Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • 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
      • 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

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 4996 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

have a look at

 

The “reasonableness” test

 

downwards

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

 

You've actually linked to the section that deals with the amendments for Scotland.

 

Here is the link to the area regards the reasonableness test for England

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (c.50)

 

 

Notably:

 

SCHEDULE 2

“Guidelines” for Application of Reasonableness Test

 

The matters to which regard is to be had in particular for the purposes of sections 6(3), 7(3) and (4), 20 and 21 are any of the following which appear to be relevant—

(a)the strength of the bargaining positions of the parties relative to each other, taking into account (among other things) alternative means by which the customer’s requirements could have been met;

The massive imbalance of power of the parties to the contract, plus our total inability to change or alter the terms, plus the fact that there were no alternative providers offering more favorable terms

(b)whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term, or in accepting it had an opportunity of entering into a similar contract with other persons, but without having a similar term;A promise of "free" banking as inducement, the insistence in some circumstances that loans or mortgages would only be provided if the account was opened, no better alternative terms with other providers

©whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and the estent of the term (having regard, among other things, to any custom of the trade and any previous course of dealing between the parties);The customer did not have knowledge at the time the contract was agreed upon; that the other parties response to the customers breaking or other failure to adhere to the term were in fact potentially unlawful (regardless of whether or not the customer had already experienced such actions in prior dealings with the OP, or that indeed it was common practice in that trade), nor did they know the full estent and implications of the term, including how any response could be be for ever made increasingly detrimental, and also that such terms could also just be unilaterally changed by the other party.

(d)where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some conditionwas not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable;N/A

(e)whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.N/A

 

PM

Edited by photoman
potentially libelous word removed

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

  • Replies 5.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Well spoted so i have.

 

We could also say under no circumstances were we offerd the chance to change the level of the fees. This in effect becomes a take it or leave it clause. Which massively effects our ability to alter the terms of conditions.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that as the court has ruled that the UCTA does apply then the banks new & exorbitant charging structure may well be open to challenge on the grounds of there reasonableness de ja vue;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon you are starting to sound like the bank. (no offence)

 

The courts have not ruled on the UCTA 1977 act.

The courts ruled on the UTCC Act.

 

Which is why there is all of this discussion on this thread.

 

Josh

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and also it's déjà vu :p

  • Haha 1

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

Extracts from the judgement (which can be found here )

 

 

 

The Relevant Terms and Relevant Charges are being challenged on two fronts: the Office of Fair Trading (the “OFT”) is investigating under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the “1999 Regulations”) the fairness of the terms under which banks make such charges, and cases have been brought by individual customers in county courts disputing charges levied by banks, many of them relying not only on the 1999

 

The OFT identifies four basic categories of Relevant Charges about which it is concerned: Unpaid Item Charges; Paid Item Charges; Overdraft Excess Charges; and Guaranteed Paid Item Charges. An Unpaid Item Charge is, as the OFT pleads, “levied when the customer gives an instruction for payment or, in some cases at least, withdrawal, that the bank declines to honour because the customer does not have sufficient funds in his account” or, I would add here and in relation to other charges, an arranged facility which covers it. A Paid Item Charge is “levied when the customer gives an instruction for payment or, in some cases at least, withdrawal, for which he has insufficient funds in his account and which the bank honours”. An Overdraft Excess Charge is “levied if, during a specified period (typically a day or a month) … an account is and/or goes overdrawn (and there is no overdraft facility), or… the debit balance is and/or goes above the limit on an existing overdraft facility, and in both cases irrespective of the reason why the excess has occurred”. A Guaranteed Paid Item Charge refers to a charge distinct from a Paid Item Charge which some of the Banks levy when they honour “in accordance with the guarantee, a cheque issued in conjunction with a cheque guarantee card (or, in the case of some banks, a debit card payment made under a guaranteed debit payment system) for which the customer does not have sufficient funds”.

 

Unpaid item charge It is part of the direct debit guartee the bank must hounor these transactions.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not a new article (edit: the BBC one, I meant, I was typing at the same time as everyone else), it's the same one that they published after the result of the case, they just have tweaked it to say "thursday" instead of "May 22nd". Sloppy journalism, that. :rolleyes:

 

I have a feeling the banks may not appeal, you know. At the moment, they are sitting on a judgment which means that they come under the umbrella of the OFT, but that their charges are not penalties. An appeal could leave them wide open to have that second part challenged, and they stand to lose a lot more should the appeal court find against them on the latter than leaving it at the current status quo.

 

On the other hand, the temptation to drag their feet for a good few more months by appealing must be incredible... :razz:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, but don't take it as gospel, it is just my personal musings, I don't know one way or another!!! After all, I was pretty sure the charges were penalties and yet the judge disagrees, so what do I know? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear from the BBC website that the banks are likely to appeal.

 

It was highly likely I suppose, but we won't now for sure till tomorrow.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Banks may challenge charges case

 

 

RBS Account 1: Won

RBS Account 2: Won

Capital One: Won

Capital One (Wifes Card): Won

RBS Account 2, round 2: Won

RBS PPI: Won

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

See Bookie's earlier post.

 

 

That's not a new article (edit: the BBC one, I meant, I was typing at the same time as everyone else), it's the same one that they published after the result of the case, they just have tweaked it to say "thursday" instead of "May 22nd". Sloppy journalism, that. :rolleyes:

 

I have a feeling the banks may not appeal, you know. At the moment, they are sitting on a judgment which means that they come under the umbrella of the OFT, but that their charges are not penalties. An appeal could leave them wide open to have that second part challenged, and they stand to lose a lot more should the appeal court find against them on the latter than leaving it at the current status quo.

 

On the other hand, the temptation to drag their feet for a good few more months by appealing must be incredible... :razz:

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 myself am wondering what they will do, after nearly a year of no action hbos removed all adverse information from my credit file 2 weeks ago,which was part of my poc,the case was stayed like all the rest, so i cannot figure out why they would do this when credit files seem so important to them.but then again i think i have given up trying to second guess the banks.:rolleyes:

 

voyager9

nationwide settled in full 7/06/2007

 

yorkshire bank settled in full 15/06/2007

 

capital one filed at court 06/06/2007 acknowledged 15/6 defence received 30/6 AQ sent 2/7 with application for summary judgement--hearing date 18 sept foe defence to be struck out

 

cahoot filed at court 25/06/2007 to acknowledge default judgement granted 27/06###won###settled in full

 

HBOS filed at court acknowledged 20/06/2007 default judgement granted 16th july so won

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the big picture in relation to direcit debit charges is that the banks have a duty to hounor the direct debit.

 

Its called a direct debit Guarntee.

 

They dont hounor it they charge you instead.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Albert Einstein

 

"No-one can make you feel inferior without your consent" - E. Roosevelt

 

 

Don't lie, thieve, cheat or steal. The Government do not like the competition.

 

 

All advice is offered without prejudice.

We are being sued for Libel. Please help us by donating

 

Please support the pettition to remove Gordon Brown as he was not elected primeinister. He was elected Party Leader something completely different.

 

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/gordan-brown/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...