Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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
      • 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

CMC charges capped at 20% by law effective July 2018


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1960 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

In fact the new regulation is even more interesting than the post above suggests.

 

There is a cap of 20% – but in fact the rule is that the CMC's are only allowed to charge "reasonable" fees are not only that they are required to provide a detailed breakdown of the work they have carried out so one can then decide what is reasonable.

 

I'm quite sure that many CMC's will simply charge the – 20% of recovered premiums. If you discover that in fact that they only send one or two letters and did very little else than I would suggest that 20% would normally be very excessive.

 

I think it is now possible to hold CMC's to account and refuse to pay the bill until you have a complete breakdown of the work they have carried out.

 

What a shame that this is come so late in the day – when the arbitrarily imposed time limit for claims is next year.

 

Incidentally, in terms of the time limit for claims, this simply relates to claims made directly to the lender and then to the FOS. In fact if you find that there is some good legal reason for saying that the PPI was mis-sold to you then you may well have good case to go to court – and it could well be worth doing.

 

For instance, if you have evidence that the PPI was sold to you because you were misled into it then you probably have six years to bring your claim in the courts from the date that you became aware or should reasonably have become aware of the misrepresentation.

 

1. Financial Guidance and Claims Bill: interim fee cap

 

On 21 November 2017, a Government amendment was passed in the House of Lords at Third Reading of the Bill providing for a cap on fees that CMCs and legal services providers can charge claimants for claims management services in relation to PPI claims.

The Government has decided to legislate for a cap in advance of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) taking over responsibility for claims management regulation and to set this cap at 20% (excluding VAT) of the claim value. The intention is that the cap would be introduced two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent which, subject to Parliamentary approval, is expected to be by March 2018. This interim cap would remain in place until the FCA exercises its own fee-capping duty under Clause 17 of the Bill.

The fee cap will be enforced by the CMR in respect of CMCs and the legal service regulators in respect of law firms. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will now be passed to the House of Commons for consideration. The progress of the Bill can be followed on the Parliament website where you can sign up for email alerts.

 

.

2. CMR consultation response: rule changes to be implemented from April 2018

 

On 15 November, we published the consultation response in relation to proposals first outlined in 2016 to place restrictions on the level of fees that regulated CMCs can charge for financial services claims.

The report explains how the responses received informed our conclusions, and announces the intention to implement the following measures via changes to the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2014:

 

 

  • Fees must not be charged to a client prior to the conclusion of a PPI claim. Fees for any other financial products and services claims must not be charged prior to the provision of any regulated claims management services (excluding advertising for, or otherwise seeking out) to the client.
  • A ban on any charges to a client where it is identified that the client does not have a relationship or relevant policy with the lender(s) for which a claim is submitted on their behalf.
  • CMCs will be required to ensure all charges are reasonable and to provide clients with an itemised bill setting out details reflecting the work undertaken and what the charges relate to where a contract is cancelled after the 14-day ‘cooling off’ period.
  • Amended Client Specific Rule 16: A business, unless subject to Regulation 8 of the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013, must permit the client to cancel a contract at any time. Any charge to the client must be limited to what is reasonable and must reflect work undertaken by the business. Where there is a contract for a financial product and services claim the business must provide the client with an itemised bill that evidences the regulated claims management services provided and how the fees have been calculated before obtaining payment details and before any payment can be taken.

The new rules will come into effect on 1 April 2018. All CMCs offering financial claims services in England and Wales are required to adhere to these rules as a condition of authorisation in accordance with Regulation 12(5) of the Compensation (Claims Management Services) Regulations 2006. Failure to adhere to the rules would be subject to enforcement action.

Further guidance will be issued in due course on the implementation of the interim fee cap and the above rule changes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The new rules are not retrospective so they only apply to contracts agreed with a CMC after the start date which is apparently 10 July of this year – 2018

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...