Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK, you made a bad mistake by outing yourself as the driver. But that's not fatal.  It's a case of one argument unfortunately down, but lots of other arguments still standing.  Chiefly that this is a scam site with an invisible line separating two car parks in order to entrap motorists. 1.  As LFI says, send a SAR to MET so you can get your hands on their original invoice.  Invest in a 2nd class stamp and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office. 2.  About six months ago, when the tsunami of cases at this site started, lots of Caggers contacted the CEO of Starbucks  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-82463&c=Starbucks UK-General Manager  Starbucks then contacted EuroGarages which seems to be another company in their group, and which runs the Stansted branch, and which got the invoice withdrawn.  However, after one, two, 10, 20 of these cases Starbucks seemed to get fed up.  However, it's only an e-mail, and surely worth a shot.  Lay it on thick about being a regular Starbucks customer but on this occasion you found the branch closed, and it is completely unfair to be charged £100 for briefly stopping in a car park while trying to use Starbucks. The main point here though is that MET are very, very wary of starting court cases for this site.  If they don't do court there's no reason to pay them.
    • Thanks jk2054, you were indeed correct. I've received the court order requesting documents and the witness statement etc. which I will read through and begin to compile shortly.
    • Find out what these WhatsApp scams are and what to do if you receive a message from a scammerView the full article
    • You need to send Met an SAR and they will send you the original PCN .. However all their PCNs appear to be the same and as the car parks are on airport land the keeper is not liable for the debt. Only the driver is responsible. But there are other considerations which can be enough for you to win. Poorly lit signage; scam site, it's a penalty; as well as problems with the contract. So you have a lot of things going for you as well as Met are not keen to take well defended cases to Court.  
    • The brand, which runs 216 shops as well as franchised stores, is looking at ways to save cash.View the full article
  • 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

Refused Offer from RBoS...what now?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6379 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

Hello Everyone

 

Just received a ridiculous offer from the RBoS and have stated that I will go to court to reclaim their charges. I have been paying these charges off for the last 3 years and they claim that during that time I have paid only £40.00 :o (I do have evidence to the contrary however!).

 

I haven't seen a statement of this account for 3 years and have given up trying to get them. The charges I am claiming are only the ones I know about (as I shouldn't have had any more charges levied against this account as I stopped using it 3 years ago).

 

If I go to the Information Commissioner over the bank statements, will their involvement impact upon my Court case? Or, could I incorporate the lack of bank statements / mismanagement of the account into the Court case for the refund of charges?

 

Please advise...Thanks in anticipation!

 

Totally Skint

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, TS,

Umm - need a bit more solid info to work on!

 

Is your ac with RBoS closed or still open?

Is the balance of the overdraft or loan or whatever made up entirely of charges?

What type of charges are you hoping to claim back?

 

Sounds like you've "forgotten" this ac and RBoS have eventually come up with a "pay us xhundredsof pounds on what we calculate as x+yhundredsofpounds or we'll get a debt collection agency to screw you for (x+y)squaredhundredsofpounds" scenario.

 

Happily, all you need to do is follow the yellow brick road -

  • Read the FAQs on this portal
  • Get the statements on the account for the last six years- send the bank the data access request letter and payment of a tenner.
  • Go through the statements and highlight the charges unlawfully applied to the account - bounced cheques, returned d/ds, ac overlimit charges etc.
  • Download Openoffice (openoffice.org), enter the charges into the spreadsheet template provided by the gorgeous vampiress and send to RBoS with a civilised prelim letter asking for the charges back within 14 days
  • Ignore their letter stating their charges are fair and reasonable and send a Letter Before Action giving them 14 days to pay the money back
  • Ignore their letter offering you half of what you claimed as an extraordinary act of benificence on the part of the bank and sue them - see English System and Scottish System FAQs
  • Be prepared to appear in court, but be more prepared for the bank to give you the full amount you claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...