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 
        • 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

OFT ruling, Not for businesses


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6503 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

Spoke to my (BOS) bank manager today regarding the excessive charges being inflicted on my account, he reckons the OFT ruling only applies to consumers and as I'm a sole trader with a business account, the ruling doesn't apply & therefore the charges are perfectly legal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly speaking he's correct

 

HOWEVER if they charge consumers at the new low consumer rate but continue to charge business's at the higher rate (for providing the exact same service) they would be showing that the business cost included a significant profit element (around 100%) thus further strengthening your case that the bank is profiteering from your breach.

 

t

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If we are talking about unauthrised o/d charges, dd failures etc., then these are still unlawful penalties based on contract law. See the templates for business accounts.

 

If they are account operation charges - e.g. cheque processing, overdraft fee, etc., then these are charges for a service, and are not unlawful. The bank are entitled to charge for these services, and make a profit - this is exactly the same with personal accounts.

 

As a business, you must make a commercial decision which bank offers the best deal for you.

  • Confused 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the case law that supports our view is based on Business to Business.

 

If you want the cash back, you'll get it.

 

They may well close your account though.

If you feel that we have helped you, or you would like to help keep this web site running so that others can continue to get their money back, please click the donate button at the top of the forum.

Advice & opinions of Dave, The Bank Action Group and The Consumer Action Group are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

 

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

 

 

Add me as your friend on FaceBook - I need all the friends I can get :-(

 

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=577405151

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Since starting this thread I've had a few telephone conversations with several members of the BOS Business Banking team, both in Glasgow & Motherwell

 

I was initialy offerred a refund of my £100 o/d arangement (but no refund charges) which I refused as (a) they are entitled to charge for this service and (b) I reckoned they would then be entitled to demand my overdaft amount be repaid immediatly.

 

I then spoke to an advisor? from the Glasgow office who confirmed that the process of dishonouring cheques D/D etc, is outwith bank staff control, as this process is dealt with automatically by the system. It was at this point advised to cancell all automated transactions (s/o's & d/d's) to prevent further charges to my account, however a few have still been applied and then refunded.

 

During a second call to the Glasgow office, an advisor confirmed that processing all cheque, d/d & s/o payment and applying charges is automated, in "fact the only manual intervention is when staff have to access the system to refund charges"

 

on my third call I requested a meeting which was refused, I was then offered a refund of half of my charges, which I accepted, however this offer was quickly withdrawn because I wouldn't give up the right to request that the remaining half was also returned (as the conversation was becoming somewhat heated it was ended without agreement)

 

My final call was from the Business banking section in Motherwell which was in response to a polite letter I sent in requesting that they consider refunding the full £540 penalty charges. This guy told me he was only prepared to discuss a repayment schedule of my debt, The unfair charges issue only applied to personal not business accounts, and "As far as refunding these charges I'm telling you now, that's just not going to happen".

 

As this conversation was also becoming rather heated I proposed that all future correspondence regarding this matter should be conducted in writing, he refused to agree to this and insisted that they (BOS) would only be corresponding by phone, as this speeds up the process. I guess I'll be recording all my calls for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would do, is IMPOSE the condition on them which you stated, and refuse to discuss it with them over the phone. If they phone you up about it, say that for security reasons you're unwilling to discuss your accounts over the telephone and would they please write to you? CLICK burrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

Then write the standard template letters to them as per the "Business" templates in the templates library. Set your own timetable and do not be swayed from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 12 years later...

This topic was closed on 2019-03-08.

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 there.

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 6503 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...