Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

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

freakyleaky
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5044 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

Aequitas

Aequitas

Posted
Posted
A solicitor has pointed out to me that even if the judgement on the historic terms is that they do not equate to penalties at common law it should not be assumed that business claims now have no legal basis. The solicitor pointed out that the judge hearing the test case has not considered a single business contract or any business terms and conditions during the test case, and so reliance on the judgement would be unjust for business claimants. Any judge would need to consider the contract between the business customer and bank and the business terms and conditions before a fair ruling can be delivered.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Whilst it is the case that the judge only considered personal banking terms, I think it has to be said that the idea that contractual penalties have any application to any bank charges is pretty much dead in the water. I cannot see the language used in terms and conditions for business customers being significantly different from that used in personal banking terms and conditions.

 

I hope I can be forgiven a wry smile when reading those posts that say that the argument never was about penalties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
car2403

car2403

Posted
Posted
I think it has to be said that the idea that contractual penalties have any application to any bank charges is pretty much dead in the water.

 

I'd have to disagree with that interpretation.

 

The caselaw on penalties is clear that what is, or is not, a penalty is a matter of fact based on the circumstances. The terms, including the detail of the wording, has to be considered alongside that, also.

 

What is happening here is that we are getting Judgment based on standard terms and conditions and not the individual circumstances of each case.

 

I cannot see the language used in terms and conditions for business customers being significantly different from that used in personal banking terms and conditions.

 

From what I've seen, they can be very different depending on which bank.

 

I hope I can be forgiven a wry smile when reading those posts that say that the argument never was about penalties.

 

I've always thought the question was about fairness - if they are unfair, they would be seen as penalties, in layman's terms, but not technically penalties in Law.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aequitas

Aequitas

Posted
Posted
The caselaw on penalties is clear that what is, or is not, a penalty is a matter of fact based on the circumstances. The terms, including the detail of the wording, has to be considered alongside that, also.

 

What is happening here is that we are getting Judgment based on standard terms and conditions and not the individual circumstances of each case.

 

Obviously there may be cases of individually negotiated contracts which provide for contractual penalties, but if the standard terms of business contracts are similar to those of personal contracts then it will be futile to pursue the penalty point.

 

I've always thought the question was about fairness - if they are unfair, they would be seen as penalties, in layman's terms, but not technically penalties in Law.

 

Of course the law on contractual penalties is there to prevent unfairness, but not all unfairness can be put down to contractual penalties. The whole problem here has been people considering bank charges to be "penalties" in some everyday sense of the word and therefore assuming they must be penalties in the sense used in contract law. The essence of a contractual penalty is that it is a provision that purportedly allows you to claim more than the amount of your loss - it is not about making excess profit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
rdm2006

rdm2006

Posted
Posted

has something happened i do not know about?

 

i reclaimed charges under hardship a few months ago and they were all refunded.

 

since then i have had the odd one or two more charges but on friday these have been refunded to me without even asking ?????:confused::confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites
locutus

locutus

Posted
Posted

As my mother would say......

 

gifthorseou2.jpg

If in doubt, contact a qualified insured legal professional (or my wife... she knows EVERYTHING)

 

Or send a cheque or postal order payable to Reclaim the Right Ltd.

to

923 Finchley Road London NW11 7PE

 

 

Click here if you fancy an email address that shows you mean business! (only £6 and that will really help CAG)

 

If you can't donate, please use the Internet Search boxes on the CAG pages - these will generate a small but regular income for the site

 

Please also consider using the

C.A.G. Toolbar

Link to post
Share on other sites
phatram

phatram

Posted
Posted
has something happened i do not know about?

 

i reclaimed charges under hardship a few months ago and they were all refunded.

 

since then i have had the odd one or two more charges but on friday these have been refunded to me without even asking ?????:confused::confused:

 

From which bank?

Link to post
Share on other sites
brown1950

brown1950

Posted
Posted

Extract from the OFT website :-

 

Personal current accounts - UTCCRs investigation and test case

 

The personal current accounts market study provides the context for the OFT's Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCRs) investigation into the fairness of the level and application of unarranged overdraft charges.

The High Court test case, which is a key part of the investigation, is seeking to establish the preliminary legal principle of whether the provisions of the UTCCRs that deal with unfairness apply. It is also addressing the additional point of law of whether the charges can amount to penalties at common law.

 

Below is a timeline of this work.

5 December 2008

 

There will be a hearing at the High Court at 09:30 on 9 December to deal with further submissions from Abbey, Lloyds and RBSG relating to whether some of their historical charging terms are capable of amounting to penalties at common law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SPROUTY

SPROUTY

Posted
Posted

Re Today in Court

 

Interesting that RBS have more representations to make to the Judge and are the last ones left in the court.

 

This is a big IF but wern't they the Bank who the BBC said had prepared a division to pay back charges I wonder???

 

Maybe they are the odd one out who's charges CAN be tested as a penalty?

 

Just a thought!

'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
car2403

car2403

Posted
Posted
Re Today in Court

 

Interesting that RBS have more representations to make to the Judge and are the last ones left in the court.

 

This is a big IF but wern't they the Bank who the BBC said had prepared a division to pay back charges I wonder???

 

Maybe they are the odd one out who's charges CAN be tested as a penalty?

 

Just a thought!

 

Wasn't this HBOS?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SPROUTY

SPROUTY

Posted
Posted

Well we will know before christmas (judges work load permitting) Could be a very happy Crimbo for NatWest (RBS) clients if their charges can be "tested" as penalties.

 

The "proactive" staff may be busy elves!

'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
adarling2006

adarling2006

Posted
Posted

HBOS did something which i thought is odd, I have been offered half the charges complaint i have on hold with them, £1,132.54 is what i've been offered. Point being there could be a mass flood of these offers going out because of the hearing on the 9th.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ohoh4312

ohoh4312

Posted
Posted

I wish!?!:mad:

 

No movement on the Abbey front - my hardship claim was refused delivery, not even refused consideration.

 

£3-4K would be a fantastic crimbo pressie.................

 

Here's hoping!;):mad:

Six Nations Champions 2009

Triple Crown 2009

Grand Slam 2009

:cool::-D:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
african_igbo

african_igbo

Posted
Posted

Hi All... seems a bit better... anyway I just got made redundant like many others a few weeks back.. thus Is there a good thread and am I able to try my hand at hardship.... etc etc..Anyone had any contact with Barclays.... in regards to offering payments prior to antisapation of saving a few schillings...

Master Sun SAID:

Ultimate Excellence Lies Not in Winning Every Battle

But In Defeating the Enemy Without Ever Fighting.8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...