Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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 
        • 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

Help needed with bank error!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5770 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

Good info.If this is the case then we should make this info available to all those with Business claims.Theres certainly lots of confusion.

Lizzies recent convos with the FOS appear to confirm that as it stands the position remains the same as before the conclusion of the part 1 OFT case.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Maroondevo52 you post has left me a little confused?

 

MY case is so confusing over the course of 16 months I have had charges refunded which covered me up till May 2007 this was only refunded when the FOS got involved and then I never got refunded till Feb 2008 as it was touch and go as to whether Business and personal accounts came into the OFT's court case like you the FOS decided that business accounts are nothing to do with the court case and therefore the FOS will continue with them. I'm claiming for more charges from may 2007. Since 24 April things have changed the judge has ruled that they are not a penalty therefore this is the grounds for my claim under a business account. I am shocked why the FOS can put business accounts on hold when the whole court case is about personal accounts anyway. I quote from the letter I got from Barclays dated 25th April

 

" One of the issues that will be considered in the test case is whether these charges on personal accounts are penalties at common law. In the circumstances it is possible that this case may inform the approach to be taken by banks in how they deal with business claims such as yours".

 

So things have changed as from 24 April 2008.

I fax my letter to the fos yesterday and they have decided that business accounts will go on hold like personal.

What do you think? I was hoping to get the full amount funded?

I'm so depressed over it...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Lizzy.

 

FOS putting Business Claims on hold is news to me. I'm really not sure what is the best way forward. Looks like you may have to wait until further advice from FOS is forthcoming.

 

Try not to let it get you down, you never know ,something might come through for you quicker than you think.

 

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I am in shock!

 

If you have been following my post you will know that I've had offer from Barclays on 25 April 2008 the day before court case and because of the judge's conclusion (not a penalty), business accounts could no longer claim refunds under the grounds of a penalty charge.

 

When I got this offer (the offer was bad) my claim had already been passed to the FOS.

 

When I heard this news I spoke with the FOS and they told me due to the new information from the court case, business accounts where being put on hold the same as personal accounts and the FOS weren’t looking at them.

 

Everything was out of my hands now and I had a month to decide what to do. I decided not to make any rash decisions and leave it as long as possible before the offer expired in case something changed has it had many times.

 

Although the FOS verbally told me that they were putting business accounts on hold I was still getting letters from them that my complaint was still waiting to be looked at. On the 13 May 2008 letter said my case was still waiting to be allocated to the casework support team? I did not read too much into this as I had already been told by the FOS it will be but on hold.

 

As my time was running out to accept this offer I rang Barclays to discuss it with them but they said as I'd passed my claim onto the FOS whatever I decided to do accept or reject offer it had to come via the FOS so basically I couldn’t do anything.

 

So I rang the FOS and told them but they said my claim was still waiting to be looked at and they would be in touch as soon possible. I didn't question them just thought lets just see what happens; things do keep changing however I wasn’t very optimistic and thought I'd lost the offer now but I just waited.

 

Got another letter on the 2 June from the FOS still waiting a caseworker to look at my complaint? Today got another letter this was dated 6 June so in four days they had looked at my case and resolved it something not right there. Anyway, the good news is Barclays have trebled their offer I must admit it is a shock because was expecting Nil or for it to be put on hold.

 

I am just so happy I will be getting my money back.

 

Hope this thread will help other business claiments as it looks like the FOS is still dealing with business accounts....

 

This has been hard work! Started original claim Feb 2007 - June 2008

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lizzy,

 

Today got another letter this was dated 6 June so in four days they had looked at my case and resolved it something not right there. Anyway, the good news is Barclays have trebled their offer
I'm really pleased to hear this - excellent news.

 

Please post up exact detail of the FOS letter, or scan it for us to see.

We could do with some help from you

                                                                PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

                                            Have we helped you ...?  Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done Lizzy, It's been a long haul, but hopefully worth it :)

 

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoooooooooooooohooooooooooooo !!!!!! :D

 

 

Another Business claimant getting justice !!

 

 

I am now even more convinced that something odd is going on with regards the banks attitudes towards the likelihood of charges (both Business and Personal) being found penalties at common law.

Why else would they be settling so many claims that are not based upon the UTCCR or OFT case, if they really were that confident that they could win them on the basis of common law not applying ?

All opinions and advice I offer are purely my own, and are offered without any liability. If unsure seek the help of a licensed professional

...just because something's in print doesn't mean its true.... just look at you Banks T&C's for example !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree something doesn't add up but I don't think anybody knows whats going on. I felt 100% sure that it was the end of the road for my claim especially when my offer expired. So I think the best thing for business claims is to carry on as normal and just hope its a happy ending!

 

This is part of the contents of the FOS letter I received on 6 June

 

" More recently, the financial services authority (FSA) undertook a review of the waiver it had provided to the banks concerning unauthorised overdraft charges complaints handling. At that time, the FSA decided that banks and building societies should, after all, continue to deal with complaints about default charges on business accounts"

 

The letter doesn't state when the review took place I'am assuming it was after the May court case?

 

Anyway hope this helps!

 

Lizzy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...