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
  • Recommended Topics

Penalties for not paying by direct debit


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3420 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

From what I can tell by the OfCom notes to date (what a way to spend a Sunday afternoon!) - as long as the company put the charges in writing, clear to understand, they can add on what the heck they like?

 

Yes, that is correct. You are always free to pick a supplier who doesn't rip you off like this, that said, I bought a new mobile recently - don't really like contracts for things like mobiles, but did look at them and it appears that just about all the networks only accept payment by direct debit anyway.

 

What's even more sneaky is the newer practice of the customer being forced into two contracts - one with MySupplier and the other with My Supplier Payments Processing Services Limited or similar.

 

This, I would have thought, would pave the way for the payments processing fee to, say, treble, inside a contract with MySupplier, but because MySupplier hasn't changed their terms to disadvantage you, you have no rights at all to cancel with MySupplier and are stuck with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I have a second phone, for my voluntary work, very similar tariff but a business account. No non-DD charge there. It's actually cheaper.

Perhaps the answer is to have a business account :-)

If my comments have been useful please click the scales and let me know.

 

Me vs Rockwell/Tessara/RBofS: pending.

Me vs MBNA/1st Crud: Discontinued.

First Direct Overdraft: CCJ won.

IR: 2 CCJs 1 won.

Birmingham Midshires: pending

BT: pending

others to come....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Need help please regarding virgin media and there bill charges. Like most people i am unemployed so dont pay by dd this costs me £5 amonth also £1.25 paper bill but what is really hurting because i cross over into other months they are hitting me with another £10 charge each month i have to juggle my money to pay peter then paul any help please regarding these charges mainly the late charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to wave a magic wand, however VM have establioshed these charges over the last 2 years (and don't make any secret that they exist), so the opions are; (1) Pay the charges (2) Negotiate to bring them down to a more manageable level (3) Take your custom elsewhere, and let them know the reason why.

 

For the record, as NTL they made a total mess of my finances so I withdrew their right to take money from my account as they had broken any trust I could reasonable expect to give them. As such, I retain control of my finances, and have no wish to relinquish this to a third party. For over 2 years they would (on request) provide a 'goodwill credit' which covered the amount they charged for not letting them control my bank account. When this stopped, I kept a note of the additional money I was paying until it reached £60. I then advised that as I was paying them almost £800pa, I had had enough and wanted my £60 back as it was disproportionate, I also said if we did not reach a resolution, I would take htem to court for the £60, and terminate my services, giving due notice.

 

Within 2 weeks I had a response. A credit for the £60, and the creation of a 'special discount' which would keep the non-DD fee to £1.50pm. This was clever, as it meant I would probably be unsuccessful should I challenge them in court over the fee. £60pa would easily be seen to be unreasonable, but £18...? Success would not be easily assured. So, it IS possible to get the DD Fee down to £1.50 per month, but it has to be negotiated.

 

As to your last point - the 'late fee'. You can switch to ebilling and save on the cost of paper bills, because they use UK Mail, paper bills usually arrived about 3 days before the payment needed to be credited to the account. With ebilling I get them 1 day after the bill is generated, and have a full 3 weeks to pay. The secret is to ensure your monthly bill is paid in full BEFORE the next one is printed. If you do not, the Late Fee will be applied. If your bill is printed on (say) the 15th of each month, then your funds MUST be with them by 13th, and by this I mean IN their bank account - you can usually do this via PC Banking/BACS under your control, but if you use any third-part service (like PayPoint, Cheque or Debit card) you cannot leave it as late as this - the 5th would be your target date.

 

The dates will never change, so you need to put a ring round the calendar to ensure this bill is paid on time, as it will cost you dearly if it will not.

 

TIP: IF you have not missed a payment in 12 months, CD staff can arrange for a crediting of the £10 fee, but if there is a string of late payments, they will not do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
I am in receipt of a letter from BT (yesterday) that's in response to a complaint I made on the 19th March about BT's proposed penalty if you don't pay by direct debit.

 

Has anyone else had this letter? I assume it's a standard one.

 

 

 

What's most annoying is that Gillian Lewis couldn't even be bothered to sign the letter herself - it's PPed from someone else. What's worse than that is that it's a scanned signature! Jeeeeez, why can't they scan Ms Lewis' signature?

 

haha see what i mean someones already being paid to process your payment so why should we have to pay extra for that ?

 

BT are the biggest cash whores going they wanted to charge me £130 for a call out because what ever the problem was, was not there problem

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

People say that BT are bad, lol you should see THree :D They are worse! When I first started with them 3 years ago on a £10 a month contract, I was being charged £4.50 non-dd admin :-/

 

Back to the topic of BT and non-DD charges, I'd personally just email the CEO' email address as it's still passed onto the CEO's exec team to deal with... Here are the details and exec teams details:

 

 

Michael Rake Chairman

 

E-mail [email protected]

Telephone 0207 356 5000

Company Twitter @bthelp

 

and

 

I'm sure this is the acting CEO:

 

Ian Livingston Chief Executive

 

E-mail [email protected]

Telephone 0207 356 5000

Fax 0207 356 6650

Website http://www.bt.com

Company Twitter @BTCare

 

I'd personally consider CCing your local news desks tipoff email address when you do :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Noone has posted on thuis thread for a few years

 

is it still the case where companies are not allowed to over charge for non-payment by direct debit?

 

Vodafone charge me about £3 a month for not paying my direct debit, i think it's pretty unreasonable but they think otherwise.

 

Tried to download the letter someone posted up but the link has now gone dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...