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

Archives of Abbeys web pages/ Terms and Conditions


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4602 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

Can you help with T&C's for May 1999 ?

 

Thanking u in advance.

DozyTart

 

Here are the T&C's for Nov 1998, i am not sure if they were updated between nov 98 and May 99

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/101308-t-cs-nov-1998-a.html

 

Hope that helps.

 

Reka (Sam)

[FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue]Reka [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4][COLOR=blue][URL]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/93120-reka-abbey-court.html[/URL][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT] [URL]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/abbey-bank/101308-t-cs-nov-1998-a.html[/URL] [FONT=Tahoma][SIZE=4]Abbey *WON IN COURT* £2775[/SIZE][SIZE=1](awaiting payment) [/SIZE][/FONT] [B][FONT=Tahoma]Warrant of Execution filed 22/06/07[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Tahoma]***Warrant Issued 22nd June 2007***[/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Tahoma][COLOR=red]PAID IN FULL [/COLOR][/FONT][/B] [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcAaoRr8H5c[/URL]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dozytart!!!!

 

Just to let you know I did find alittle information about the T&C's for 1999 under the following link

 

Internet Archive Wayback Machine

 

However, please double check your bank account and this is the confusing part. My account is an instant plus current account which has different terms and conditions to a standard current account and Instant plus is no longer available.

 

I rang up abbey and they told me they would not send me out the T & C's and it was on their website. I made them hold on the phone and told them that it wasn't on their site so how would I get them. I was fobbed off and told to go into the bank in town So I did.

 

An advisor spent ten minutes trying to find my account t&c's which they printed out for me. They are slighly different i.e worded to the other 1999 T & C's so I am now confused as to whether I do have the correct ones - there is no way I can find out - only Abbey know. But it could mean that their template defence is not applicable as they have taken it from the current account. How do I know????

So I am going to include both T&C's in my defence as clearly in my case Abbey have not provided me with the correct T&C's and clearly the everyone in the bank was confused.

 

Abbey have have only ever sent me updated tariff charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lisa11,

Thx for the info and the warning - greatly appreciated.

Dozytart

 

Hi the T&C's I have are for Personal Banking Conditions May 1999 and it includes the instant plus account. These t&C's also include for cards as well.

 

I will email these to you as you have requested over the weekend when I have more time.

DS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Help!!! Does anyone have a copy of the September 1994 terms and conditions? I need to file my bundle ASAP but can't find these conditions in an archive. All help would be greatly appreciated. Also, if anyone else is going through Bow County Court and has filed their bundle already could you get in touch. Ta xxxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary H gave me this advice... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1017243.html

and seeing as it's his Bundle suggestion, I'm going with him!!

Claiming £590 in unauthorized OD fees, and £100 in interest from Barclays.

 

Remember "He who pays the piper calls the tune" well I've paid Barclays far too much so bloody well dance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

look at post 31 and post 29 above for t&cs for 1999 dunno how to do links daft eh been on here long enough maybe someone could tell me how xxkia

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to find T&C's for August 2001 and when I click on the link on this thread it keeps telling me that they are not in the archive.

 

Also on my account it was originally a National & Provincial Account that converted to Abbey when they were taken over and i can't remeber when that was.

 

A reply is needed pretty quickly for the first lot as I have until Thursday to submit.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

i only found our recently it means that this article will go to top of page and may be read more quicker is that good grammer or what lol so consider it bumped again xxkia

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Took me ages to find the link to Abbey's current T&C's so I thought I would post it here for anyone else who wants them. I suspect they will disappear as soon as the new T&C's take effect on 10 September.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 9 months later...

hi all i am an abbey customer aswell. i have a student account which i opened in 2002 (never really bothered upating to current) well even then i have been charged like mad i have orderd my full statement for six years and i know they owe me thousands over the 6 years. am i too late to put in a complaint or claim my money back, if not what are the steps i neeed to take against abbey can some one talk me through it step by step and simple pretty please.

 

lots of luv to all xxx :-x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...