Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues.  Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences.  Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered.  I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on.   Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff.  I don't have lawyer or barrister.  I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help.  And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate.  Both ad-hoc. Pro-bono means 'free'
    • The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.
    • Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump.    
    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
  • 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

closed bank account


john.-h
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1872 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

hi, i have a closed business account from sept 99 to nov 2002, my last accounts shown 2495.00 pounds bank charges for one year? i have looked for my old records and cannot find anything and the business was sold in 2002 and the bank accounts paid off and closed. My business manager at the time kindly charged me the maximum charges per month as my overdraft was not applied for at head office and let me run as if i had one but made me pay? my accountant picked up on this and was told its too late to do anything as i would never get an overdraft now as i was always overdrawn.i must have been charged a mint , would i be able to claim for any of these with it being closed for a few years and how about getting past records off them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So would I be better sending the request for a refund in the same letter as the statement request, would they have to pay from the date of the request, even though I couldn't give a fixed amount?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me if anything in this letter adapted from your templates doesn't apply to business acounts as I'm not sure about the data protection sections, contracts acts, etc. Do you think its OK? Thanks.

 

 

Dear Sir or Madam

 

I held the above mentioned current account with your bank from 1999 to 2001. During this time I incurred charges for exceeding my overdraft limit due to cheques being cleared at unfortunate times, unauthorized overdraft fees, direct debits and standing orders being dishonored (and in some cases honored) due to insufficient funds.

 

It is my opinion, and that of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), that these charges are punitive in nature, not a genuine pre-estimate of cost and not intended to re-imburse your losses for a breach of contract occurring. Further to the 1999 Consumer Credit Regulations quoted by the OFT, there are numerous cases in law that prove that punitive charges in contracts are unenforceable at English law.

 

Murray v Leasureplay (2004)

Dunlop Tyre Company v New Garage and Motor Co. (1915)

Bridge v. Campbell Discount Co. Ltd. (1962)

 

There are many more cases of this type, far more than I have room to list here.

 

Further to these cases, I also believe these charges to be a direct breach of the 1977 Unfair Terms (contracts) Act which require that contract terms be reasonable. I do not believe these charges are reasonable as outlined in the aforementioned act.

 

With this in mind, I respectfully request that you return to me ALL charges made on this account since 15th February 2000 and 8% APR as allowed by the County Courts Act (1984), within 40 days of receipt of this letter, by way of personal cheque. If you choose not to do so, I will start proceedings for recovery in the County Courts, as I believe that legally I am entitled to this money back. By doing so, you will be eligible for my court costs.

 

In conjunction, would you provide me with a copy of all my statements from this account from the account opening in 1999 to it’s closing in 2001? I am aware that the information commissioner allows you to make a nominal charge of up to £10.00 for this service, for which amount I enclose a cheque.

 

Please be aware that these are formal requests under the Data Protection Act (1998). As you are no doubt aware, you are afforded 40 days to comply with this request, or you must request an extension from the Information Commissioner.

 

If you are of any doubt that this information is covered by the act, may I respectfully draw your attention to the case of Smith v Lloyds TSB, Neutral Citation Number: [2005] ewhc 246 (ch) in the high court of justice chancery division, where the judge ruled that bank statement information is, indeed, personal information, and thus covered.

 

 

Yours sincerely

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 13 years later...

This topic was closed on 03/05/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1872 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...