Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
  • 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

The OFT Case


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5566 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

  • Replies 355
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Looking again at that EU 'Unfair terms in contracts' has just reminded me that in most EU member states a court will put a ceiling on the amount a third party Debt purchaser or Factor can claim on the outstanding balance of an alleged debt, as they only pay a fraction of the face value anyway.

 

"A contract term is in principle regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the party's rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

 

"If you come across such terms you have the right to challenge them or to ignore them - they do not bind you."

 

 

Surely that should apply to the UK as well???

 

I'm drifting off topic a bit now - but the Debt forum people might want to consider that point. :cool:

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"A contract term is in principle regarded as unfair if it causes a significant imbalance in the party's rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."

Surely that should apply to the UK as well???

 

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5) ;-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

It does - It's in the UTCCR. (Section 5) ;-)

 

I've just had one of those 'Eureka' moments.

 

Suddenly things just got a lot clearer.

 

Bookie, I love you, and I want to have your babies. ;-)

HOIST BY THEIR OWN PETARD.

 

Blimey it works....:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it not an unfair term and condition if only one side can apply charges then?

HTH (Hope This Helps) RDM2006

 

THE FORCE (OF CAG) IS WITH YOU

;)

 

We've Helped You To Claim - Now Help Us Remain

A live Site - Make a Donation

 

All advice and opinions given by people on this site are personal, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

However, if you have found any advice you have been given helpful.

Why not show your gratitude And

Click the * on the post you found helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really & how much do you reckon they are NOW saving by NOT having to settle claims - or what do you consider it would cost them paying the legal costs - as apposed to having to pay compensation to customers past & present - my guess - settling claims which I'm sure would be many millions if not billions more

 

You are not getting what I am trying to say.

 

You say there is a conspiracy going on here...Im saying bull pucky, if there was one there wouldnt have been a court case to start with AND the FSA would have ruled years ago that bank charges were lovely jubberly.

 

The very fact the banks have had to front up to court and face the music should tell all but the most challenged individuals that any talk of a conspiracy between the banks and the OFT, FSA and Elvis is absolute crap. Crap on the 9/11 conspiracy magnitude!

 

Mailman

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not getting what I am trying to say.

 

You say there is a conspiracy going on here...Im saying bull pucky, if there was one there wouldnt have been a court case to start with AND the FSA would have ruled years ago that bank charges were lovely jubberly.

 

The very fact the banks have had to front up to court and face the music should tell all but the most challenged individuals that any talk of a conspiracy between the banks and the OFT, FSA and Elvis is absolute crap. Crap on the 9/11 conspiracy magnitude!

 

Mailman

 

I understand precisely what your trying to say but if you think this case is NOT to the benefit of the banks I don't where you have been. It has had the effect, as they knew it would, of bringing to an abrupt halt their having to return millions of pounds to consumers

 

& it was the banks who instigated this action not the OFT - I wonder why

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was the OFT who brought the case to court because of the sheer number of people who wanted to cliam.

Test case

 

The OFT has already stated that credit card default charges were unfair and had been set too high. It is now taking seven banks and one building society to the High Court seeking a ruling that the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 do apply to bank charges.

 

Banking and credit | Bank charges | Bank charges

 

link from which. I've been reading it and it give quotes to use if you go to court.

 

If you remeber the banks were paying out rather than go to court. if they had a defence they would have used it long ago.

 

Also found this about small claim courts.

It's a fact sheet from which.

 

http://www.which.co.uk/files/application/pdf/0707smallclaimscourt-445-118164.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it wasn't the OFT although it was made to appear so at the time this case was at the behest of the banks.

 

Think about it who has it so far benefited to the tune of millions whilst at the same time allowing the banks time to introduce new 'service' charges to current accounts - the banks of course

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest naffedoff
Latest news say July, but even that is not a definite. :-(

 

Thats weird because its been announced that the judgement is going to be handed down on Thursday.

 

Hey ho, you can't win them all can you Bookie, never mind eh !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest news say July, but even that is not a definite. :-(

 

Glad to see that the senior staff on CAG are at the forefront with the latest news.

 

It was announced that Judgement will be handed down This Thursday (24th)

 

lol,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest vortex

To give bookworm, her dues, first news broke after she had posted. First news broke 8 minutes later. It is Thurday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest vortex

Bookie sometimes, when someone else has already reproached another user for an inaccurate post, you need to let things lie. Having the last word is not always necessary. As a long standing moderator you must have learnt that by now. Even I spotted the cheap shot for a mile away at you which is why I reproached them for it.

As for Thursday, it is the beginning of the battle and not the end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't "trying to have the last word", I was answering a post addressed to me.

 

I completely agree with you that this is - hopefully - the beginning and not the end, which is why it would be great to see those who usually gather like bluebottles the moment they sniff a whiff of an argument just go and do their own thing the way they like it done elsewhere. One can only hope.

 

We are on the verge of something which can potentially change the face of banking in the UK and once the result becomes publicised (with or without appeals at this stage), people are going to need so much help, it would be nice not to have to waste energy on other stupid stuff. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest vortex

I am under some form of moderation and have no bear garden or PM's co cannot send message to MOD. could this be looked into please. Thank you and Thursday is Charges Judgement Day:o

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be very surprised if the case goes in favour of the public in any great extent:( The court will probably, if they do decide to go with the OFT come up with a decision tp allow the banks to charge a fee probably around the £ 12 mark like the credit card companies. Which to me is still far too much considering what it actually costs :( I hope the OFT has enough guts to really go after the banks but somehow I don't think they have:( :(:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be very surprised if the case goes in favour of the public in any great extent:( The court will probably, if they do decide to go with the OFT come up with a decision tp allow the banks to charge a fee probably around the £ 12 mark like the credit card companies. Which to me is still far too much considering what it actually costs :( I hope the OFT has enough guts to really go after the banks but somehow I don't think they have:( :(:rolleyes:

 

The level of bank charges has not yet been put to the court so I doubt that any level will be set at this stage. The £12 figure the credit card companies cling to is also not set by anyone, it is merely an arbitrary figure the OFT set for themselves when considering whether to investigate a consumers complaint or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-charges-consumer-issues/139501-test-case-judgment-due.html to be fair, when info is on different threads, it's sometimes hard for people (mods included) to find the info immediately.

 

Plus, mods do have other things in their life too which can make an individual one very busy.

 

Now, at least we are getting somewhere, so no point arguing any more, is there?

All help is merely my opinion only - please seek legal advice if you need to as I am only qualified in SEN law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...