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 
      • 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

The problem lies with us!! Please read and comment.


westable
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6378 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 may be a little contoversial here. This may not be the case with everyone but I think it is fair to say that the reason we get charged is because we are trying to obtain money that is not ours. We go over our overdraft, cheques bounce or Direct Debits fail. The charges are being enforced by our banks unlawfully, but we are the ones that are giving them reason to do this. I am not putting all the blame on us but I think it is time we took some of the responsibility.

 

I agree 100% with everyone who is claiming back unlawful charges that they just do not belong to the bank but I think it is time that we stopped giving them the chance to do it.

 

As one of the moderators said this is not a get rich quick scheme.

 

We all suffer with the same problem and tat us that we're not that great with money. But we can be with the help of sites like moneysavingexpert.com and ones like this.

 

Let's not give them a chance to charge us anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was having financial difficulties which were causing me to go over drawn etc. I used to check my account online everyday, several times a day to check I had enough money in my account. When I saw I was going to go overdrawn I would transfer money in from another account to cover this. However BOS don't update this regularly, their excuse is that they can't see DD's coming in as they come from another company, this is BS as I used to work in the DD department of BOS :) .

 

This situation only arose after BOS became HBOS, before they used to have a section online where you could see pending transactions but this disappearred!

 

So the short answer is I don't think it is my fault if I go overdrawn when the bank themselves don't tell me that their is money coming off my account.

 

I used to check my account before I left work at 4.55pm then again when I got home at 5.30 and I would have had a DD come off inbetween which would mean I would get charged £30 plus £28 at the end of the month.

 

I don't think most people on this site are arguing that we shouldn't get charged, only that it is unfair to charge £58 for going OD by £1 for 24 hours, this is the sort of rate you would expect from a loan shark not a high street bank.

BOS - PAID IN FULL

Barclaycard - NEXT!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that the amount charged is completely unreasonable.

 

It's just that i look at a lot of threads and a fair few people are claiming from multiple places which suggest that we are not able to manage our finances effectively.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with whether or not we manage our finances correctly. If the banks felt that we were at fault and did not want our business then they reserve the right to terminate the contract and close our accounts.

 

The issue here is that the fee charged by the bank for a breach of the contract (going overdrawn, exceeding overdraft limits, returned DD's etc) is a penalty and therefore unlawful.

 

A contractual term that requires a person in breach to pay a predetermined sum is a penalty clause, unless that sum genuinely relates to the amount of damage caused by the breach. This was established in 1915 Ford Motor Co. v. Armstrong (1915) where Ford were charging dealers a sum of £250 if the dealer sold the cars at less than list price and the Court of Appeal decided the sum was arbitrary, bore no relation to the loss and did not need to be paid.

 

In relation to a bank, this means that they can only charge what it actually cost them to return a DD, or what it actually cost them that you borrowed £50 more than you were supposed to for 5 days.

 

The point is, they do not apply what it cost them, they apply a standard fee, which bears no relation to the actual loss suffered by the bank and therefore the fee is unlawful.

 

If you feel that there is some moral obligation compelling you to continue to pay what amount to extortionate fees because you feel it is your own fault and the bank should chastise you then by all means do not reclaim them and continue to pay them.

 

I have read many posts on here and it seems to me that most of us are actually quite good with money, good enough at least that the banks keep our accounts open.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest willowb

I think that is TOTALLY judgemental and wrong for you to assume that.

 

We ran into problems because after our first child I had to give up work because I had PND, with the shortfall in our finances, we consolidated......Oh....yeah...right, isn't that what you're supposed to do? after all that's what everyone seems to tell you to do on the tele!!! DON'T DO IT!!!

 

I went back to work and things were manageable, we even moved house and paid off half of what we owed . But then I fell pregnant again but this time I couldn't go back to work because my second daughter needs 24hr care (nothing major...don't worry, she's fine but still needs me at home). We had to change the car to fit 2 car seats and then things spiralled again until in the end we had to seek help to organise ourselves, in the mean time the banks were charging us left right and centre.

 

We don't go on holidays, we hardly ever go out for meals etc and I'm very 'clever' when it comes to buying clothes for us all. And as for the banks! for example....we went overdrawn by nearly £3k, the bank had taken £2.5k in charges, most of which was over 2 years.....it doesn't take a genius to work out that our problems would not have been so bad if they had charged us fairly in the first place.

 

Some people, like ourselves have had situations to deal with and are genuinely just trying to get their financial lives 'back on track' and others may well get their money back off the banks and not learn from the experience but either way......the banks are wrong, not us! and I'm sick to death of feeling guilty for just living!

 

Fair and proportionate charges for all.....that's all we want...oh, and OUR money back!

 

Wx

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bank will always keep your account open if you continue to pay charges, you are right they do have the right to close your account but they are not. they are overcharging and getting away with it.

 

And i think you'll find that it does have a little to do with the way we manage our finances. The charges are applied when we do something (in the banks eyes) we agreed we were not going to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest willowb
i did not say everyone is like that, i am just pointing out that they are running a business and they want to make money. We should not give them the chance to take ours.

 

Yes, agreed....but life ain't perfect and when things get a little difficult, fair charges would make things more manageable instead of beating us with a financial hammer when we have gone overdrawn.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is very true, it's a viscious circle which is difficult to get out of. I am still a student and am in this much trouble i dread to think the s##t i'll be in when i finally want to buy my own home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest willowb

I agree, especially since it's not related to what it costs them....£5 or less would be more reasonable and if people start taking the p*** with their a/cs because of lower charges then close them?!

Link to post
Share on other sites

if only the banks would take notice, if it was an acceptable amount which you suggest they would get less complaints, would have to refund less and spend less hours on these and more on improving their service. And to be perfectly honest the service i receive from RBS besides the charges has been outstanding. The charges are the only complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bank will always keep your account open if you continue to pay charges, you are right they do have the right to close your account but they are not. they are overcharging and getting away with it.

 

And i think you'll find that it does have a little to do with the way we manage our finances. The charges are applied when we do something (in the banks eyes) we agreed we were not going to do.

 

But the point here is that the law does not allow the charge made for a breach of contract to be a penalty - it can only be a genuine pre-estimate of losses or the amount of the actual loss suffered.

 

Regardless of what the banks think, the law is there to ensure fairness and these charges are unfair and therefore do not need to be paid.

 

As for the future of these charges, this is a commercial decision for the banks to make, they may (as HSBC have stated) insist that banking can no longer be free and a standard fee will be applied to each account.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest willowb
But the point here is that the law does not allow .

 

But it does! it makes me so sad that their are so many like us out there who are just accepting things as they are....why aren't the banks being held accountable by the law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Willowb, the law allows that we can recover the charges.

 

If a bank levies a charge and we pay it then no crime has taken place. Just like if I sold you a mars bar for £1000 and you paid, that is not a crime.

 

The part of law that we use to reclaim our charges is enshrined in contract law and states that one party may not be disadvantaged or unfairly penalised by the other in the event of a breach and that any damages claimed must be only what the breach has cost.

iGroup (GE Money) - AoS Filed late, defence late, amended defence also late despite extra time requested and granted.

Vanquis - Claim issued, no AoS or Defence received

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Excellent thread which I have only just got around to reading, but what exactly are we supposed to be responsible for?

 

Nobody is twisting the banks' arms to pay out when we go overdrawn, they could choose to reject the direct debit or whatever it is and leave it at that - no more work is involved in rejecting it than is involved in paying it, so why is one instance free and the other chargeable?

 

Banks are the only organisations I know that can TAKE your money upfront regardless of whatever other bills you have to pay, thus putting you in the position of having to find enough money to pay them back before you can pay any of your other bills (say from an account that your salary goes into) regardless of how important those other bills may be (such as car insurance, which is a legal requirement, or mortgages, utility bills etc).

 

Not all of us are good with money; the banks on the other hand are supposed to be experts, there to guide us, not extort us. How many of you have incurred late payment charges from other organisations because subsequent direct debits could not be made due to previous charges added to your bank account? How much stress and trauma, hassle from debt collectors, phone calls and letters have you had to put up with as a result of the banks' illegal fines?

 

Quite frankly given that most of us are ONLY claiming back illegal charges means the banks are getting off lightly in my opinion. There is no defence whatsoever for their profiteering, and that's all it is make no mistake about that. Let's not forget that by taking several days to clear cheques, BACS payments and so on they are making a profit from EVERY PENNY we pay in already. BACS paymants in much of Europe clear same day, so IT CAN BE DONE!

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest willowb

Hear hear!!!;) Although...they're unlawful charges not illegal:)

 

I had this out with the nationwide lately about out current account. Looked at it on-line at 5pm, there was enough funds in there, looked at it again the next morning and there were 7 transactions that had gone through in that space of time.....that equalled 4 charges plus having to pay the returned dd (council tax) double next month. I had it out with them, and they gave me some argument that 'it doesn't always show on the balance items that are waiting to come out'.........oh how bloody convenient!!!:mad: but she was understanding and took the charges off for that day. I thought, what's the point of trying to keep on top of things by checking our account when within the space of a few hours, without any warning so that I could have put funds in, it's in crisis again!!!:(

 

Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

Wxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the banks don't make it easy (possible?) for us to manage our accounts sometimes. My latest round of charges (about £160) are due to them simply not cancelling a direct debit I told them to. It was in fact the second time I'd told them to cancel it. What more could I do?

 

But I'll admit I've been guilty of not managing my account to the best of my ability at some point in the past.

BoS:- D P A sent 09/06 Prelim. request 29/06 £1755 plus interest

1st claim Filed 5/10/06 SETTLED 19/10 £747.80 plus £534.31 interest

Link to post
Share on other sites

My anger with the bank has always been not the charges (I was fully aware of them, I think they are extortionate and would not be here if I didn`t) themselves but the manner with which the bank applies them and helps itself to our money (isn`t theft illegal).

 

They do so as and when they choose (seemingly) without notification to the banker to enable/assist them to prevent further charges or to rectify mistakes, then HIDE behind the....we did not know....we could not see.....we cannot check....it's an automated system.....nothing we can do milarky.

 

When my charges built with RBS, I was a single parent and mature student. After the first couple of charges I went in to see them to ask to resolve the charges/situation being applied again...showing my term income etc etc...I was very organised and proficient they took photocopies for 'filing' (I look back on this and hear shredder for my daughters hamster) promised they would take note of my suggestions and do what they could to avoid the issues in future and then charged me that afternoon!!!!

 

They have also known the bulk of my money arrived in September January and April/May time...HOW...they can ask me to find the money to pay a charge when a small child could see the bulk of my income only appeared 3 times a year is utterly beyond me.

 

It is a disgusting system...and needs to be stopped. Money not in account...then it cannot be paid out....an overdraft limit is just that..and so on and so forth.

 

Oooops sorry got on my soap box...I will get off now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see the difference between "unlawful" and "illegal", whatever the correct terminology might be it amounts to the same thing.

 

Currently having the same argument with Capital One who have imposed a £12 overlimit charge on my account. Sorry Cap One but I checked my statement online and it told me there were sufficient funds for the transaction before I made it so it's your cock-up and I ain't paying your "fine" - oh yeah, I nearly forgot, I don't have to - the charge is unlawful/illegal anyway! :D

I only mouth my opinion, please look elsewhere for sensible advice! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest willowb

Hi Seylectric,

I think...if something is 'illegal' you can have them arrested, whilst I agree that it would be fun to see coppers marching the bank fat cats into their lovely little stations for questioning....lol....it ain't gonna happen!

 

Wxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...