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

RBS tactic?


Andy Mc1
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

Hi,

 

I recently discovered a £38 charge on my account for an unpaid cheque due to insufficient funds - the cheque was subsequently re-presented and cleared. I wrote to RBS seeking the return of my money on 25 September and had no reply. I phoned my branch today (10 October) and was told that the bank would return my money providing I signed a letter stating that I would not seek any further refunds for charges on my account. They would send a letter to that effect and would not return my money until I returned it with my signature.

 

Am I right in thinking that (i) this is inconsistent with the law, as RBS have unlawfully imposed a punitive charge?

 

(ii) Can an individual indemnify a bank when the law is clear over punitive charges?

 

Has anyone else received a similar response from RBS?

 

Andy Mc1

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right in thinking that you have received an unlawful, punative charge.

Which you can now take action to claim back - follow the procedure.

The bank has sent you a form of words which seeks to draw you in to a contract wherein your right to challenge the legality of their claims and charges is forfeit in the future.

To this you can answer absolutely anything you want as they CANNOT take away your right to challenge their charges at any time, whether you say they can or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply.

 

That was my understanding also. It seems somewhat strange for RBS to tacitly concede that they have no legal right to make punitive charges (they offer to refund the charge), whilst at the same time attempting to coerce me into surrendering my consumer rights in perpetuity (to get the refund - sign a letter indemnifying the bank against my lawful rights) which requires a change in current legislation.

 

According to staff at the bank, this advice has come from their 'legal team' - who, I presume are aware that the law making body in this country is Parliament not the 'legal team' at RBS!

 

I could be lazy and just sign their letter and get the charge refunded, but I am more inclined to tell them that the law is clear on the rights of consumers in this instance, and that all I am asking is that they operate their business within the law.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...