Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you very much for your letter in regard to the above mentioned shipment.  Due to the high volume of parcels coursing through the courier network each day, undergoing continuous processing and handling, certain packages may experience delays or even can get lost in the course of this journey. Please note that due to the time that has passed, this shipment has been declared as lost.  I have today processed the claim and made offers to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. I do acknowledge that you have mentioned in your letter that the value was higher, however, you did not take out any protection to that amount. The protection for this shipment was £20 and we will not be increasing our goodwill offer any further.    Please log into your account online in order to accept our offer. Once accepted, our accounts department will process the claim accordingly. The claim payment will be processed and received within 7 working days.                                  In addition, a refund of the carriage fee will be processed as a separate payment and will be received within 3 working days.  If I can further assist, please feel free to contact me.   I have also just noticed that yesterday afternoon they sent me an email stating that "after my request" they have refunded the cost of shipping. I did not request the refund so will mention that in my letter as well.
    • Hi I had to leave Dubai back in 2011, during the financial crisis. And only now have I received a letter from IDRWW. Is this anything to worry about about as I have 2 years left until it’s been 15 years(statute barred in Dubai). Worried as just got a mortgage 2 years ago. Could they force me in to bankruptcy? Red lots of different threads on here. And unsure what true and what isn’t. 
    • Not that TOR will see this now he's thrown in the hand grenade. Rayner has plenty of female supporters on X, for a start. As for the council and HMRC, fair enough and I thought Rayner was already in touch with them. That's where it should be dealt with, not the police force. @tobyjugg2 Daniel Finkelstein thinks the same as you about tax. The Fiver theory. How the Fiver Theory explains this election campaign ARCHIVE.PH archived 28 May 2024 17:36:51 UTC  
    • Often with the Likes of Lowells/ Overdales that 'proof' doesn't stand up to scrutiny.   Think about it like a game of poker, they want to intimidate you into folding and giving up as soon as possible, and just get you to pay up and roll over, that is their business model, make you think your cards are rubbish. What they don't expect, and their business isn't set up for it, is for a defendant to find this place and to learn that they have an amazing set of cards to play. Overdales don't have an infinite number of lawyers, paralegals etc, and the time / money to spend on expensive court cases, that they are highly likely to lose, hence how hard they will try to get you to roll over.  Even to the extent of faking documents, which they need to do because the debts that they purchased were so cheap, in the first place. Nevertheless it works in most cases, most people chicken out, when they are so close to winning, and a holding defence is like slowly showing Overdales your first card, and a marker of intention that this could get tricky for them. In fact it may be,  although by no means guaranteed that it won't even go any further than that.  Even if it does, what they send you back will almost certainly have more holes than Swiss Cheese, and if with the help you receive here, you can identify those weaknesses and get the whole thing tossed in the bin.
    • So Rayner who is don’t forget still being investigated by the local council and HMRC  is now begging to save her seat Not a WOMAN in sight in this video other than Rayner  Farage is utterly correct this country’s values are non existent in her seat   Rayner Pleads With Muslim Voters as Pressure From Galloway Grows – Guido Fawkes ORDER-ORDER.COM Guido has obtained a leaked tape from inside a meeting between Angela Rayner and Muslim voters in Ashton-under-Lyne...  
  • 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

Woodwa5 v Barclays [Goldfish card charges] ***WON***


woodwa5
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5791 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

I am absolutely fuming!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I sent these idiots an SAR on the 25th January. I received a letter from them today (2 months later) saying that they need some ID and that the postal order I sent them had to be made to Goldfish and not just left blank at the top.

 

How the hell has this taken 2 months to tell me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely the 40 day limit is to enable you to thrash these issues out within the time limit. I sorted the id situation out in one phonecall today and they told me that Goldfish now have a further 40 days. I THINK NOT!!!!

What can I do now as I don't want to wait another 40 days.

 

I am also seriously considring making a tonne of requests under the freedom of information act to bog them down (just for p*****g me off). Just things like how many SAR's they have dealt with in the last year and whatever else I can think of,

 

THEY HAVE ANGERED THE WRONG MAN!!!!!!!

 

Woodwa5:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

How frustrating! It may be worth writing a formal complaint to them. Try perhaps a 28 day deadline or if not you will report them to outside agencies such as the Information Commissioner.

 

Just an idea, see what others think.

I'm midway through the tunnel, but getting closer to the light.

 

 

 

Please be aware that i am not an expert in anything!

I may offer an opinion, but the final decision is yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well I have had a look around and found most of my statements. I will still pursue the S.A.R but I have fired off a prelim based on the statements I have with some arguments from Steven4064 with regards to charges more than 6 years old. Can I add any new charges from statements i receive to this when they arrive,

 

Woodwa5:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

well no great shocks in that they failed to reply to the prelim' and so far have failed to reply to the LBA. I am going to file at court next Friday but I don't expect them to reply,

 

Woodwa5:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will have to reply once you file in court. I predict they will acknowledge and say they intend to defend the entire claim and then, within 2 weeks, you will get a full offer.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My credit card was with morgan stanley. on the POC would i put morgan stanley or goldfish. all the responses have been from goldfish and i don't even think morgan stanley issue credit cards any more. I'm going to file in court over the next couple of days so a swift response would be great,

 

kindly

woodwa5;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Woodwa5.

 

What were the fees and what are they now ?

 

 

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

btw i am having major issues figuring out who on earth i sue for my morgan stanley card. I have decided on goldfish as it was them that replied to my S.A.R (although they have chosen to ignore all further correspondance). What happens if i'm wrong and they say it should be barclays?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fees to be taken

Column 1

Number and description of fee Column 2

Amount of fee

1 Starting proceedings (High Court and county court)

1.1 On starting proceedings (including proceedings issued after permission to issue is granted but excluding Claim Production Centre cases brought by Centre users or cases brought by Money Claim OnLine users) to recover a sum of money where the sum claimed—

(a) does not exceed £300; £30

(b) exceeds £300 but does not exceed £500; £45

© exceeds £500 but does not exceed £1,000; £65

(d) exceeds £1,000 but does not exceed £1,500; £75

(e) exceeds £1,500 but does not exceed £3,000; £85

(f) exceeds £3,000 but does not exceed £5,000; £108

(g) exceeds £5,000 but does not exceed £15,000; £225

(h) exceeds £15,000 but does not exceed £50,000; £360

 

 

 

That's what it say's :)

 

Must be right ;)

 

 

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

unusual for something to go down in price these days

 

No half :)

 

Re: your other question, I've asked someone to have a look.

 

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

The court service did adjust the cost of filing claims a while back. A list of the charges are on the HMCS website if your unsure.

 

Also the vast majority of Goldfish accounts transfered to Morgan Stanley a while back. Before putting in a court claim, i would call someone at Goldfish or Morgan Stanley to see who is responsible. I believe you should go for Morgan Stanley, they now own the brand. I believe Goldfish was just a brand name.

 

If you get this wrong your claim could be thrown out, and you will lose your fee. Hope this helps.

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, good idea, thank you ..

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I phoned morgan stanley today and it goes straight through to goldfish. They state that it would be 'goldfish card services ltd' despite the fact they are owned by barclays.

 

That goes in the post tomorrow the. Can I just clarify that I put three copies of everything in the envelope?

 

Woodwa5

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes,

 

I'm sure it's three copies.

I'll get back to you later (have to go out :rolleyes:)

 

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Also the vast majority of Goldfish accounts transfered to Morgan Stanley a while back. Before putting in a court claim, i would call someone at Goldfish or Morgan Stanley to see who is responsible. I believe you should go for Morgan Stanley, they now own the brand. I believe Goldfish was just a brand name.

 

 

I think it was the other way round.

I am in the same situation, my card was supplied by Morgan Stanley Dean Witter a long time ago, I received a letter explaining that Morgan Stanley would be transferring the business to Goldfish, then a little while later I received a letter stating Barclays had purchased the credit card business of Goldfish http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/barclays-bank/137580-barclays-buys-credit-card.html , and they stated that this will include all Morgan Stanley Credit Cards and all will come under the administration of Barclaycard.

They have also stated that Barclay's Bank PLC will now be the data controller.

Although my statements continued to come as Morgan Stanley at the bottom it says Goldfish Card Services Limited, it tells you to visit the Morgan Stanley Website, and Barclays have handled the payments for sometime.

Letters are now on Goldfish headed paper but now have "Goldfish cards are issued by Barclays Bank plc" & "Goldfish Card Services Limited is an appointed representative of Barclays Bank plc".

 

So Barclays issue cards for Goldfish.

Goldfish is a representative of Barclays.

Morgan Stanley don't want anything to do with it, accept you can still use the website, and your statements still bear their name.

 

:confused::confused::confused::confused:

Sharkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's a rediculous situation where the customer has no idea as to who to sue. I did phone goldfish and they stated it would still be them. I suppose I started process when it wasn't even owned by barclays anyway and my papers are now in court and were deemed to have been served yesterday. If there is a problem I think I would a legitimate complaint to make buti'll let you know how it goes,

 

Woodwa5:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is confusing and I'm sure much of it has been left that way on purpose.

 

In your case Goldfish have been acknowledging your letters, they have had ample opportunity to point you in a different direction.

 

Go for it and stick to your time tables.

Sharkie

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is 3 Copies :)

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...