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 
      • 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

Bank of Scotland - SAR rejected


ally7770
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6350 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

I've been trying to claim £1432 bank charges back from Bank of Scotland and was initially offered £120 which I rejected, they then offered £360 which I again rejected and then advised would accept a recalculation of charges at £12 each (which was offered by my credit card company) meaning I would accept a refund of £868.00 which they have now refused, stating their previous offers are now withdrawn and they will not refund any charges.

 

Considering taking them to court now and, before doing this, have sent a subject access request asking them to advise of all instances where there has been any manual intervention on my account. They have now replied advising they are "under no statutory obligation to record this information and, therefore, are unable to assist further with your request".

 

They have added they are sending copies of duplicate statements separately (a bit pointless as I keep all copies of my statements, hence how I was able to calculate the charges applied over the past 5 years in the first place).

 

Can anyone advise if this sounds correct - that they would not keep a record of any manual intervention on my account?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ally7770,

 

I got this letter as well. I assume since charges are not shown as "manual intervention" on statements the duplicate statements will still show any charges over the 5 year period. Manual Intervention I take as being if they have refunded charges to your account manually...can anyone else confirm if this is correct??

 

Thanks.

Bank of Scotland (In Scotland)

 

S.A.R. sent - 03/11/06

Statements received - 30/11/06

Prelim Letter sent - 04/12/06

LBA Sent - 09/01/07

1st claim filed at Sheriff Court (£720+int) - 01/02/07

1st Claim settled by BoS (£1037) - 17/04/07

2nd Claim filed at Sheriff Court (£735+int) - 11/05/07

2nd Claim settled by BoS (£977) - 13/06/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe it or not "no manual intervention" is a good thing. It simply means that an actual person didn't have to do anything manually on your account. This means that the charges they impose should be lower as no-one has had to do anything...does that make sense lol

Ally if you have already sent the letter before action then I would issue a court claim straight away. There is no reason at all to wait any longer as they have made it quite clear they aren't going to give you the full amount.

 

Good luck.

Pam.

 

If anything I've said helps you then please feel free to tip my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ally7770,

 

I got this letter as well. I assume since charges are not shown as "manual intervention" on statements the duplicate statements will still show any charges over the 5 year period. Manual Intervention I take as being if they have refunded charges to your account manually...can anyone else confirm if this is correct??

 

Thanks.

 

A log of manual interventions would allow the bank to argue that the charges they impose are rightfully expensive since they have had to pay someone to 'manually' examine and adjust something in your account. We all know that inverventions are computerised and therefore cheaper.

 

Beleive me when I say that no manual interventions is a good thing.

 

Mike

If I've helped tip my scales

 

Blair Oliver & Scott, £2500 written off December 2006 Default removed January 2007:D

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt/56001-mike220359-blair-oliver-scott.html

 

Monument, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

Lloyds TSB didn't sign the agreement!

:D

 

Citicards, didn't sign the agreement

:D

 

RBS tut, tut!

:rolleyes:

 

Morgan Stanley, oh dear

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

This means they will give you your list of charges, but not discuss "manual intervention". If / When it gets to court we all ask for "standard disclosure" becasue this means the banks have to disclose this information.

 

Something they don't want to do, and why so far all cases have been settled.

 

Good Luck

Hope this helps

AL

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...