Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In my experience (not with car payments) but with many other things, my partner has been ill and signed off in the past and we have been unable to meet various commitments.  Naturally if you ring the call centre they are going to fob you off and tell you you must pay, that's why that never ever works. I would obtain a note from her GP listing all her health issues plus medications plus side effects, then write to the finance company with a copy of it, explaining the situation, as you have here, asking for a payment holiday. Perhaps mention that the car is very much needed for hospital appointments etc. It's likely the finance company would rather you pay till term end than, chase you for money they will never see, and sell the car at auction for a loss,  You can search some of my threads going back years, advising people to do this for Council Tax, Tax Credits, HMRC, Even a solicitors company and it always works, because contrary to popular belief people are reasonable.
    • Sorry, I haven't ever seen one of these agreements. Read it all and look out for anything that says when she can withdraw and when she is committed to go ahead. If it isn't clear she may need to call the housing provider and simply say what you posted here, she doesn't want to go ahead and how does she withdraw her swap application?
    • Thank you! Your head is like a power bank of knowledge.  Her health issues are short term, due to a relationship breakdown she took it pretty hard and has been signed off work on medication for 3 months. She only started her job in February 24 so does not qualify for any occupational sick benefits, which is where the ssp only comes in. (You will see me posting a few things over the coming days, whilst I try and sort some things for her)  I sat with her last night relaying all this back and she does want to work out a plan, she was ready to propose £100 for the next 3 months and then an additional £70 per month onto of her contractual to "catch up" but Money247 rejecting the payment holiday and demanding £200 thew her, which is why I came on here.   
    • I've looked at your case specifically more.   Term 8bii reads " when, in accordance with instructions from the Customer or the Consignee, the Consignment is left in a safe place" Their terms choose to not define safe, so they are put to proof that the location is safe. If your property opens onto a street its a simple thing of putting a google earth image and pointing out that its not a safe place
    • New rules and higher rates resulted in a jump in the number of savers opening accounts at the start of this year's Isa season.View the full article
  • 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 5032 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

So he acted for the government who were on the side of the banks & which as they lost, is why they have now revoked sec 127 of the CCA on which most of the judgement in Wilson found in favour of the consumer

 

And which was a corner stone of the Consumer Credit Act & it's revocation will result in there being a post code lottery in consumer law in that the judges now get to decide, without argument, what is & what isn't permissible in the form of enforceable documentation

Edited by JonCris
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

He was working and was retained exclusively by the government in the period 1998-2006(its on his CV page 1).

.

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

It looks like someone called in the big guns.

 

He needs to win or it will look bad on his CV.

 

Just think do you really think he would have taken the case if he didn't expect to win. The man has gone from strength to strength and I really do think this is a case of putting someone who will fight every step of the way for the side that employs him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the answer is no. But there is plenty of press covering the hearing so I am sure no one will miss when a big decision is made.

.

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

Someone is listening for Legal Begals.

 

They have been talking about old terms, and the QC is fighting our corner very well.

 

There is going to be a Case Management conference at 2pm.

 

Also the Judge thinks the OFT should apply for an injunction against charges being applied, but I will believe that when I see it in print as a legal document. Also did the judge actually say that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the Judge thinks the OFT should apply for an injunction against charges being applied, but I will believe that when I see it in print as a legal document. Also did the judge actually say that?

 

I reckon that would help to see a speedy resolution to this :D

23/02/07 Request for payment sent (hand delivered to my local branch)

08/03/07 Standard Letter from Barlclays saying they are looking in to my complaint received

13/03/07 Letter before action sent (hand delivered to my local branch)

27/03/07 Partial offer of £1255 received

29/03/07 MCOL submitted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

Just a suggestion, but after wading through all the off topic stuff, it occurred to me that rather than splitting the thread, (or even if the thread is split) why don't we have stickys that only the moderators can change that provide up to date information.

 

An example is the list of dates that Bookworm provided earlier in the thread. Really, stuff like that should be stand alone, and not part of a complex thread like this.

 

Only a suggestion, so don't shoot me down.........please

 

matt, I have suggested this before too. I really just want to know what's going on as and when it happens. I'm so p-ed off with this whole thing that I dont want to talk about how much we hate the banks etc etc all I want is updates as to what is happening, so I know when I'm going to get my money!

The mods really should take into consideration having a thread that wont get sidetracked and just sticks to the topic - please!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were lots of ups and downs today - but they are carrying on tomorrow for various reasons.

 

Quotes from an other site who have attended have been posted around the site. (without permission I may add)

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is the test case news on Penalty Charges site that has updates if you want to find out. Not much on the news wires and they do not seem to be covering the CMC that well.

.

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

I am sorry - and I am being honest here I post on other sites - but what is wrong here?

 

There are important issues being discussed in the case - and even if there are not final decisions being made - dont posters here want to know what is going on????

 

I am totally bemused that there are more posts about someones rice salad(in the bear garden) than what has gone on in the court case.

 

What is going to happen to hardship cases if they do not lift the waiver - what about the banks abusing the terms of the waiver -

 

discussion of the banks defence can breed ideas

 

what is happening here. I just dont get it..

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan, I was formerly on LB , I am not gonna play politics with anyone anymore. CAG and LB have had a "handbags at dawn" moment and no permission has been given for posts from test case of those who were there from that site.

Penalty Charges is a site this forum is OK with so I mention that forum.

The Test Case updates from the press are allowed.

I try to keep away from the plain stupidities involved on the bank charges forums that are ongoing and refuse to take an obvious dig at people(yes I did spot it a mile away).

Bear Garden/off topic areas are for just that for talking nonsense.

The test case does not appear to be that important from my reading, Jan, so if you want test case discussions as I do, there are other sites you can go to for that.

.

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

I would pm you to discuss further - but have been banned . Was not having a go at anyone in particular and I can and do read up on other sites - was not trying to provoke anything -not my style .

 

But I have other contacts still on here that I think may be interested and am sure they do want to know whats going on.

Believe what you want about my post I am sure you know me anyway and all I have tried to do on here is help some hardship cases, long after i had my case settled.

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jan, I do understand what you are saying. But the rice thing was a dig and I read that thread in the Bear Garden. You have to work within the parameters of this site, even if you dislike it, despise it or disagree with it.

You know where nattie goes so there are other sites you can discuss it on via PM ;)

.

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 comment - not meant like that - but can see how it came across. Just frustrated on behalf of other posters-at least you have pointed them to where the reporting is. Thought some of the banks shot themselves in the foot. Especially the comment from Abbey about "exorbitant fees" The new guy for the OFT seems on the ball and the judge seems to be taking in all the comments on historical terms ( or is that hysterical terms) which must be quite difficult and a bit like Groundhog day.:)

 

The judge seems at times to want to reach conclusions quickly and the comment about some cases coming to court anyway if the final decision as in favour of the banks was interesting ( so in other words a test case by a member of the public could still happen)- but the fact is it still seems as if it is going to drag on much further. ( hoping I have understood te comments I have read- I am not an expert)

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is going to happen to hardship cases if they do not lift the waiver -

 

Hardship cases do not require the lifting of the waiver to be dealt with, if the bank refuses to deal with a hardship case then they are abusing the terms of the waiver and the Banking Code itself. A complaint to the FOS can and has made them reconsider the claim put to them. The problem we have regarding hardship cases is that there isnt any clear guidelines you need to meet to be considered and the banks are really left to decide if your case is of genuine harship.:rolleyes: They only need to be sympathetic towards you which can be shown by way of a partial offer. Court claims made in respect of Hardship also hit the same problems in respect of what is regarded as hardship, the FSA have added to the confusion by giving some examples but these exclude many things i myself would consider hardship.

 

What about the banks abusing the terms of the waiver?

 

 

There has also been a lot of discussions on this very subject, i have written to the FSA regarding my banks conduct had a response and provided further information as the FSA have requested for them to investigate further.

There is also http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/campaign/146952-complain-fsa-about-misleading.html?highlight=complain+fsa

 

There is work going on behind the scenes in respect of how to proceed after this case which covers several outcomes.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about the hardship waiver but have been dealing with two cases that have done exactly that. Unfortunately the FOS have said that the waiver clause does not mean that the charges will be refunded only that the banks should act within the banking code and treat those in financial hardship with sympathy ( what ever that means) I have a letter from the FOS stating that fact. The only crumb of comfort is that in this particular case they stated that the remaining OD caused by the charges should not be pursued until the case was settled.

 

I have posted many times on this site about the hardship clause and suggested letters to help posters with CRFX . I think they are down in the

"ideas and comments" area somewhere:(

 

the letters were based on a successful claim this way by an A&L customer who got charges back after the waiver. But now the FOS are playing hardball.

Please note I am not an expert - I am not offering opinions or legal help - Please use all the information provided on the site in FAQ- step by step instructions and library- thanks Jansus:)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/images/icons/icon1.gif

offer from A&L 24/8/07 - after case stayed

 

"What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well." - Antione de Saint Exupery

 

 

PROUD TO BE AN ORANGE

Link to post
Share on other sites

from the martin lewis site

Tues 8 July 08. Appeal likely to take place in November

 

Today was day two of the second case management meeting in the Bank Charges trial. So far little major news has come out of it except the possible date of the Banks' appeal against the ruling that bank charges are governed by fairness rules. From what can be gleaned, The Court of Appeal was willing to hear the case in July and the banks were ready but the Office of Fair Trading needs more time so the hearing is likely to be delayed. The meeting continues tommorow and any more news will be added here as soon as we know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Know its off topic but i have just been offered a full refund in my hardship case with RBS.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...