Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
    • I've had a quick (well, quick for a thread of this length),  read of this thread and to be honest I'm struggling to make heads nor tails of the actual crux of the issue here. You seem awfully convinced that whatever is going on is worth the fight and the odds are in your favour but with how the thread has gone it seems that one trail goes cold so you simply move on to another in an attempt to delay the inevitable. All it does is end up digging holes and confusing others and yourself which means any advice given to you is completely pointless. I note that for the life of this thread there has not been any documentation or correspondence uploaded for people to have a look. Have you got any that you'd be willing to redact and upload for members to assist you? Right now, it seems people are shooting out advice while being in the dark because it's starting to become very difficult for people who weren't here at the start of this (including myself) to follow along. Right now, this whole thread is just hypothetical "He said, she said" and is going nowhere fast. Nothing more than basic advice can be given which, as you've sought out some legal advice, is likely not sufficient to actually come to any sort of conclusion. I, personally, am starting to agree with others that it may be best to consider bankruptcy and put the matter behind you.  
    • Thanks for coming back to us. There are no guarantees - but remember that so far MET have not had the guts to put even a single case before a judge.  Not once. Yours is one of seven court cases. Three ongoing like yours. In two MET bottled it as Witness Statement stage approached. In one the allocating judge decided their Particulars of Claim were rubbish and threw the case in the bin. Just the one victory by MET by default when the motorist stupidly didn't file a defence. So there is every chance that MET will throw in the towel in your case too if you stand firm. Please keep us informed of what is happening. Regarding being abroad, that is no reason for things going wrong, you can request an on-line hearing and we've had several cases where the PPC gave up when the motorist moved abroad. But please keep us in the loop.
  • 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
      • 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

Royal bank of scotland Help needed


Bladesufc1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6440 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 recently asked for 6 years worth of statements to be sent to me in a letter to the bank

 

they sent me 3 years total charges £895 they said they'd refund half this charge, stupidy i excepted this, and i also signed a declaration at the bottom saying this would end anymore charges being refunded.

 

however 2 months later i now have the final 3 years statements sent through £1650 charges in total!! can i claim this back, as the bank staff didn't do there job correctly the 1st time?? or am i bugered

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to put the exact wording of the letter you signed, we need this to see whether you have signed away your chance to claim the rest.

BEFORE starting your claim read through the FAQ's and if there's something you aren't sure of then ask.

If you win, donate to this site

Contents of my posts are purely my own personal opinions, some formed by personal experience and some from research. If in doubt seek qualified legal advice.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression it doesn't matter what you sign, you're still able to make further claims, as the law states you are entitled to. IE You signing a waiver of entitlement to further claims does not change the law. See pg2 of

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/royal-bank-scotland-bank/6721-stacymason-rbos-2.html

 

This is what StoneLaughter said:

 

"It doesn't matter what you sign; you cannot sign a legal right away if it's granted in Law. You could sign an affadavit saying I will never ever claim from you again for anything at all; and then claim the next day because you are legally entitled to that for which you claim.

 

So - even if you signed an "any and all claims, and all future claims" clause, it could only make it slightly more difficult. You can claim for charges going back as far as the bank has records"

~

:p I'm a lover, not a fighter... well, most of the time :razz: ~

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...