Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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 - charge details query


cm34
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6345 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've only just registered but have been reading alot about claiming back charges! I am keen to get started and am preparing my letter requesting details on charges. However I read somewhere that the law in Scotland is different and instead of 6 years you can only claim 5 - I am with royal bank of scotland (although living in northern ireland) I was resident in scotland when I opened the account - does anyone know if this is true - as it is a scottish bank can I only request 5 years worth of info under data protection? Or does anyone know if the law is the same for Northern Ireland?

 

Also although I have been with the same bank, my account has changed from a student account to a graduate account to a normal current account - do I have to request info on all these separately or should the bank have records for all these under my present acount?

 

Sorry, lots of questions I know but any help gratefully appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - not sure about the Scotland thing I'm afraid but I do know that as long as your account has kept the same number then it doesn't matter what type it has been (mine is the same). Only thing it MAY affect is if you are working out overdraft limits for the calculation of charged interest etc.

 

Good luck!

7-11-06 Requested statements from bank

11-11-06 Statements received

3-2-07 Finally send letter demanding repayment of £1,993.81

8-2-07 received first bog off letter - 'sorry to hear you are dissatisfied - passing you to customer services...'

21-3-07 letter ofering full refund of charges (£1037) less the contractual interest. As have NOT filed to court yet, am accepting payment of charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Thanks, thats good to know although am a bit nrevous about trying to work out interest etc, still one thing at a time!

 

Done a bit more research and have realised the limit in NI for small claims is 2000 not 5000 - I think my charges are likely to total more than 2000 so looks like I will need to do one claim at a time.

 

I've also found out that under data protection it's 6 years for Northern Ireland too so now I suppose it depends if I can only get 5 years as I opened the original account when living in Scotland or if I can get 6 as I will be going through n i system - will jsut ask them for 6 I think and see what they say!

 

thanks for your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's complicated, isn't it?!

 

I am only at the beginning myself. I have added up the charges but have no idea what I'm doing with the interest. I have had LOADS charged in interest but haven't quite figured out how to work out which bits of interest are because of the charges and which bits I would have been charged any way.

 

As far as I can see I will need some more info for this - namely finding out what my agreed overdraft was at any point - it has varied lots and many times. Will have to call them and see if this is info they have to hand. There are still charges in that which I may not be able to claim as well as I have no idea what they are for!

 

Good luck with yours - I'll keep an eye out to see how you are getting on!

7-11-06 Requested statements from bank

11-11-06 Statements received

3-2-07 Finally send letter demanding repayment of £1,993.81

8-2-07 received first bog off letter - 'sorry to hear you are dissatisfied - passing you to customer services...'

21-3-07 letter ofering full refund of charges (£1037) less the contractual interest. As have NOT filed to court yet, am accepting payment of charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...