Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi on the notice of disqualification it lists the 2 speed offences and marks offence withdrawn? This is for both offences and then the other 2 is the MS90s which I’m fined for and the additional costs. R
    • Hi,    It has taken a while, but I have received an email from Auxillis -  hello, we are not dealing with this claim all we do is log accident for you isnurance - the claim has been passed to your underwriter markerstudy 0344 873 8183 as they are deal with fault cliams ion behalf of adrian flux. thankyou auxillis   I have made repeated attempts to phone Markerstudy in between working from home, struggling for energy and trying to find a cheap car so that I can keep my job (community support worker). Thankfully I have a supportive team and I am being given phone calls to make but it cant last too long. I had a severe migraine over the weekend and also have quite bad whiplash in my neck and back.    I found this in my insurance policy booklet -    Protection and Recovery If the insured vehicle cannot be driven following an incident leading to a valid claim under this section, we will pay: • the cost of its protection and removal to the nearest approved repairer, competent repairer or nearest place of safety; and • the cost of re-delivery after repairs to your home address; and • the cost of storage of the insured vehicle incurred with our written consent. If the insured vehicle is damaged beyond economical repair we will arrange for it to be stored safely at premises of our choosing. You should remove your personal belongings from the insured vehicle before it is collected from you. In the event of a claim being made under the policy we have the right to remove the insured vehicle to an alternative repairer, place of safety or make our own arrangments for re-delivery at any time in order to keep the cost of the claim to a minimum     I do about 20-25000 miles a year with the work I do, I have been getting quotes and putting that I have now have one accident and no no claims bonus and the cheap quotes from similar companies to markerstudy are more than double what i paid last year at 8-900 and aviva is offering 2600 which is simply out of my price range and more than the car i am looking at.  I am starting to wonder if it is even worth going ahead with the claim as i have no one to claim from. I have had no information from any of the enquiries I have made.  I have a full tank of vpower diesel in the car in the impound, i can strip it for parts and probably make what I will be offered by the insurance payout and get the money quicker.  As I have made contact and started the process can I back out, still keep my NCB and a claim free history? Also what happens with my injuries? I don't think there is any permanent damage but my dr refused to see me and just gave me a boat load of naproxen and codeine. What happens in the future if things don't get better and I cancelled this claim? Can you claim injuries off your own insurance because the other guy ran and you cant find him? I have tried to ask these questions off markerstudy but they keep me waiting for nearly an hour then end the call.     
    • Thanks for the response. Am I able to send you the documents I’ve received or can you message via instant message and I’ll send these? Reece
    • Regretfully it does. Have you actually seen any papers which show what you were charged with (rather than what you were convicted of)? It is unusual not to be “dual charged” but if you were not charged with both, you are where you are. If you had been charged with both offences and providing you were the driver at the time, you could, after performing your SD, have asked the prosecutor to drop the “Fail to Provide” (FtP) charges in exchange for a guilty plea to the speeding charges (you cannot be convicted of speeding unless you plead guilty as they have no evidence you were driving). You will have difficulty defending the FtP charges. In fact, it’s worse than that – you have no chance of successfully defending them at all because the reason you did not respond to the requests is because you did not receive them and that’s entirely your fault. No it’s not correct. Six months from 18/11/23 was 18/5/24 so, unless they were originally charged, the speeding offences are now “timed out.” There is one avenue left open to you. If you perform your SD you must serve it on the court which convicted you. You will then receive a date for a hearing to have the matters heard again. Your only chance of having the matters revert to speeding (and this is only providing you were the driver at the time of those offences) is to plead Not Guilty, attend court. When you get there you can ask the prosecutor (very nicely, explaining what a pillock you know you were for failing to update your  V5C) if (s)he is prepared to raise “out of time” speeding charges, to which you will offer to plead guilty if the FtP charges are dropped.   This is strictly speaking not lawful. Charges have to be raised within six months. Some prosecutors are willing to do it, others are not. But frankly it’s the only avenue open to you. There is a risk with this. I imagine you have been fined £660 (plus surcharge and costs) for each offence. The offence attracts a fine of 1.5 week’s net income and where the court has no information about the defendant’s means a default figure of £440pw is used.  If the prosecutor is not prepared to play ball you can revise your pleas to guilty. A sympathetic court should give you the full discount (one third) for your guilty pleas in these circumstances but they may reduce the discount somewhat. The prosecution may also ask for increased costs (£90 or thereabouts is the figure for a guilty plea). So it may cost you more if you have a decent income (I’ll let you do the sums). But MS90 is an endorsement code which gives insurers a fit of the vapours. One such endorsement will see your premiums double. Two of them will see many insurers refuse to quote you at all meaning you will have to approach "specialist" (aka extortionate) brokers. So you really want to exhaust every possibility of avoiding MS90s if you can. One warning: do not pay solicitors silly money to defend you. Making an SD before a solicitor should attract just a nominal sum (perhaps a tenner). That’s all you should pay for. You have no viable defence against the FtP charges and any solicitor suggesting you have is telling you porkies. The offer to do the deal is easily done by yourself and you can save the solicitor’s fees to put towards a few taxis and increased insurance premiums if you are unsuccessful. In the happy event you find out you were "dual charged", let me know and I'll tell you how to proceed. (Seems a bit odd hoping you were charged with four driving offences rather than two, but it's a funny old world!).    
    • Just the sort of people you despise eh Jugg  You would be much happier among your mates in that room with Rayner begging for votes 
  • 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

H.O.L Test case appeal. Judgement Declared. ***See Announcements***


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5064 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 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi Guys,Can someone tell me please what has happened to cidb. There also used to be a chatroom link from CAG but it appears to no longer be online. Does anybody know if the site has ceased working.Thanks.TheyrCriminals

Edited by TheyrCriminals
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Guys,

 

Just to let you know that my documentary research on bank charges and their impact on people's lives and the possible link between bank charges and suicide has now been moved to:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/effects-debt-health-lifestyle/176267-theyrcriminals-what-effect-has.html?highlight=TheyrCriminals

 

If any of you have stories of how these charges have affected your quality of life and any effects on your health I would like to hear from you.

 

TheyrCriminals

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

COMMERCIAL COURT LIST

 

COURT 76

Before MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH

Wednesday 21 January 2009

At 10:00

FOR JUDGMENT

2007-1186 Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC

 

I believe this to be the announcement re NatWests charges being able to be tested as a penalty.

 

STAND BY FOR THE FIREWORKS IF THEY DONT GET IT!

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOUND THIS ON robertson-holbrook site

 

20 JANUARY 2009 16:00

 

Judge Andrew smith today announced his findings on the Bank's historic terms & conditions (T&Cs) in the matter of the high Court Test Case.

 

Although he was happy to give the majority of the banks pronouncemet they had requested on the ability of charges to be tested as a penalty NatWest failed to obtain the all encompassing statement they had hoped for and the Judge stated that he was not prepared to make any such statement regarding the NatWest T&Cs from 2001 but was prepared to make a declarationon July 2003 leaflet and T&C 2004.

 

This is a small piece of a big puzzle but to bank charge claimants it is gold dust.

 

More here later.

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Link to post
Share on other sites

Noomill

 

I was kinda hoping for a resolution by the autumn - what makes you think it will be next year ?

 

Also can anyone tel me what comes next - it all seems to have gone very quiet.

 

Thanks

All comments are my personal views - if in doubt then seek professional advice. If you think i've helped then please tip my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA waiver on complaints expires on 26th January

 

 

LOL .... should we poor ones take side bets on if it'll be extended again? Maybe not eh?

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the judgement very carefully just now. Since it is only ten pages, that was fortunately not too difficult!

 

The decision actually hinges upon whether or not the "leaflets" containing "terms and conditions" actually form part of the contract between the bank and the customer. In most cases they did not.

 

In which case, where *are* the contractual terms to which the customer and bank are subject in their business relationship? I don't seem to have been given any.

 

In the two cases where the decision was that the terms in the leaflet *did* apply to the contract, the precise terms considered in one of them was inappropriately specific. This is the OFT's fault - Mr. Justice Smith is not able to "show initiative" in this kind of case.

 

As such, he has not actually answered any substantive questions as far as we consumers are concerned. Instead, he has raised new questions. However, these new questions may turn out to be useful.

 

Here's a new avenue to consider: Ask the bank to clarify which *contractual* terms apply to the account, and to point out under which of them it was entitled to charge the fees.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks would say anything that relates to a charge is a fee for a service and our charges are clearly displayed in our leaflets. At least thats what abbey lloyds hsbc and northern rock are cean to point out.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what constitutes as a term ive done this before a judge nd he said wait until blah de blah

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The banks would say anything that relates to a charge is a fee for a service and our charges are clearly displayed in our leaflets. At least thats what abbey lloyds hsbc and northern rock are cean to point out.

 

Yes, that is what they have been doing in the past. But Mr. Justice Smith has now given us a very big lever to suggest that the leaflets are not, in fact, sufficient to show that a contractual obligation exists.

 

By levying these charges, the banks are, by default, asserting that they have a contractual right to do so. What I'm suggesting is that we make them prove that contractual right by showing us the terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the banks say they have a right under the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed an aplication when you opened an account.

 

try asking them for a copy of the aplication form.

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly i'd like to say La illah illa-Allah

 

This judge has done a good thing by replying to every term which means each and every tocs hae to be commented on seperatley.

 

He answerd the issue of common law however it raises a question who is in breach us or them?

 

Them with there QC's? or us with our web interface? and N1 Forms

 

The judge has ruled yet there are asnwers I asked the test case did not cover.

 

 

Any typos spelling mistakes are due to leprechauns in my keyboard they move the letters around sometimes (edited for bookworm god bless her sole) Deep Peace be with you.

 

“I would say to the House as I said to those who have joined this government: I have

nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the

most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of

suffering.

 

You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs —

Victory in spite of all terror — Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for

without victory there is no survival.”

 

(Winston Churchill Addressing the House of commons.)

 

All complaints go to the lootube. All conversations go in the white box then you click submit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Heard

 

FSA WAIVER EXTENDED ANOTHER 6 MONTHS

'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'

Thomas Jefferson 1802

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys

 

I'm completely flummoxed now and, with that in mind, would be really grateful if someone with a better grasp than me of exactly what this latest judgement means in laymen's terms.

 

My understanding is that the judge has ruled most of the banks' terms and conditions - with the exception of NatWest's pre-2003 - preclude their charges from being looked upon as penalties. That being the case, this means most claims will now be reliant on the UTCCR argument, on which we await a further ruling, if they are to succeed.

 

Am I right so far... yes/no/to an extent?

 

Assuming I am, then where does that leave, for instance, a NatWest claim where all the charges are pre 2003 (assuming, that is, the Statute of Limitations doesn't apply because the claimant has only recently become aware that the charges were unlawful)? Does it mean that any such claim is now assured of success or is it, as I fear, a whole lot more complicated than that? And, if so, how?

 

And finally, for all those claims that are now, apparently, dependent on the UTCCR argument, what's the state of play, ie when can we expect a ruling from the judge, on this?!

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Waiver extended

 

 

FSA extends waiver to firms on complaints handling

 

media.gif

 

 

FSA/PN/014/2009

22 January 2009

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) today extended its waiver from complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges, for up to six months. This is because the test case is ongoing, and it is not yet clear how the banks should be responding to complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges so that customers are treated consistently and fairly.

The waiver was due to expire on January 26. The extension has been offered to those firms who signed up to the July 2008 waiver. This represents approximately 98% of the market.

Whilst the waiver is in place, signatories will not be required to handle complaints relating to unauthorised overdraft charges within the time limits set out in the Dispute Resolution manual.

Dan Waters, director of Retail Policy and Conduct Risk at the FSA, said:

"Our objectives continue to be certainty over this complex issue, and a fair and consistent resolution of consumer complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges.

"The FSA has reviewed the prevailing circumstances and has decided to offer firms an extension to the waiver, to run for up to six months."

The FSA can revoke the waiver at any time if it considers a waiver is no longer appropriate, for example, if it no longer provides adequate consumer protection, or material progress is not being made in the test case, or a firm fails to comply with the conditions set out in the waiver.

The FSA first granted a waiver for 12 months from its complaints handling rules regarding unauthorised overdraft charges in July 2007. This was followed by a new waiver with a duration of six months in July 2008.

The waiver means that while it is in operation, any bank or building society granted the waiver will not be required to handle this type of complaint within the time limits set out in the FSA rules. The county courts have 'stayed' cases referred to them and the Financial Ombudsman Service has adopted a similar approach.

top.gifBack to top

Notes to editors

  1. The waivers are available on the FSA website.
  2. The waiver has been extended for up to six months. This is because the test case is ongoing and it is not yet clear how the banks should be responding to complaints about unauthorised overdraft charges so that customers are treated consistently and fairly.
  3. The test case began in July 2007. There are two stages. The first explores the preliminary issues of banks’ terms and conditions and whether they are subject to Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and whether they are capable of being penalties at common law. Stage two will deal with whether the terms are actually unfair and are actually penalties at common law.
  4. On current terms and conditions, the High Court decided that the current terms and conditions could be assessed for fairness under the Regulations; were not capable of being penalties at common law; and were in, or largely in, plain intelligible language.
  5. The banks appealed the High Court’s decision that current terms and conditions can be assessed for fairness. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal from 28 October to 5 November 2008. The Court of Appeal’s judgment has yet to be handed down.
  6. For more detail follow the link for Moneymadeclear.
  7. The FSA regulates the financial services industry and has four objectives under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000: maintaining market confidence; promoting public understanding of the financial system; securing the appropriate degree of protection for consumers; and fighting financial crime.
  8. The FSA aims to promote efficient, orderly and fair markets, help retail consumers achieve a fair deal and improve its business capability and effectiveness.
  9. Posted by Amethyst on LB site

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just Heard

 

FSA WAIVER EXTENDED ANOTHER 6 MONTHS

 

 

Personally I'm yet to be shown that the financial institutions (albeit debt ridden and unprofessional) are not in cahoots with the FSA. There again I realise that courts operate on budgets and are simply not geared up to dealing with 'Penalty Charge' cases to the volume they began to experience.

 

I also keep feeling that glimmer of a successful outcome for consumers after hearing that little known case I believe in Nottingham just prior to the FSA desperate actions. I recall sitting in the car hearing a bit swiftly on the new where around 150 people were to appear against I'm not sure who. All of a sudden solicitors for the said FI's appeared and started to write cheques out to these people. Anyone else know or recall this?

 

To me, again personally I feel that all this is pure 'delaying' tactics entirely. I also believe that you'll be fobbed off with, if successful for the consumer, a lower limit that the 6 years (plus extra as 6 years plus since for those who claimed in the past) for a reflection period. I'd not be surprised if they allowed only a percentage too.

 

Oh, I'd like to share with everyone my failed hardship case with HSBC. They said because I spent cash (from some income in November) that 'You had the money but spent it', as their answer to a refusal. However now being almost £1k o/d with no agreement they have left me with some helpline number to call.

 

Just my views on what is appearing to be a sad case all in all.

 

Michael

When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is. (Oscar Wilde)

--I like to be helpful wherever possible however I'm not qualified in this field. I do consider carefully anything important (normally from personal experience) however please understand that any actions taken are at your own risk--

Link to post
Share on other sites

the banks say they have a right under the terms and conditions you agreed to when you signed an aplication when you opened an account.

 

try asking them for a copy of the aplication form.

 

Hah, I did.. apparently they have "misfiled" it. !!.

 

I guess it was inevitable the waiver would be extended.

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...