Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About LateDeveloper

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 makes it an implied term of the contract that goods be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. You are quite correct of course in your assumption that non-faulty goods are at your own expense. You should not lose out financially as a result of a breach of contract and accordingly all costs of returning the item should be met by the seller.
  2. The law states that the seller is to pay for the return, not you. Whenever I buy off Ebay, I refuse to rate a seller until I know the goods are in perfect condition. Similarly I will always leave bad feedback on Amazon if a seller is rubbish, but conversely I will do the opposite if a seller is good. Whenever anyone shops on line, the mantra "buyer beware" should be foremost in the purchasers mind. A lot of things sold on both Ebay and Amazon are through drop shipping where the seller thinks they are not directly responsible for poor quality goods, given they never actually see the product. There margins are small and even the price of returning an item can wipe out their profits. People should be aware of who they are buying from and always check the seller information. Amazon have always listened to what I have said, but conversely they are also known for having bad judgement in some cases. The facts do need to be known before a balanced point of view can be put forward.
  3. Which is why I said the first part is a no brainer, given that T&C's do not make this clear. Also the law does need to be made clear in as much as there can be no opting out of the law even if some company includes a clause in their T&C's to say that by accepting the T&C's then a consumer is opting out of their rights given under the law. If you read the link I gave, the same company does exactly the same thing worldwide including in the UK and Europe.
  4. I agree with Which, but as far as asking large business leaders around a table to discuss matters,is like an antelope asking a pack of hyenas to have a chat. Its also like asking a load of bankers to be honest, its just not going to happen. Before any talks on terms and conditions can be useful, terms and consumer law has to be fair, which the present system is not. With a lot of purchasing done on line the consumer protection falls far short of anything approaching what is fair, with companies which are allowed to opt out or at least change the law by adding restrictions into the T&C's. All you have to do is look at what the ACCC have done with regards to a companies restrictive policies on terms and conditions, something the UK legislature should also be challenging. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/federal-court-finds-valve-made-misleading-representations-about-consumer-guarantees I do tend to feel this exercise in clarifying the T&C's will just be another whitewash, and presented as another success for the consumer, which will be far from the truth as no matter how you word T&C's, unless you have a good consumer law, the T&C's will be just as worthless as they are now. It really is a no brainer. All T&C's must start with the words, Any terms and conditions in this agreement are in addition to the consumer regulations and cannot in any way contradict or over-ride the prevailing consumer law.
  5. I have never really had a problem with Amazon and upon any occasions that they have asked for further information, I have pointed them to the relevant part of consumer law. I do tend to think that Amazon need to be on solid ground with sellers and just refunding with out just cause is not in their interest, regardless of their charter with the customer. When any company has a no quibble guarantee, it is within their right to refuse to serve a customer, How about this; I as a customer return a lot of items to different sellers through Amazon and yet those same sellers do not have items returned by other people. This could of course be the fact that most people buy crap, then right it off without saying a word or it could be that the sellers items are pretty reliable. Amazon, not having a suitable explanation or a reference to the law feel the customer is being difficult and restricts/stops the account. There maybe even a section in the T&C;s stating any points can be removed under certain conditions, or it is a computer error that when an account is stopped, anything associated with that account is also stopped. Not a human fault but a program error. The main problem as I see it, is that there is a lack of information with regards to the 37 items returned, so no one can really comment. This is just headline grabbing and probably, as with 99% of news articles, is complete misleading rubbish.
  6. This story starts 18 years ago by way of this company getting a repossession order on my property. I was sick with worry and knew nothing of the law, however after seeing my Solicitor, he had a Barrister appointed to my case. Subsequent action in the courts and a side room conversation between my Barrister and the Alliance & Leicester Solicitor, ended in the building society agreeing, in front of a judge, to all conditions my Barrister laid down. This included all court cost being paid, all charges being removed from my account, along with the withdrawal of the repossession order. There were other stipulations that the bank should in future treat me fairly. I was unaware at the time, why the Alliance & Leicester solicitor looked very shame faced and agreed to every stipulation my Barrister proposed and even the judge was taken aback by their agreement, but as I understand it, the Barrister could have pressed for breach of contract, plus other undisclosed unlawful acts by this company. Over the years since that time however, I have had a quite clearly antagonistic approach from this company, regarding any dealings with my account. According to my mortgage agreement, this is an endowment mortgage, where the principle is paid at he end of the mortgage term and interest only payments are made on an annual interest basis, charged at monthly rests.. Having been unemployed at various times, arrears had accrued on the account, but on every occasion I worked, I paid £100 a month in excess as a capital repayment to clear any debts. However the debts did not decrease as expected and I queried this with the building society, to which there was no response. I again became unemployed due to an accident, and despite me paying extra into the account, the Alliance & Leicester monthly calculations for payment made no sense as they were clearly far greater than the interest. I tried to get this company to confirm in writing how they were calculating repayments, but they deigned not to reply. As I knew a Solicitor at he time who was and is a firm believer that justice should be had for everyone, he wrote to this company and asked them to provide this information. They replied by sending an annual statement with no explanation. Roll on a number of years where the building society have made threats as to court action, only to find they won't despite me urging them to do so, as they do not wish to arbitrate. Enter a comlaint to the financial Ombudsman where the adjudicator decides there is no case to answer, to which I ask for the Ombudsman opinion. I was given some money by my father to pay off any arrears and pay towards future short falls in monthly interest charges. The Alliance & Leicester decided o treat his payment as a payment towards shorfalls in the monthly rests, still calculated in the way they refuse to tell me how. The Ombudsman refused to deal with he main problem, but made a parial ruling by way that where the money paid cleared off any debt above the mortgage figure,this should be treated as a capital repayment and imediaely reduce the interest charged to the point where it was again the agreed mortgage interest amount. Now the Alliance & Leicester decided to reduce the whole amount of any money owed, including the actual mortgage amount, from that date forward. As soon as the amount which was lower than the agreed Morgage figure increased over the reduced figure they called this arrears on the mortgage and decided to make charges based on this assumption. After the Ombudsamn made her ruling the Alliance & Leicester changed my account by the amounts shown, did not inform me of any rest payment amounts expected from me for this year, then decided they were going to phone me 3 imes a day over a period of 3 months, until I again contacted the Financial Ommmbudsman with a complaint. I returned to the financial Ombudsman, who told me the case was now closed and that the Alliance & Leicester had done as the Ombudsman had ruled. Despite them clearly not doing so. I queried this with the Financial Ombudsman Service, adn asked in view of the BCOB schedules, if they thought this was fair. I have not received a reply. As I have had no formal explanation from either the Financial Ombudsman nor the Alliance & Leicster about how they have calculated the monthly rests, I decided to ask under the data protection act. Again I received statements with writing so small I would need a magnifier to read and a copy of my mortgage agreement, which they have clearly not abided by. I informed the ICO after the prerequisite time scales of 40 days + another 14 days, to be told that the ICO have produced a case number and have contacted the Alliance & Leicester. I received another phone call fro the Alliance & Leicesterwhere I asked them to send me details through and they replied by saying I must now correspond with heir Solicitors. I really don't think I should be contacting their solicitors, as my agreement is with he Alliance & Leicester, so all correspondence should be written to the company itself. If I were to instigate anything in writing to their solicitors, then I would be billed by their solicitor. I am now stuck as the Financial Ombudsman will do nothing, the Alliance & Leicester refuse to comply with the law by providing the information required. Now I am told they have appointed a Solicitor. What do I do next. ?
  7. I too have had trouble with the Alliance & Leicester. I suggest you read the following : http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?825-BCOB-the-hidden-rules http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?827-Examples-of-unfair-treament http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?826-How-Can-BCOB-Protect-You-From-Your-Bank-s-Unfair-Treatmen As I stated I too have had trouble with this company for many years, years in which they have failed to provide information. This looks as if it is company policy, however it is illegal and despite rhetoric to the contrary this company is scared of taking legal action by the looks of it, which leaves the ball firmly ion your court. You should first see good Solicitors that have dealt with cases against banks in the past. I plucked this one off the net, only be the fact that they apear to give good information. LINK REMOVED Also for information purposes LINK REMOVED
  8. That is called a set-aside order, where the court sets aside a previous decision to allow for new evidence to be submitted. Even if a Building society is granted a repossession order, it is not the end of the story by any means, and if they can be shown to be misleading or fraudulent in their dealings with their client, then that decision can be overturned.
  9. In your case I would take them to court and sue them, given RBS have just been fined £20.7 million (£14.5 million for early payment) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28948518 This is just gross mis-selling of a product and a change to a contract must be agreed by both parties for it to be legal. It is encouraging that the FCA are actually doing something, although it is rather cynical, given the amount of cases reported by various people of them having done nothing to date. I would presume people take the adjudicators opinion of a case, and not let the case go all the way to the Ombudsman. Personally that is something I found to be quite misleading with the FCA.
  10. I have a similar case going through the Financial Ombudsman in the UK at this moment in time, so hopefully he will take heed of this judges ruling, despite it being in Ireland. This is apparently common practice, not just with RBS, but with all mortgage lenders, and the adjudicator apparently thinks it is fine, despite an earlier court ruling that capitalisation without an agreed change in the original mortgage agreement is not legal.
  11. Sorry been away If you are making a claim for PPI, then the total amount of PPI should be readily available from the lender. It all depends on how they have calculated the PPI. For instance, if they have added interest onto the loan, then calculated the PPI on the Loan + Interest as a percentage, it would come to a greater amount than if they had just calculated the PPI on the loan before interest. They should give you all these payments in detail, showing the loan amouts, loan interest, and PPI payments made/to be made itemised. They may well have even given you an interest rate on the loan of 5% then added a PPI of 1.26% on top, making the total interest 6.26%. You need to check your original loan agreement for how the calculations have been done.
  12. Try again for a rough calculation take the interest charged and divide by the amount borrowed. To calculate the actual interest then it depends on how they have applied the charge. Depends on wether they charge the interest annually, monthly or daily and at what frequency the reduce the debt. Below is an annual interest rate charged annually. example would be 10,000 reducing by 2500 per year. interest on the first year would be (10000 x 1.0626) - 10,000 = A interest on the second year would be (7500 x 1.0626) - 7500 = B and so on, for C and D Add A + B + C + D together. Now add this to the amount borrowed, then divide this into equal parts for the repayment. The figure 1.0626 is the interest rate in decimal form, which is interest 6.26% divided by 100, + 1
  13. I did write it all out for you, but the post went invisible for some reason. What is the repayment period charge. ie what charge over how many installments ?
  14. See a decent Solicitor. A & L have the nasty habit of making it appear that they have sent you a letter from a solicitor. If you look at the letter it is not a real signature, so is therefore unlawful. A solicitor will be able to represent you, not only in court but also in dealing with these muppets. If they do refer it to a debt collection agency, you can talk to them and propose a repayment to them, if they refuse, put it in writing and send it. Documentary evidence is everything if it ever came to court action, so keep a file with all communications in it, one of the reason why a solicitor is useful.
  15. Mortgage account. I presume this is a case of misleading the lender into thinking it is a legitimate charge from a solicitor.
  • Create New...