Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other!
    • Six months of conflict have also taken a heavy economic toll.View the full article
    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.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

Forex broker vs tnook


tnook
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2116 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...