Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No, do the section 75 chargeback to your credit card provider.
    • See what dx thinks but it seems to me that sending a photo of your own pass isn't relevant to what happened. Let's wait and see what he says. HB
    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
  • 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

Forex broker vs tnook


tnook
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2115 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 think this is new to CAG.

 

I have a trading account with a forex broker.

i noticed a few trades on my ledger that I hadn't authorised.

 

On closer examination I discovered my son had been playing with my account.

He has a demo account and likes to pretend to trade,

but had used my live account a couple times on my iPad/iPhone.

 

My first instinct was to write it off and blame myself for not being diligent enough.

Then I came across a potential precedent.

 

SPREADEX LTD V COCHRANE [2012] EWHC 1290

 

http://www.druces.com/spreadex-vs-cochrane-online-terms-did-not-form-contract/

 

The case is a victory for the consumer over a forex broker for a few reasons.

 

- Contract was too onside and provided no benefit for the customer

- Unreasonable to expect the customer to read the dozens of pages of T&C which are hidden behind a checkbox on a sign up page. Goes against UTTCR according to the judge.

 

It's a long-shot but I have lodged a complaint with the broker asking for the trades to be refunded and quoted the case.

If they don't respond favourably I will try the FOS route.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As its high court, it is a precedent.

 

is your account with spreadex?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Sorry for the delay.

Been a busy year.

 

I have complained to my broker about the unauthorized trades and they are just leaning on their Terms and Conditions that I am responsible for all trades done on my account.

 

I’ve just opened a complaint with the FOS and sited the SpreadEX V Cochran’s case where it was ruled to be in breach of UTCCR. Fingers crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not biased no, the concern here would be the access your son had to your account, which they may find is solely down to your lack of diligence.

They may see something different as did the judge in the cochran case but the FoS have no legal requirement to apply that ruling as a standard, thats reserved for the courts.

I have seen cases where FoS have been inconsistent even in their own findings, upholding one case and not upholding another where the circumstances are the same. Alot depends on the adjudicator.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Quick update, nothing really yet.

Just had a letter from the FOS saying they have asked the broker for a response.

 

The letter also mentioned that I should send in any additional information.

So I am going to put together a little bundle with screenshots and send it to them.

 

The FOS also asked if this is causing hardship.

Well it has had a knock on effect, is this worth highlighting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardship would refer to say, did this cause you to be unable to provide food, heat, light etc

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Update: The FOS are finally starting to look at the claim. I asked them about the likelihood of a successful complaint and the adjucator said it was doubtful.

 

Are they that much biased? There is a legal precedent. Will update when I hear more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as they will , they wont side with you upon these measures

time for a court claim me thinks...

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

  • 3 months later...

As predicted the FOS caved in and wilted like a wet lettuce. Sided totally with the broker.

 

I've put the case out to tender with few solicitors. Will report back with anything they have to say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

wasted money you don't need a solicitor...…...

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

Ok requested a information from the broker. I think there is a fundamental conflict of interest. They encourage capital deposits and take the opposing trading positions.

 

Will keep you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding more evidence that Dealing Desk and Market Maker brokers have a fundamental conflict of interest. When you lose a trade they win and vice versa. They don't just make their profits on the spreads as they suggest.

 

Also the conflict of interest is never made clear or discussed apart from a small section in the terms and conditions which they make hard to read in a pop up window when applying for the account. Usual tick here to accept the T&C's

 

Some developments on European Regulation in the "Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID)".

 

Need to do more reading. Would be interesting if this could open the doors to claims against fx brokers. I don't think they have been straight with how clients funds are managed and their incentives for their clients to lose.

Edited by tnook
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Does anyone know which part of the Consumer Rights Act touches on Conflicts of Interest. The more digging I do the more I find all forex brokers have a fundamental conflict of interest with their clients and the way they make money is through their clients loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...