks offer a wide range of products and services and are committed to providing their customers with high quality service and accounts to meet all their financial needs.

"The retail banking market is open and competitive."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Halifax Bank - Owed £1599

23/3 - Data Protection Act sent

24/5 - Data Protection Act finally arrived

25/5 - Demand for repayment sent

04/10 Court bundle filed with court and Halifax

29/10 STAY ISSUED

JAN 08 - Currently being harrased by debt collectors!

Mar 08 - New DCA - Stopped in there tracks

Jun 08 - And another

Jul 08 - Complaint made to HBOS

Nov 08 - My accounts been sold to a DCA

Jan 09 - New complaint issued against HBOS

Mar 09 - Halifax re-aquired the debt

Apr 09 - Applying for Hardship.

 

at least they removed 2 defaults in selling accounts! :D

 

I dont not claim to know everything and any advice i give should be treated as MY opinion.

 

If ive been helpful tip the scales!

or better still

DONATE TO CAG - every tenner helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personal current accounts in the UK - a market study

 

executive summary

 

Full text of the report can be found here, (Probably posted somewhere else on site and discussed further, but I havent found it yet :D:D

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes all in this thread

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the look of note 8 on page 4 of the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

it reads: "during the course of this market study, the OFT has seen bank`s internal documents on the level of charges that include statements such as: `in order to maximise fee revenue, whilst maintaining our competitive position, selective increases in (insufficient fund s charges) are proposed`, and `increasing (insufficient funds) charges will have less impact on our marketing position..... due to its lower visibility`

makes me wonder, do they have these documents and will they be using them at the next test case hearing?

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello my friend Stone!! :) I hope you and your family are really well!:)

 

The documents will hopefully surface, there's cartainly lots that could help our case, but, will that happen? There is evidence in our favour, absolutely everywhere, it depends on what is called as evidence during the case.

 

Nice to catch up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello my friend Stone!! :) I hope you and your family are really well!:)

 

The documents will hopefully surface, there's cartainly lots that could help our case, but, will that happen? There is evidence in our favour, absolutely everywhere, it depends on what is called as evidence during the case.

 

Nice to catch up!

 

All keeping well Kenny, nice to catch up !!

stating to get busy at work again, but will make time to keep up with all friends here, like tilly, rough patch at the mo, and one or two others. help out where I am able or give directions when i am unable. ;)

=======================================================================================================

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

 

 

Halifax Won £1180.00

NatWest Won £876.00

Halifax 2 N1 submitted 20/07/07 stayed 24/08/07 N244 Application filed 31/08/07 hearing set for 12/11/07 rescheduled for 29/01/2008. Application dismissed stay still in place.

Charity Group £200 compo for lost passport.

HM revenue & Customs; demand for WTC overpayment £632.12. Disputed, their error. Did not have to repay.

All opinions expressed are my own and have no legal standing and no connection to CAG

 

All errors/typos etc are not my fault the blame lies with the spelling gremlins

 

<<<<<< If any of this has been helpful, PLEASE click my scales

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...