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
      • 160 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

Illegal deduction?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6204 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

This issue relates to alleged parking violations, but probably belongs here in view of the curious behaviour of The RBS!

 

A bailiff called on a friend of mine on 24/03/06 demanding payment for the above. He felt threatened and therefore made payment with an RBS credit card ... under duress. He reported this to RBS that same day by phone, but they failed to cancel or challenge the transaction!

 

He recd statements from RBS and refused to pay them in view of

 

1. He was under duress when making payment, as noted

2. No court papers were presented

3. No court papers followed, despite a promise from the bailiff to produce these at a later date

4. He felt that RBS are effectively aiding and abetting an unlawful action by failing to cancel the payment

5. The parking violations were probably unlawful in the first place

 

On the 15/02/2007 RBS took payment directly from his bank account (almost £700) without prior warning, and after having threatened court action. No court action was initiated, despite the threat, but a payment was taken, anyway.

 

This seems to raise a number of issues, not least in relation to data protection laws! Regardless of the legality or otherwise of the parking tickets, does The RBS have the right to take payments directly from a separate account, especially in view of the circumstances? Also, have they failed act in accordance with his consumer rights by honouring a questionable transaction in the first place?

 

Any advice appreciated

 

Thank you

 

Soupdragon42

Link to post
Share on other sites

He needs to get in contact with RBS credit card and get a form to allow him to challenge the CC payment. It's not something they can sort out over the phone. BUT. RBS CC will also get the bailliff's side of the story, and come to some decision as to whether or not to cancel the payment.

 

Regarding the taking of money from his account. Hmm. I suppose to a certain extent it depends on what the agreement says. BUT.

 

I have 2 accounts with the RBS. One where my money gets paid into, and the other to pay D/Ds S/Os etc. When I didn't have enough in my bill paying account to pay my mortgage one month, they just bounced the D/D, despite there being enough in my first account to transfer over to cover the payment. I was told at the time that they couldn't just transfer it for such a large amount, (£500) as it would have needed my permission to do so.

 

So, my guess is, they SHOULDN'T have taken from his account to cover his CC payment. But it is a guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don'treally see what comeback he has on RBS - he used his credit card for a transaction, and presumabaly authorised that transaction by PIN or siganture, therefore his card was not used fraudently and he agreed the amount.

It is not up to the bank to check out if he has court orders etc before making payments. It is rather like saying that they should not pay restaurant bills before checking the cardholder was sober.

I should imagine that RBS have used the right of offset from his current account, which they are quite within their rights to do.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should imagine that RBS have used the right of offset from his current account, which they are quite within their rights to do.

 

Aye, they only seem to do that when it suits them though. And don't if they think they can make a few bob in charges.

 

Mind you. It was that ploy that got my back up for the last time, and prompted me to claim ALL my charges back, not just the £38 I got hit with for that little bit of nonsense. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently RBS did not send or offer any dispute form, and advised my friend on the day of the initial payment that little could be done!

 

My friend had a RBS Mastercard, not a debit card, so I am surprised they can switch funds as it suits them. I would have thought that there was a data protection issue here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently RBS did not send or offer any dispute form, and advised my friend on the day of the initial payment that little could be done!

 

Which is probably correct see my post above.

Your friend is better off going after the people that charged her and sorting out a refund that way, there is no dispute here.

 

My friend had a RBS Mastercard, not a debit card, so I am surprised they can switch funds as it suits them. I would have thought that there was a data protection issue here

 

It is the same group so the right of offset applies - it will be i nthe T&C somewhere

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...