Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
    • Less than 1% of Japan's top companies are led by women despite years of efforts to address the issue.View the full article
  • 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

Halifax refuse to reverse payment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3466 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, it's my first post on here so be gentle lol.

 

My partner and I were recently browsing looking for loans

 

 

we came upon a certain website (which today has been on the news through Natwest) and

 

 

yes we did put our card details in but at no time did we think that we were actually committing to something,

let alone allowing them to take money from our account.

 

Once we spotted the 2 withdrawals from our account

we immediately tried to get in touch with the company via phone

but it is all automated and it simply tells you to log into your account online and cancel and request a refund that way.

 

When you try to log in online ....... guess what?

they have no record of you!

 

 

I have sent messages through there website all to no avail

- we haven't even got an email to say "welcome to........."

 

I called Halifax and they have said, sorry we can't do anything as you put the card details in

and it is in that companies small print that they can take that money out!

 

I have just checked my account again to find yet another company has taken another amount out

- which happened to be mentioned on the other companies website!

Can anybody help please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you bank are WRONG

 

 

you need to cancel the CPA and demand the payments back under CPA

 

 

the FCA have clearly stated banks must refund the sums and prevent further sums being taken.

 

 

for ref, you mentioned s155 cc act;

'Right to recover brokerage fees.

(1)[F1Subject to subsection (2A),]the excess over [F2£5] of a fee or commission for his services charged by a credit-broker to an individual to whom this subsection applies shall cease to be payable or, as the case may be, shall be recoverable by the individual if the introduction does not result in his entering into a relevant agreement within the six months following the introduction (disregarding any agreement which is cancelled under section 69(1) or becomes subject to section 69(2)).

(2)Subsection (1) applies to an individual who sought an introduction for a purpose which would have been fulfilled by his entry into—

(a)a regulated agreement, or

(b)in the case of an individual such as is referrred to in section 145(2)(a)(ii), an agreement for credit secured on land, or

©an agreement such as is referred to in section 145(3)(b) or © or (4)(b).

[F3(2A)But subsection (1) does not apply where—

(a)the fee or commission relates to the effecting of an introduction of a kind mentioned in section 146(5A); and

(b)the person charging that fee or commission is an authorised person or an appointed representative, within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.]

(3)An agreement is a relevant agreement for the purposes of subsection (1) in relation to an individual if it is an agreement such as is referred to in subsection (2) in relation to that individual.

(4)In the case of an individual desiring to obtain credit under a consumer crediticon agreement, any sum payable or paid by him to a credit-broker otherwise than as a fee or commission for the credit-broker’s services shall for the purposes of subsection (1) be treated as such a fee or commission if it enters, or would enter, into the total charge for credit.'

legislation.gov.uk

 

also see

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/news-and-analysis/news/fos-warns-on-payday-loan-brokers/2013418.article

 

 

GENERAL NOTES ON CHARGEBACK & Continuous Payment Authority & BACS

.....

We have been telling people to put a letter into their bank instructing them

not to make any payments under any circumstances to these companies

.

http://whatconsumer.co.uk/visa-debit-chargeback/- it works!

usually this should be done using the number on your debit card

.

banks MUST follow written intructions from their customers !

.

This fsa guide has now been updated:

.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/consumer_info/know_your_rights_guide.pdf

http://www.fca.org.uk/news/continuous-payment-authorities-your-right-to-cancel

.

Here's the text:

.

Cancelling a regular

card payment:

.

When you give your credit or debit card details to a company and authorise them to take regular payments from your account,

such as for a gym membership or magazine subscription,

it is known as a ‘recurring transaction’ or ‘continuous payment authority’.

.

These are often confused with direct debits, but do not offer the same guarantee if the amount or date of the payment changes.

.

In most cases, regular payments can be cancelled by telling the company taking the payments.

.

However,

you have the right to cancel them directly with your bank or card issuer by telling it that you have stopped permission for the payments.

Your bank or card issuer must then stop them – it has no right to insist that you agree this first with the company taking the payments.

.

Be aware, though, that you will still be responsible for paying any money that you owe.

and that CANELLING YOUR CARD WILL NOT STOP THE CPA

.

..

.

New june 2013

.

Regulator orders Banks and mutuals to review complaints about not cancelling recurring payments from November 2009.

.

Consumers who have set up a regular payment from their account will now be able to successfully cancel that arrangement

by contacting their card provider, the Financial Conduct Authority said.

.

The FCA has been examining how easy it is for customers to cancel Continuous Payment Authorities (CPAs)

due either to payday lendersicon or for other regular payments such as subscriptions or gymicon memberships.

.

CPAs, which are also commonly called recurring transactions or recurring payments,

are relatively easy to set up but can be hard to cancel, causing problems for consumers trying to manage their finances,the FCA said.

.

Now, following the FCA review of how the largest high street banks and mutuals process requests to cancel CPAs, they have agreed that they will ensure that when

a customer asks for a recurring payment to end, that will be sufficient to cancel the arrangement. They have also confirmed that should a payment go through by

mistake following cancellation by a customer the customer will be refunded immediately.

.

In addition to securing this commitment, the largest banks and mutuals have agreed to review every individual complaint they have received about the non-

cancellation of a CPA and to pay redress where payments have continued to be made despite the customer cancelling the arrangement. This applies to all complaints

since November 2009 when the Financial Services Authority, the FCA’s predecessor, began regulating banking conduct.

.

Clive Adamson, the FCA’s director of supervision, said: “It’s important that consumers are confident that banks are meeting their everyday banking needs. Today

customers can be confident that when they ask for a Continuous Payment Authority to be cancelled – it will be cancelled - and that it can be done easily.

.

“We recognise that historically this is an area where some customers have struggled but the banks and mutuals have responded positively to our work on this issue.

From now on we expect them to be getting this right. In addition, they have committed to review past complaints.”

.

.

Also mentioned your displeasure that as whomever took your money had obviously attempted this many times

probably activating your banks own anti fraud software - nobody had the decency to inform my you this was going on.?

.

.In the FSA's own words:

.

..

What should I do about a payment from my account that I didn’t authorise?

.

Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction.

Money can only be taken from your account if you have authorised the transaction

or if your bank can prove you were at fault –

.

see below.

Contact your bank immediately if you notice an unauthorised payment from your account.

.

If you are sure you did not authorise the payment, you can claim a refund.

.

However, your bank does not have to refund you if you do not tell it about the payment until 13 months

or more after the date it left your account.

.

Your bank must refund an unauthorised transaction

.

------------------

.

Your bank may only refuse a refund for an unauthorised transaction if:

.

? it can prove you authorised the transaction

– though your bank cannot simply say that use of your password,

card and PIN proves you authorised a payment; or

.

? it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently,

or because you deliberately,

or with gross negligence, failed to protect the details of your card, PIN or password in a way that allowed the transaction

.

-----------------------

.

How quickly must my bank refund me for an unauthorised transaction?

.

The bank must make the refund immediately unless it has evidence that one of the above reasons applies.

Your bank may ask you to answer some questions and fill out a form confirming what has happened,

but it cannot delay your refund while it waits for you to return the form.

If the bank has evidence that one of the above reasons for refusing a refund applies,

it may investigate before making a refund

but must look into it as quickly as possible.

If your bank rejects your claim for a refund it should explain why.

If the transaction was on a credit card, the refund may not happen immediately.

But the card issuer cannot charge interest or ask for repayment of the amount unless it can prove you are liable to pay

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, thanks DX, I will get back onto them in the morning as they don't seem to be bothered this late at night, I will also print off what you have told me and take it to work with me so I can quote all the relevant parts.

 

 

I will let you know how I get on.

 

 

Thanks once again :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

don't take no for an answer

go up the chain till its done.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...