Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all! I've now had a "final notification letter" through from ECP. I assume I should continue to ignore this, but is there likely any action I need to take? Do you need to see a copy of the letter? Thanks
    • Please will you upload the defence in a PDF format document
    • Afternoon All - after 3 weeks of silence, this morning I received an email from HMCTS advising that P2G have rejected my claim. Decide whether to proceed Parcel2Go.com has rejected your claim. You need to decide whether to proceed with the claim. You need to respond before 4pm on 25 June 2024. Your claim won’t continue if you don’t respond by then. This is their ‘defence’ Their defence Why they disagree with the claim When choosing a service on the Defendants website, the Claimant chose to book their order with Evri and selected to take out £20 parcel protection which comes with the service. On the first page of the booking process, the Claimant entered the value of £265 for the contents and was offered parcel protection for loss or damages against their goods for £13.99 + VAT. The Claimant selected no, which then produced a pop up which explained 'We strongly recommend that you protect the full value of your item(s).' however, the Claimant still did not take this protection out and instead continued with the booking process. At the end of the booking process, the Claimant was offered this again which was refused and the Claimant continued with the booking by accepting the terms and conditions which re-iterates the information provided in the booking process. The parcel was sent, however, seems to be delayed in transit. The parcel finally started to track again, however, when delivered the parcel was empty with no contents. As such, the claim was re-opened and attempted to be settled for the £20 protection taken out in the booking process. This was refused by the Claimant as they felt they should be paid the full amount of the value entered when booking. Unfortunately, due to the refusal of the parcel protection in the booking process the Defendant is not liable to settle the claim to the value and only to the parcel protection taken out. The Defendant shall rely on the Terms and Conditions of carriage in particular section 9. The Defendant understands that the contents have not be handled with due care and attention, which is not being disputed, however, they are disputing the amount they are liable to. They have requested mediation, I’m sure not least to drag the case out even longer, but I can see no benefit to me in this and so shall reject it. As ever, I’d welcome your thoughts guys. g59   
    • I doubt HMCTS holds any data on whether arrests by AEAs required police assistance.  They couldn't or wouldn't provide data on how many of warrants issued were successfully executed - just the number issued!  In my experience, arrest warrants whether with or without bail are [surprisingly] carried out with little or no fuss.  I think it's about how you treat people - a little respect and courtesy goes a long way. If you treat people badly they will react the same way. Occasions when police are called to assist are not common and, having undertaken or managed many thousands of these over the years, I can only recall a handful of occasions when police assistance was necessary. On one occasion, many years ago, I arrested and transported a man from Hampshire to Bristol prison on a committal warrant. It was just me and he was no problem. I didn't know the Bristol area (pre Sat Nav) and he was kind enough to provide directions - seems he knew the prison.  One young chap on another committal warrant jumped out of his back window and I had to chase him across several garden fences.  When he gave up (we were both knackered) I agreed to drive by his girlfriend's house to say farewell for a while.  I gave them a few moments and he was fine. The most difficult are breach warrants but mainly in locating the defendant as they don't want to go back to prison - can't blame them.  These were always dealt with by the police until the Access to Justice Act transferred responsibility from them to the magistrates' courts. The fact was the police did not actively pursue them and generally only executed them when they arrested someone for something else and found they had a breach warrant outstanding.  Hence the transfer of responsibility.
    • thats down to mcol making that option available for you to select, you cant force it. typically if there are known processing delays at northants bulk it will be atleast 14 days later if not more.
  • 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

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 5052 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

cos there is loads of reference to bank charges case and the next stage is about unfair terms....could mirror the next stage of proceedings.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

What strikes me as funny in the OFT vs Foxton's is that a High Court apperance was made on April 9th. Why the different time spans as the Banks one? In fact why a lot of things where the two are quite comparable?

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 decision was from July 2009. There wasn't an issue as to whether the terms were assessable under UTCCR 1999. Foxtons and the OFT both agreed that they were. Remember, the reason we have spent 2 years(OFT test case) is that the banks do not agree that their terms are assessable for fairness under UTCCR 1999 which is why we are still at the first part of the OFT test case.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no 'law' that says you have to be paid via the bank and not in cash.

 

I believe the law is that you have no right to be paid in any particular way, ie; you can't demand it in cash and you can't demand it goes into the bank.

 

You can't demand payment of your wages in cash. The employer can refuse & require you to accept either a cheque, draft or payment via BACS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think all this refers to PAYE. Self Employed people with eveidence as such might be paid in cash. These days however it's tsandard for BACS, drafts or cash. The flip side for NMRC is that they can track stuff.

Another pointer is that cash/cheque payments into a personal account are automatically advised to HMRC by banks when they exceed £5,000.00 as a single deposit. That's to stop money laundering, illegal dealings generally and attempts to avoid paying taxes and whatever else the government of the day wants to/expects to extract from you.

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 initial question of whether the banks have a right to charge for returning an S/O or D/D is also intertwined with the question of whether they have a also right to charge if they do clear them?

 

If the clearing of such is done at no cost to the consumer, and the two go through much the same process (i.e. the same resources and infrastructure), then the refusal should be without charge too.

 

On the other hand, if you agree that there is a right to charge for refusing, (even just at cost), then the argument then raises the issue of whether the clearing of such should also be charged.

 

You see where I'm going here?

 

There should be a parity of cost for two.

If you feel that there is a right to charge for one, then the same applies to the other.

Likewise if you feel one should be free, then the other should be too.

 

Agree that there is a right to charge for refusing one, with no clearly demonstrable additional cost over the other, only leads to the question of whether the other should be charged for too ?

 

Thus raises the ogre and threat of an end to "free" banking.

 

All valid points but if i banked with say natwest... and have Life insurance with them, paid by direct debit. My account is 0.02p overdrawn then on the same day I have a D.D for their life insurance due to leave my account on the same day, I will have 2 charges. 1 for being 0.02p overdrawn, then one for £30+ for the bounced D.D

Link to post
Share on other sites

They did take the figures from confidential information supplied to the OFT. I have been able to see the document which was provided under a Freedom of Information Request(I would reproduce it but all of the figures and information are blanked out since they are exempt from the FOI requests).

There is a cost to the bank but I think the issues when the HoL appeal is done will be around possibly 2 or 3 issues. Cost of an item, the relationship between charges ie how one charge causes another(and therefore the fairness of this) and furthermore, whether a term is really required(guaranteed card payment fee/referral fees).

 

May I ask how you obtained the info under the Freedom of Info act as this appears to be out of the reach of us mere mortals

Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask how you obtained the info under the Freedom of Info act as this appears to be out of the reach of us mere mortals

 

Considering that, as we have been lead to belive that only information in the public domain can only be released to the public domain.

 

As I understand on here many people have requested info from the OFT, only to be told that they can not release this type of information under a Freedom Of Info request.

 

Either you may be lying or the OFT are...... Please clarifiey.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that, as we have been lead to belive that only information in the public domain can only be released to the public domain.

 

As I understand on here many people have requested info from the OFT, only to be told that they can not release this type of information under a Freedom Of Info request.

 

Either you may be lying or the OFT are...... Please clarifiey.

 

Blimey, give him a chance...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that, as we have been lead to belive that only information in the public domain can only be released to the public domain.

 

As I understand on here many people have requested info from the OFT, only to be told that they can not release this type of information under a Freedom Of Info request.

 

Either you may be lying or the OFT are...... Please clarifiey.

 

 

If insofar as post 2253 this info is the subject of a freedom of info request, then why are the main contents hidden,if this is a true freedom of info request then all information should be provided, otherwise this makes a mockery of the initial F.O.I.A.

Link to post
Share on other sites

post was misunderstood and I have removed it in its entirety.

Edited by yourbank

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey, give him a chance...

 

Sorry to appear to be Champing at the bit, but the post gives the immpression that there may be two tiers of the F.O.I.A.

 

1) The first one for us mere mortals, who, may be given the info we need.

 

2) The second one, for those that it may be of more benefit to have more accurate info.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Removed post(by me) as it was causing misunderstanding....

Edited by yourbank

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, fair dos then, Site rules forbids me from linking(and permission to reproduce them here was not given due to the time and effort it took to get them) so I'll be a liar here and truthful elsewhere. I can live with that.

 

Shall we move on since the info was on credit cards and not bank charges so is technically off topic.

 

Dont take it personaly, did not mean to call you personally a liar, even if the post may have given that impression. more to the point that the OFT have given the Immpression that F.O.I.R are only the subjeject of government bodies

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I did 'yourbank'. :) The FOIA seems to define carefully between 'commercially sensative' and 'personal/security' and therefore when someone wants to hide something they can. You are right with reference to MP's (as an example). If I recall normally when asking for information there's a £450/£650 value limit on allowable expense for data production per application. With regards to the 'fee' department it was over and above as a 'special' case where they tried to be transparant but someone 'steamed ' it over. However as rightly said anything viable was blacked out (just going to show how the general public is hoodwinked all the time).

We should all remember there are documents that people will 'never' see in probably for to save embarassement than security. The nice novel one though was I think 1957 when France requested to be part of the commonwealth (and were refused)!

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

Yes I did 'yourbank'. :) The FOIA seems to define carefully between 'commercially sensative' and 'personal/security' and therefore when someone wants to hide something they can. You are right with reference to MP's (as an example). If I recall normally when asking for information there's a £450/£650 value limit on allowable expense for data production per application. With regards to the 'fee' department it was over and above as a 'special' case where they tried to be transparant but someone 'steamed ' it over. However as rightly said anything viable was blacked out (just going to show how the general public is hoodwinked all the time).

We should all remember there are documents that people will 'never' see in probably for to save embarassement than security. The nice novel one though was I think 1957 when France requested to be part of the commonwealth (and were refused)!

Michael

OFF TOPIC!!!!!! :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFF TOPIC!!!!!! :confused:
Tell you what, why don't YOU go through the whole thread, make a note of the number of every OT post, then hit the report button and ask the team to move all said numbered posts to another thread? That should keep you busy for a while, and since no-one is expecting anything much to happen now until October, you have plenty of time anyway. ;-)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell you what, why don't YOU go through the whole thread, make a note of the number of every OT post, then hit the report button and ask the team to move all said numbered posts to another thread? That should keep you busy for a while, and since no-one is expecting anything much to happen now until October, you have plenty of time anyway. ;-)

 

 

[snigger]

 

Sorry couldnt resist

 

S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell you what, why don't YOU go through the whole thread, make a note of the number of every OT post, then hit the report button and ask the team to move all said numbered posts to another thread? That should keep you busy for a while, and since no-one is expecting anything much to happen now until October, you have plenty of time anyway. ;-)

Not sure what that will achieve, I am now one of the few who remembers when this topic had some relevance and didn't get lost in jargon and unrelated opinion.

I appreciate your passion for the subject Booky and like many on here have been grateful for your advice but people should be encouraged to start up their own threads and not hijack one like this, especially with totally non-sensical arguments.

 

As far as I am aware the thread is "House of Lords Appeal", so YOU the mods need to get a grip and try and steer the ship back otherwise I can see this thread going down the route of many on less informed sites.

 

I am now going back into my box as I don't want to get into a keyboard fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well 'jotty' it was just idle (truthful) banter whilst we wait. If there's a need not to post then I guess it'll be 'dead' until the decision. My apologies if you considered my 'off topic' post a problem but my intention was not to upset but to while away the time. This is also 'off topic' but I have to say being in the world of the unemployed does not cheer me up at all!

I will refrain from posting again till the results at least.

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

well 'jotty' it was just idle (truthful) banter whilst we wait. If there's a need not to post then I guess it'll be 'dead' until the decision. My apologies if you considered my 'off topic' post a problem but my intention was not to upset but to while away the time. This is also 'off topic' but I have to say being in the world of the unemployed does not cheer me up at all!

I will refrain from posting again till the results at least.

Michael

 

Michael my point exactly, please start your own thread then we can all choose to join in and pass comment.

We are all desperate and now very impatient to see this conclude, but I'd rather not read over 2000 posts mainly having nothing to do with the topic.

See you have all got me at it again - nurse Nurse NURSE !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...