Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 
        • 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

Some really good news


bach
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5596 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

Sorry if this has already been posted.

 

 

RBS plans 'proactive' refund of overdraft fees

 

 

 

RBS plans to "proactively" refund overdraft fees if it loses the ongoing test case over bank charges.

The bank, which also owns NatWest, confirmed today that it was making “careful contingency plans” after a document referring to the measures was leaked to the BBC.

According to the document, a team is "preparing systems and processes to proactively refund charges to the group's customer base" and "all customer accounts that are due a refund will be calculated as accurately as possible".

The bank is one of eight lenders fighting a High Court test case with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to decide the legality of unauthorised overdraft fees, which cost consumers billions of pounds a year. The banks appealed after losing the first round in April, when the judge ruled that the OFT could apply consumer contract regulations to decide if the charges are fair or not.

 

 

The case – which the banks could pursue to the House of Lords – has left up to one million savers who are pursuing their banks for refunds in limbo, after the Financial Services Authority (FSA) authorised an extendable waiver that allows banks not to pay out on claims until next January. RBS said today that the conditions of the waiver were behind the contingency plans leaked today.

A spokesman for RBS said: "As a condition of the waiver, RBS and the other banks agreed with the FSA in July 2007 and again in 2008, to deal 'efficiently and swiftly' with customer complaints on conclusion of the test case, irrespective of its outcome. This included 'making preparations for dealing with relevant charges complaints when this direction ends'.

"For an organisation of our size and our different brands, complying with these requirements demands careful contingency planning and this document merely confirms that RBS is taking its obligations in this respect seriously as it has done throughout the whole test case process. This workstream has absolutely no bearing on how we see the outcome of the test case."

Campaigners have criticised the banks for prolonging the legal process. Phil Jones, of Which?, the campaign group, said: "The banks have already lost the test case in the court of public opinion. Instead of stringing out the legal action, perhaps even to the House of Lords, the banks should admit defeat and repay their customers what they have unfairly charged. Only by doing this can they start to rebuild the trust they have lost amongst the public."

An verdict on the banks' appeal is expected before the end of the year. However, final resolution of the case is unlikely before the end of next year. As long as the waiver is in place, consumers can claim for refunds on charges dating back to July 2001.

Edited by bach
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...